Up for grabs on Ebay...(ends this coming Sunday)

[ZephyrWasHOT!!]

I'm also a wild fan of the X-Men, and possess at least ONE copy of every Uncanny X-Men ever published.

Say... you don't have any pre-issue #66 doubles you want to get rid of, do you? All this VALIANT talk, and my X-Men run has been put on the back burner. I need all but a handful of issues from #92-down.....





-slym

Pm me a list dude with conditions you want etc.

Hey! Find your own customer!

[ZephyrWasHOT!!]

Not to me. Crisis itself I always thought was great but I always thought it was infamous for being the crossover that tried to simplify the DC Universe but in the end just made it more convoluted than ever

No it didn't. It simplified it. Crisis did not make the DC universe more convoluted, it made it LESS convoluted.

Then, in the early 90's, OTHER PEOPLE made it MORE convoluted (mostly Mark Waid and Dan Jurgens.)

Crisis ITSELF made things EASIER, not more convoluted. It's what happened AFTERWARDS that did that.

I LOVED Marvel in the 90's. Cable, Gambit, baby Nathan. Thats what made collecting fun.

Of course keep in mind I'm probably 10-20 yrs younger than you

But as a reader of that age group I have to say, Superman? Reading his comics was always like reading something very close to the 40's! Batman was just boring. What great Batman storyline was there in the 90s?

Knightfall.

Contagion.

No Man's Land.

So no they didn't modernise anything if you ask me.

Watchmen.

Dark Knight Returns.

Man of Steel.

Perez Wonder Woman.

Miller Batman.

Starlin Batman.

Byrne Superman.

Giffen/DeMatteis Justice League.

Killing Joke.

Crisis.

Sandman.

Animal Man.

Doom Patrol.

Alan Moore's Swamp Thing.

New Teen Titans.

DC didn't "modernize"....? Really....?

NOW, is when they are "out-marvelling" Marvel. The stories are more modern (thank you Grant Morrison), the art is more up to date (Tony Daniel's Batman looks great).

Keep in mind I'm talking about regular monthly major character titles from each company. Yes Watchmen and DKR were great. So was Killing Joke Arkham Asylum Doom Patrol Animal Man etc. But the regular run of titles from DC had been stagnant for quite a long time.

Doom Patrol was a regular run title. Animal Man was a regular run title. Starlin's Batman was in the regular title. Miller's Batman was in the regular title. Byrne and Perez were doing the regular titles. New Teen Titans (which really started the DC revolution) was a REGULAR title.

If you're going to start qualifying and saying "oh, THAT doesn't count, because that wasn't a major character title", then there goes New Mutants. "Oh, THAT doesn't count because it was a mini-series", there goes Miller's Wolverine and Secret Wars. "Oh, THAT doesn't count, because that was a one-shot", there goes Death of Captain Marvel, and X-Men: God Loves, Man Kills.

[Dr. Solar]

This is anecdotal, but a lot of people that started out with an aversion to DC, who only read Marvel, but eventually gave DC a try, have come to love DC comics.

I haven't seen the opposite happen to nearly the degree that it does with fans moving from Marvel to DC. In my experience, it is like an order of magnitude of difference. Marvel fans that try out DC love it. DC fans that try out Marvel don't.

I was one of those fans. Before 2000/2001, I had not read a single issue of a DC comic (except Sandman, that is, but the first issue I ever bought of that was actually the first issue published under the Vertigo imprint). Now, while I still read Marvel titles, DC is the universe for me.

It is understandable, I mean, since DC has better characters, better stories, better history, and a better universe.

[ZephyrWasHOT!!]

Its a shame people take the p*ss out of Marvel i the 90's because they had some great writer/ artist combos.

David/ Keown on Hulk

David/Keown ended in 1992.

Claremont/ Lee on Uncanny

Claremont/Lee ended in 1991.

Mcfarlane alone was revolutionary on Spidey

McFarlane was revolutionary on AMAZING Spiderman, 1988-1989, with David Michelinie writing. Adjectiveless Spidey was trite, boring, and predictable.

They didnt have the seminal DKR or Watchmen or launch a Vertigo imprint but they made a great run with their main monthly titles.

Until about 1992. Then it all went to crap.

The fact I even forgot about Silver Surfer and the whole Thanos saga speaks volumes about what a fun time it was to be reading comics.

Again...1990-1991.

Are you noticing the pattern, here...?

Now what did DC put out with their "Trinity" during that time?

Trinity came out the same time as "Infinity War"....yeah. Exactly.

Or even Flash or GL? Uh...

DC was kicking Marvel's arse, both with Death of Superman and Knightfall.

Green Lantern had an IMMENSELY, IMMENSELY successful (probably the most significant GL story since Neal Adams) mini series in Emerald Dawn in 1989-1990. IMMENSELY successful, which launched into a moderately successful new series.

Legends of the Dark Knight was very, very solid.

Mark Waid was writing a STELLAR run FLash at the time, culminating in the introduction of Impulse, and a popular spinoff title.

Giffen and DeMatteis were continuing an amazing run on Justice League, hailed as the best the series had seen in years.

So you pick a so-so mini series, released in 1993, as the "example" of the best that DC was doing at the time....?

Come on.

[ZephyrWasHOT!!]

Dale keown on Hulk was more of the same.
Peter david may have been on the title a while but it was very over rated, but the Dale Keown art was outstanding.

Peter David's Hulk saved the character from the ash pile of obscurity.

Peter David took the Hulk from a two-dimensional "Hulk Smash!" character, and gave the series a mythos, creating outstanding adversaries along the way, and really made the Hulk a modern character for the 90's and beyond.

Peter David's contribution to the Hulk is as great, or greater, than Miller's contribution to Daredevil or Perez' contribution to Wonder Woman, or Byrne's contribution to Superman.

It simply cannot be overstated the impact the guy had on the character.

[ZephyrWasHOT!!]

Oh I'm a big fan of name calling but just not over "comics"

Well at least you concede that Bat-books were pitiful. If you can name me one story line from the end of Starlin's run up until Knightfall you'd have to be working at DC during that time.

Year 3
Many Deaths of the Batman
Lonely Place of Dying
Dark Knight, Dark City
Vengeance of Bane
Sword of Azrael

There are others, but that's "off the top of my head", they were all stellar, and I didn't work at DC.

See Bats has always been my favourite character and it always p*ssed me off during that era that they couldnt come up with a decent monthly title.

Have you ever read Batman #430-491....?

How about Supes WW GL Flash? What were they doing during the Mcfarlane era?

Byrne was wrapping up his run on Superman, with Action #600 coming a month after Spidey #300.

Perez was making WW popular again.

Flash...meh. Messner-Loebs was telling decent Flash stories. Nothing earth shaking, but nothing drivel, either.

I dunno but I'll take the Venom storyline over whatever it was anytime. By the bucket load.

What was Web of and Spectacular doing at the same time....?

Do you even KNOW without looking it up?

Concurrent with Amazing #298-300 was Batman: Ten Nights of the Beast.

Heck I'll take Assassination plot over it .

Lets name some names here, what do you think were the so called "consistent" DC comics?

Are you interested in having a discussion and capable of doing it with an open mind? Because the words "so called" indicate you have already formed your opinion, and anything to the contrary will be dismissed without consideration.

Amazing Spiderman sales BEFORE McFarlane were crap, except for Kraven's Last Hunt. Title was stagnant, and most people were blah about it.

That goes double for Web and Spectacular.

Meanwhile, Miller was tearing it up in Batman Year 1, and then Barr and McFarlane were in Year 2. Byrne was making sales history with Superman, and Perez redefined Wonder Woman for the 80's.

X-Men had been coasting along on Claremont's fading fame and storytelling abilities for quite some time until Lee became the regular artist....in 1990.

Marvel's only real "hit" of 1988 was Nick Fury vs. Shield (which was stellar.) Marvel continued to poop out junk like the New Universe (for which Shooter lost his job), Atlantis Attacks, West Coast Avengers, She-Hulk, Quasar, Speedball ( ), Evolutionary War, etc etc etc.

Even their core characters were suffering. FF was not Reed, Sue, Johnny, and Ben, and after Byrne left (for SUPERMAN), the title went nowhere for years. X-Men was abysmal, the Spidey titles (with the exception of Amazing) were dull, Avengers no one cared about, and the ONLY Marvel title making waves in 1987 was CAP by Mark Gruenwald!

Meanwhile, DC continued to re-define itself and set the stage for greatness. Hellblazer, Animal Man, Killing Joke, Death in the Family, Sandman, Doom Patrol, Wonder Woman, Superman, Watchmen, all premiered during 1987-1988.

It took the "hot artist" to save Marvel. McFarlane didn't become a superstar, really, until around late 88-early 89 (and, he drew the first two issues of Invasion for DC), and then it was ONLY on Amazing Spiderman. Liefeld and Cable had to wait until 1990, and Jim Lee would work at Marvel for THREE YEARS (1987-1990) before becoming a star with X-Men.

Essentially, from 1986-1990, DC kicked Marvel's rear in terms of quality. The only reason it didn't translate into higher sales (and it DID in late 1986) was because DC had to fight against 50 years of blase to terrible material, with a few bright stars in the mix.

And even MORE....from 1990-1992, Marvel was as good as it's ever been, granted....but DC didn't slack off, and from 1993-now, DC has continued to release some of the best, most quality books on the market, and has essentially dominated the market for anyone with a mental capacity over the age of about 15 (physical age notwithstanding.)

Again....that's not an insult to Marvel. Marvel has put out some wildly entertaining stories in the last 15 years....but in terms of quality and sustainability, not to mention basic age of audience, DC has Marvel beat hands down.

[siren3-4]

It is understandable, I mean, since DC has better characters, better stories, better history, and a better universe.

I started with Marvel . . . tried DC . . and have gone back to marvel . . .

I like some of the DC superhero stories (Vertigo doesn't count, I am a huge Vertigo supporter) and collect some of them in trades/HCs . . and I really like some of their heroes and villians . . .

But I love Marvel characters . . . no contest for me . . .

I actually detest superman . . . He was best used in Identity Crisis as a background character that can do amazing things and everyone is in awe of . . . Once I am reading a monthly about him it all turns to hate . . .

I will only get Marvel monthlies and when I hear about a good DC story I will pick up the trade . . .

[ZephyrWasHOT!!]

It is understandable, I mean, since DC has better characters, better stories, better history, and a better universe.

I started with Marvel . . . tried DC . . and have gone back to marvel . . .

I like some of the DC superhero stories (Vertigo doesn't count, I am a huge Vertigo supporter) and collect some of them in trades/HCs . . and I really like some of their heroes and villians . . .

Vertigo HAS to count. It's why DC has been so successful, so consistently, these past few years.

Without Vertigo, you may as well count Marvel without X-Men, Spiderman, and the Fantastic Four.

[Dr. Solar]

It is understandable, I mean, since DC has better characters, better stories, better history, and a better universe.

I started with Marvel . . . tried DC . . and have gone back to marvel . . .

I like some of the DC superhero stories (Vertigo doesn't count, I am a huge Vertigo supporter) and collect some of them in trades/HCs . . and I really like some of their heroes and villians . . .

Vertigo HAS to count. It's why DC has been so successful, so consistently, these past few years.

Without Vertigo, you may as well count Marvel without X-Men, Spiderman, and the Fantastic Four.

I think it depends on how you look at it. As a company, yeah, sure.

As a universe, nope.

I don't think there is a single Vertigo title that has anything to do with the "DCU proper". In other words, I don't see anyone saying something like, "Y The Last man and Fables are really good, so I think I will give Wonder Woman a try".

[cobra_commander]

If you're going to start qualifying and saying "oh, THAT doesn't count, because that wasn't a major character title", then there goes New Mutants. "Oh, THAT doesn't count because it was a mini-series", there goes Miller's Wolverine and Secret Wars. "Oh, THAT doesn't count, because that was a one-shot", there goes Death of Captain Marvel, and X-Men: God Loves, Man Kills.

That is INCREDIBLY *IRRITATING*.

I am the one saying Animal Man, Doom Patrol etc doesn't count because that is MY premise! IE: That is the point I am discussing - Main character monthly books.

I have EVERY right to say that.

I'm not saying it to win an argument, I'm saying it because I was always disappointed about the MAIN characters, and we are talking about MAIN characters.

And yes there does go Miller Wolverine, Death of Capt. Marvel etc, you'll see I never mentioned them.

I love Sandman etc etc etc. I don't want to debate that, I already think its the bomb-ay.

I very much welcome your discussions on this ZWH can we please discuss the main monthly character titles

[cobra_commander]

Are you interested in having a discussion and capable of doing it with an open mind? Because the words "so called" indicate you have already formed your opinion, and anything to the contrary will be dismissed without consideration.

This is EVEN MORE *IRRITATING*

Why on God's green earth would I say that I would like a list of comic books and mean something different?!

I LOVE to find new comics to read because I've read so MANY of them I have NO MORE to read. Where would be the downside for me having my opinion changed on something and learning a book that I overlooked was good? NO WHERE. Actually it may hurt my WALLET. But thats it.

The most condescending thing is TELLING PEOPLE WHAT THEY SAID IS NOT WHAT THEY SAID.

[cobra_commander]

David/Keown ended in 1992.

Claremont/Lee ended in 1991.

McFarlane was revolutionary on AMAZING Spiderman, 1988-1989, with David Michelinie writing. Adjectiveless Spidey was trite, boring, and predictable.

Are you noticing the pattern, here...?

OK lets discuss the comics.

Why yes Mr. Snide snotty comments I am noticing the pattern.

In fact I noticed them as a kid picking up the comics from my local comic store.

In fact I noticed it because in my eyes all the best artists at Marvel leaving to form Image was one of the major injustices to my beloved comics. EVER.

Did *you* notice all the comics were produced in 90s? Ended abruptly but still in the 90s right? Thats my point, don't diss Marvel comics in the 90s.

So I would actually say we're actually agreed on that?

[cobra_commander]

It took the "hot artist" to save Marvel. McFarlane didn't become a superstar, really, until around late 88-early 89 (and, he drew the first two issues of Invasion for DC), and then it was ONLY on Amazing Spiderman. Liefeld and Cable had to wait until 1990, and Jim Lee would work at Marvel for THREE YEARS (1987-1990) before becoming a star with X-Men.

Essentially, from 1986-1990, DC kicked Marvel's rear in terms of quality. The only reason it didn't translate into higher sales (and it DID in late 1986) was because DC had to fight against 50 years of blase to terrible material, with a few bright stars in the mix.

And even MORE....from 1990-1992, Marvel was as good as it's ever been, granted....but DC didn't slack off, and from 1993-now, DC has continued to release some of the best, most quality books on the market, and has essentially dominated the market for anyone with a mental capacity over the age of about 15 (physical age notwithstanding.)

Again....that's not an insult to Marvel. Marvel has put out some wildly entertaining stories in the last 15 years....but in terms of quality and sustainability, not to mention basic age of audience, DC has Marvel beat hands down.

Actually we're totally in agreement on that.

The "hot" artist era is exactly the era I'm talking about.

And exactly the time I am crying foul has been overlooked, very unfairly.

Again, not because I'm trying to win an argument. That just happened to be WHEN I STARTED READING COMICS.

[cobra_commander]

Oh I'm a big fan of name calling but just not over "comics"

Well at least you concede that Bat-books were pitiful. If you can name me one story line from the end of Starlin's run up until Knightfall you'd have to be working at DC during that time.

Year 3
Many Deaths of the Batman
Lonely Place of Dying
Dark Knight, Dark City
Vengeance of Bane
Sword of Azrael

There are others, but that's "off the top of my head", they were all stellar, and I didn't work at DC.

See Bats has always been my favourite character and it always p*ssed me off during that era that they couldnt come up with a decent monthly title.

Have you ever read Batman #430-491....?

How about Supes WW GL Flash? What were they doing during the Mcfarlane era?

Byrne was wrapping up his run on Superman, with Action #600 coming a month after Spidey #300.

Perez was making WW popular again.

Flash...meh. Messner-Loebs was telling decent Flash stories. Nothing earth shaking, but nothing drivel, either.

I'm still yet to be convinced though that the Bat-books were ANY good on a regular basis compared to the Marvel books coming out AT THE SAME TIME.

(And even in your comment about post 1993).

I already stated after the Starlin-era.

I loved Year 1 and Year 2 so again I know it (which you throw into the mix later), I don't need to discuss it ad nauseum.

You say Year 3, Lonely place of dying, dark knight dark city?

Dark Knight Dark City. Great Mignola covers. Worth the price of admission alone. But how good was the story.

And you're telling me it was as memorable as Gambit? Or even X-tinction agenda?

And how about Supes etc.?

Byrne on Superman? Snooze
Perez on WW? Byrne on She-Hulk was more interesting than that!
And you agree Flash was nothing earth shattering.

Compare (which has been my point), any of these to what Marvel was doing at the same time?

I know this like the back of my hand because I picked these comics up myself and remember how exciting they were, who in their right mind would pick up George Perez WW over Mcfarlane Spidey?

Yes its a matter of opinion but I can tell you which one has more punch, is more contemporary.

We're talking about modernising characters to draw people into reading comics well I can tell you I'm living proof Marvel did it because that is what I picked up as a kid. I *did* pick up those other books and seriously, imo they were so drab and dull the only use I would've had for them was toilet paper if only the newsprint didnt smudge so badly.

I would seriously, genuinely be interested in a list post '93 of what DC books you thought were outstanding because that is the one point you have raised and not brought up some story arcs. Notice I am deliberately leaving out the "so-called".

[ZephyrWasHOT!!]

It is understandable, I mean, since DC has better characters, better stories, better history, and a better universe.

I started with Marvel . . . tried DC . . and have gone back to marvel . . .

I like some of the DC superhero stories (Vertigo doesn't count, I am a huge Vertigo supporter) and collect some of them in trades/HCs . . and I really like some of their heroes and villians . . .

Vertigo HAS to count. It's why DC has been so successful, so consistently, these past few years.

Without Vertigo, you may as well count Marvel without X-Men, Spiderman, and the Fantastic Four.

I think it depends on how you look at it. As a company, yeah, sure.

As a universe, nope.

I don't think there is a single Vertigo title that has anything to do with the "DCU proper". In other words, I don't see anyone saying something like, "Y The Last man and Fables are really good, so I think I will give Wonder Woman a try".

We're not talking about "universes."

We're talking about publishing companies.

That's the premise of the debate: why anyone would choose one particular PUBLISHING COMPANY over another.

If you're talking about UNIVERSES, that's a whole different subject.

[cobra_commander]

You actually do mentione LOTDK and Waid Flash.

LOTDK I can't agree with but I will re-read it and give it a chance.

Waid Flash I haven't read, I'd be interested to read that.

But at the end of the day none of these books can still compare to what Marvel did in the 90's (yes, EARLY 90's).

You know why?

Marvel had WRITING and ART (Great Art).

I'm not talking flashy, pretty art. Just ANY good art. I'll put a Jim Calafiore Magnus or Mike Leeke X-O up with a Jim Lee Wolverine or Mcfarlane Spidey any day.

But I would NOT put a Jim Aparo Batman or whatever LOTDK artist up with that.

And those Bat-books were UGLY.

[cobra_commander]

Forgot to mention - yes, Vengeance of Bane and Azrael were AWESOME. Some of my favourite books ever. But again, not monthly books.

[cobra_commander]

Dale keown on Hulk was more of the same.
Peter david may have been on the title a while but it was very over rated, but the Dale Keown art was outstanding.

Peter David's Hulk saved the character from the ash pile of obscurity.

Peter David took the Hulk from a two-dimensional "Hulk Smash!" character, and gave the series a mythos, creating outstanding adversaries along the way, and really made the Hulk a modern character for the 90's and beyond.

Peter David's contribution to the Hulk is as great, or greater, than Miller's contribution to Daredevil or Perez' contribution to Wonder Woman, or Byrne's contribution to Superman.

It simply cannot be overstated the impact the guy had on the character.

Amen.

David and Keown on Hulk, if anyone hasnt read it - you just don't know what you're missing out on.

[cobra_commander]

Concurrent with Amazing #298-300 was Batman: Ten Nights of the Beast.

This proves my point exactly. Ten Nights was good. But did it compare to the introduction of Venom (AND Mcfarlane)? Of course not.

And what do you think ushered in a new era of comics? What propelled, MODERNISED, comics into the 90's?

Ten nights of the beast.

Ten nights of I don't f*** think so.

[ZephyrWasHOT!!]

If you're going to start qualifying and saying "oh, THAT doesn't count, because that wasn't a major character title", then there goes New Mutants. "Oh, THAT doesn't count because it was a mini-series", there goes Miller's Wolverine and Secret Wars. "Oh, THAT doesn't count, because that was a one-shot", there goes Death of Captain Marvel, and X-Men: God Loves, Man Kills.

That is INCREDIBLY *IRRITATING*.

That's because you can't have a discussion without getting emotionally involved....you let your emotions overrule your reason. Not a good way to debate.

I am the one saying Animal Man, Doom Patrol etc doesn't count because that is MY premise! IE: That is the point I am discussing - Main character monthly books.

I have EVERY right to say that.

No one is disputing you have the RIGHT to say whatever you want. Calm down. What IS being disputed are your CONTENTIONS.

I'm not saying it to win an argument, I'm saying it because I was always disappointed about the MAIN characters, and we are talking about MAIN characters.

And yes there does go Miller Wolverine, Death of Capt. Marvel etc, you'll see I never mentioned them.

Didn't say you did. Do you know what "examples" are....?

Are you seriously contending that Wolverine is NOT a main Marvel character.....?

I am DISPUTING your "premise." You said Animal Man wasn't a "regular run title." It was. You said "Doom Patrol" wasn't a "regular run title." It was.

In fact, the guy you cited as making DC "more modern" was the guy who WROTE Animal Man.

What are "the main characters" of Marvel?

I love Sandman etc etc etc. I don't want to debate that, I already think its the bomb-ay.

I very much welcome your discussions on this ZWH can we please discuss the main monthly character titles

Already did. See post @ 3:41PM PDT, Jun 27, 2008.

I notice you failed to answer the rest of my response.

Again....DC failed to "modernize"....?

[cobra_commander]

Now what did DC put out with their "Trinity" during that time?

Trinity came out the same time as "Infinity War"....yeah. Exactly.

So you pick a so-so mini series, released in 1993, as the "example" of the best that DC was doing at the time....?

Come on.

I actually didn't know Trinity was a mini series released in 1993

When I say Trinity I mean the Trinity of Bats Supes and WW, as in their big three stars which is what they're usually referred to now what with the new weekly book with those 3 called "Trinity".

So no, don't "come on".

[ZephyrWasHOT!!]

Are you interested in having a discussion and capable of doing it with an open mind? Because the words "so called" indicate you have already formed your opinion, and anything to the contrary will be dismissed without consideration.

This is EVEN MORE *IRRITATING*

Again, your inability to handle anyone challenging your premises without an emotional response.

Why on God's green earth would I say that I would like a list of comic books and mean something different?!

I already explained the answer to this quite clearly. You used the phrase "so called", which indicates an unwillingness on your part to consider that it might not be "so called" after all.

It is an indicator of closed-mindedness with regards to the subject at hand.

I LOVE to find new comics to read because I've read so MANY of them I have NO MORE to read. Where would be the downside for me having my opinion changed on something and learning a book that I overlooked was good? NO WHERE. Actually it may hurt my WALLET. But thats it.

The most condescending thing is TELLING PEOPLE WHAT THEY SAID IS NOT WHAT THEY SAID.

Methinks thou doth protesteth too much.

[cobra_commander]

If you're going to start qualifying and saying "oh, THAT doesn't count, because that wasn't a major character title", then there goes New Mutants. "Oh, THAT doesn't count because it was a mini-series", there goes Miller's Wolverine and Secret Wars. "Oh, THAT doesn't count, because that was a one-shot", there goes Death of Captain Marvel, and X-Men: God Loves, Man Kills.

That is INCREDIBLY *IRRITATING*.

That's because you can't have a discussion without getting emotionally involved....you let your emotions overrule your reason. Not a good way to debate.

I am the one saying Animal Man, Doom Patrol etc doesn't count because that is MY premise! IE: That is the point I am discussing - Main character monthly books.

I have EVERY right to say that.

No one is disputing you have the RIGHT to say whatever you want. Calm down. What IS being disputed are your CONTENTIONS.

I'm not saying it to win an argument, I'm saying it because I was always disappointed about the MAIN characters, and we are talking about MAIN characters.

And yes there does go Miller Wolverine, Death of Capt. Marvel etc, you'll see I never mentioned them.

Didn't say you did. Do you know what "examples" are....?

Are you seriously contending that Wolverine is NOT a main Marvel character.....?

I am DISPUTING your "premise." You said Animal Man wasn't a "regular run title." It was. You said "Doom Patrol" wasn't a "regular run title." It was.

In fact, the guy you cited as making DC "more modern" was the guy who WROTE Animal Man.

What are "the main characters" of Marvel?

I love Sandman etc etc etc. I don't want to debate that, I already think its the bomb-ay.

I very much welcome your discussions on this ZWH can we please discuss the main monthly character titles

Already did. See post @ 3:41PM PDT, Jun 27, 2008.

I notice you failed to answer the rest of my response.

Again....DC failed to "modernize"....?

OK, here we go.

I'm sure everyone else can understand it but you can't.

Monthly titles, main characters.

Thats what I was talking about because that is what I was interested in talking about.

But I can't be interested in talking about that.

I can't because Animal Man et al. are also monthly.

I also can't argue with emotion.

Even though I personally picked Marvel books off the stands over DC books because DC books looked so dull and uninspired at the time I haven't shown you that DC wasn't modernised.

You're impossible to have a conversation with Zeph. I tried, but its an exercise in futility.

Main characters, monthly books. My idea, my vision - can't have it. ALL monthly books of ALL characters MUST be included.

Exercise in futility.

[cobra_commander]

Are you interested in having a discussion and capable of doing it with an open mind? Because the words "so called" indicate you have already formed your opinion, and anything to the contrary will be dismissed without consideration.

This is EVEN MORE *IRRITATING*

Again, your inability to handle anyone challenging your premises without an emotional response.

Why on God's green earth would I say that I would like a list of comic books and mean something different?!

I already explained the answer to this quite clearly. You used the phrase "so called", which indicates an unwillingness on your part to consider that it might not be "so called" after all.

It is an indicator of closed-mindedness with regards to the subject at hand.

I LOVE to find new comics to read because I've read so MANY of them I have NO MORE to read. Where would be the downside for me having my opinion changed on something and learning a book that I overlooked was good? NO WHERE. Actually it may hurt my WALLET. But thats it.

The most condescending thing is TELLING PEOPLE WHAT THEY SAID IS NOT WHAT THEY SAID.

Methinks thou doth protesteth too much.

I-AM-A-ROBOT-

ALL-MY-CONVERSATIONS-FROM-THIS-POINT-WILL-BE-DEVOID-OF-EMOTION

DANGER-WILL ROBINSON!-DANGER!

Yeah, I protest'eth' too much. I like to protest when anally retentive people try and put words in my mouth. It tastes funny.

You're on ignore. I've never put anyone on ignore before which is a shame.

But then again, if anyone is worthy it would be you.

[ZephyrWasHOT!!]

David/Keown ended in 1992.

Claremont/Lee ended in 1991.

McFarlane was revolutionary on AMAZING Spiderman, 1988-1989, with David Michelinie writing. Adjectiveless Spidey was trite, boring, and predictable.

Are you noticing the pattern, here...?

OK lets discuss the comics.

Why yes Mr. Snide snotty comments I am noticing the pattern.

Oh I'm a big fan of name calling but just not over "comics"

Really.....?

QED.

There are no "snide, snotty comments" being made by me. I'm sorry you feel that way, but that's just an interpretation on your part, because you don't like your opinions to be challenged, however illogical they may be.

In fact I noticed them as a kid picking up the comics from my local comic store.

In fact I noticed it because in my eyes all the best artists at Marvel leaving to form Image was one of the major injustices to my beloved comics. EVER.

Did *you* notice all the comics were produced in 90s? Ended abruptly but still in the 90s right?

Um. Yeah, I already said that.

Thats my point, don't diss Marvel comics in the 90s.

So I would actually say we're actually agreed on that?

I don't see anyone "dissing" (mind if we use standard English in a discussion?) Marvel comics from 1990-1992, with the possible exception of, say, New Warriors, Guardians of the Galaxy, McFarlane's Spiderman, Deathlok, Silver Sable, Quasar, Sleepwalker, Death's Head, Captain America, Fantastic Four, etc etc etc.

But, granted, X-Men was flying high. Starlin's Surfer and Infinity Gauntlet was phenomenal. Keown on Hulk was awesome. No denying that.