Comic-Con Thor Leak

[overcomebyfumes]

Apparently, JMS accidently (?) let slip at the Comic Con that he'll be writing the new Thor series.

I read it on the internet, so it must be true. :rolleyes:

Anyway, if this is true, it seems like a poor choice to me. I'd prefer to see Marvel give Oeming a chance on a regular Thor series. Or Neil Gaiman or Mark Millar. Or Kirkman. Or anyone but JMS (or Bendis).

Gods. Why? Wwwwhhhhyyyyy?!?!?!?

[Jack Zodiac]

Oeming. He did such a fantastic job of making Thor much more interesting, even furing the crapfest that was Disassmbled. I'd love to see him given complete creative control over the direction Thor's character and world would take in this next imagining.
________
Roll A Joint (http://howtorollajoint.net/)

[Den]

JMS might be better suited to Thor than Spider-Man, given his love of mystic elements, and I think he does a pretty good job on Spidey when he doesn't try to get too fancy.

[Will.S]

JMS would do fine on a Thor book and he excels at the other sci-fi realms. I actually think he's handling the return of Thor very well right now.

[gunz]

he`s handlein the thor return better thanthe actual fantastic four;)

[Bobster777]

JMS would do fine on a Thor book and he excels at the other sci-fi realms. I actually think he's handling the return of Thor very well right now.
I totally agree. I love all the mystery. It makes me anticipate his return even more.

[overcomebyfumes]

JMS might be better suited to Thor than Spider-Man, given his love of mystic elements, and I think he does a pretty good job on Spidey when he doesn't try to get too fancy.

JMS would do fine on a Thor book and he excels at the other sci-fi realms. I actually think he's handling the return of Thor very well right now.


If his handling of Dr. Strange in "Strange" was any indication, I have to disagree. Just because he can rip off "The Matrix" doesn't make him qualified to write Thor. I also feel that the introduction of mystical elements into Spider-Man's origin was inappropriate.

Also, there are the "Sins Past" and "The Other" fiascos. "The Other", which JMS co-scripted with Hudlin and Peter David, was the absolute worst Spider-Man story I've read (although I haven't read the Clone Saga, which may be worse).

JMS's first arc on Fantastic Four was also, I feel, poorly done, especially coming off of the highly imaginative Mark Waid run. Reed Richards created the universe?? WTF??

All in all, JMS hasn't written a single comic I've enjoyed. Bendis, I have criticisms about as well, but I have to admit that I've enjoyed his Daredevil and "Alias". When Bendis is good, he's good. JMS, not a single book.

Which makes me fear for Thor. I want Thor to come back, but I am hoping hoping hoping that this rumor is false and someone else is writing it.

Pax.

[kane]

Loki: "by the way, sif has had pity sex with me some hundred years ago and, well, meet your children."

Thor: "Noooooo"

[dingo]

Well that would certainly explain why we are seeing Thor return in the FF book, in spite of not very strong links between the Thor and the FF.

[Rahul]

Loki: "by the way, sif has had pity sex with me some hundred years ago and, well, meet your children."

Thor: "Noooooo"


You know, ever since Sins Past, I have to feel sorry for JMS(even though I havent read the story yet). I mean from now on, on whichever superhero title he might get next, the angry fanboy will say:

"Oh great now it will be revealed that <insert protagonist's girlfriend> had sex with <insert antangonist> and bore his kids who have aged beyond belief way back in the past."

Of course, this also sells, contrary to popular belief so it must not be all that bad.

[Keith_Martineau]

I know. After Sins Past, all of a sudden people treat JMS like a one trick pony. Like he's only ever done THAT one story, no matter what he's writing.

Babylon 5? Sex with an old man in the past.

Fantastic Four? Sex with an old man in the past.

Rising Stars? Sex with an old man in the past.

Squadron Supreme? Sex with an old man in the past.

Ghostbusters cartoon? Sex with an old man in the past.

Jeremiah? Sex with an old man in the past.

He must have done THAT ONE STORYLINE in EVERYTHING he's ever written, right?

Oh wait, no he hasn't. He's done extraordinarily varied and different stories in everything he's written, cause he's an imaginative, varied writer. Even if you don't particularly LIKE his writing, you have to admit he is NOT a one trick pony.
Then again, comics fans are incredibly unforgiving, with ridiculously short memories (except in cases of their favorite continuity being violated) so whatever.

[DMike]

Loki: "by the way, sif has had pity sex with me some hundred years ago and, well, meet your children."

Thor: "Noooooo"

Surprisingly not that hard to believe. The DCU version of Loki did sleep with DCU Thor's wife. But yeah, please no kids.

[overcomebyfumes]

I know. After Sins Past, all of a sudden people treat JMS like a one trick pony. Like he's only ever done THAT one story, no matter what he's writing.

Babylon 5? Sex with an old man in the past.

Fantastic Four? Sex with an old man in the past.

Rising Stars? Sex with an old man in the past.

Squadron Supreme? Sex with an old man in the past.

Ghostbusters cartoon? Sex with an old man in the past.

Jeremiah? Sex with an old man in the past.

He must have done THAT ONE STORYLINE in EVERYTHING he's ever written, right?

Oh wait, no he hasn't. He's done extraordinarily varied and different stories in everything he's written, cause he's an imaginative, varied writer. Even if you don't particularly LIKE his writing, you have to admit he is NOT a one trick pony.
Then again, comics fans are incredibly unforgiving, with ridiculously short memories (except in cases of their favorite continuity being violated) so whatever.


It's like that joke about Mr. Monkeyf*cker. "I've done aaaaallll this wonderful stuff! But does anyone remember it? NO! But, let me tell you, I f*ck just one monkey..."

In all fairness, I think what he did to Dr. Strange was worse than Sins Past, but I'm sure Spider-Man fans won't agree.

I gotta get to work.

Pax.

[Keith_Martineau]

What exactly did he do to Dr. Strange? I really enjoyed his appearances in Spiderman, but have not had the opportunity to read his Strange mini.

[protege]

I know. After Sins Past, all of a sudden people treat JMS like a one trick pony. Like he's only ever done THAT one story, no matter what he's writing.

Babylon 5? Sex with an old man in the past.

Fantastic Four? Sex with an old man in the past.

Rising Stars? Sex with an old man in the past.

Squadron Supreme? Sex with an old man in the past.

Ghostbusters cartoon? Sex with an old man in the past.

Jeremiah? Sex with an old man in the past.

He must have done THAT ONE STORYLINE in EVERYTHING he's ever written, right?

Oh wait, no he hasn't. He's done extraordinarily varied and different stories in everything he's written, cause he's an imaginative, varied writer. Even if you don't particularly LIKE his writing, you have to admit he is NOT a one trick pony.
Then again, comics fans are incredibly unforgiving, with ridiculously short memories (except in cases of their favorite continuity being violated) so whatever.
when did he do this in FF? Truthfully, I'd rather he was on this book than Warren Ellis- After hearing about the storyarc he did for Thor, and how "out there' it was, I wasn't looking forward to having him write this book on a regular basis.

[Rahul]

when did he do this in FF?

Naah, he was just making fun of those posters who have a one track mind in bashing JMS.

[Tony Starkz]

Apparently, JMS accidently (?) let slip at the Comic Con that he'll be writing the new Thor series.

I read it on the internet, so it must be true. :rolleyes:

Anyway, if this is true, it seems like a poor choice to me. I'd prefer to see Marvel give Oeming a chance on a regular Thor series. Or Neil Gaiman or Mark Millar. Or Kirkman. Or anyone but JMS (or Bendis).

Gods. Why? Wwwwhhhhyyyyy?!?!?!?

Link please????

[DoubleShot]

I know. After Sins Past, all of a sudden people treat JMS like a one trick pony. Like he's only ever done THAT one story, no matter what he's writing.

Babylon 5? Sex with an old man in the past.

Fantastic Four? Sex with an old man in the past.

Rising Stars? Sex with an old man in the past.

Squadron Supreme? Sex with an old man in the past.

Ghostbusters cartoon? Sex with an old man in the past.

Jeremiah? Sex with an old man in the past.

He must have done THAT ONE STORYLINE in EVERYTHING he's ever written, right?

Oh wait, no he hasn't. He's done extraordinarily varied and different stories in everything he's written, cause he's an imaginative, varied writer. Even if you don't particularly LIKE his writing, you have to admit he is NOT a one trick pony.
Then again, comics fans are incredibly unforgiving, with ridiculously short memories (except in cases of their favorite continuity being violated) so whatever.

Very very well said. Kind of reminds me of all the people that have a misperception about Jean Grey dying.

[The Shadow]

The return of Thor is probably the worst kept secret... EVER.

I'll pass despite loving JMS's writing.

[Soundrave]

The return of Thor is probably the worst kept secret... EVER.

I'll pass despite loving JMS's writing.


Maintenance to aisle five . . . we have another Thor leak on aisle five . . .

[Kirk G]

Well that would certainly explain why we are seeing Thor return in the FF book, in spite of not very strong links between the Thor and the FF.
Er, I remember about ten years worth of stories drawn and ploted by a man named Jack Kirby on both books.... if that isn't a link... I don't know what is!:rolleyes:

[Kirk G]

Surprisingly not that hard to believe. The DCU version of Loki did sleep with DCU Thor's wife. But yeah, please no kids.
Wait a minute, would you please explain that one?

What DCU version of Loki and when did they have a Thor character, and who was his wife?

Am I missing something, or has Loki been messing with our reality again.:confused:

[DMike]

The Loki from the DCU appeared in Sandman in the Season of Mists and Kindly Ones stories. In the first story he manages to escape his fate (confinement and torture in the center of the earth) with the main character's help; in the latter, he's been caught and defeated, and Odin and Thor bring him back to his chamber. On the way back, Loki whispers in Thor's ear that he slept with Sif while Thor was busy giving birth to a squirrel out of his butt (long story, read the book) and apparently described an intimate detail about her that only she and Thor would know, I think a birthmark.

[overcomebyfumes]

What exactly did he do to Dr. Strange? I really enjoyed his appearances in Spiderman, but have not had the opportunity to read his Strange mini.

The "Strange" mini is a lame Matrix rip-off with Strange as Neo, Clea as Trinity, and the Ancient One as Morpheus.

The line "Come with me if you want to live" is actually used, completely un-ironically.

I'm a Dr. Strange fanatic. I'll generally read anything with Dr. Strange in it no matter how bad. This had me wanting to tear out my eyeballs so I would never see again.

[overcomebyfumes]

Link please????

...and we link - to another message board!! Wheee! Here we go:

http://p206.ezboard.com/fmarvelmasterworksfansitefrm1.showMessage?topicID= 6522.topic

Where this news orginally came from, I'm not sure. The rumor mill is running full throttle on this one.

Pax.

[overcomebyfumes]

Maintenance to aisle five . . . we have another Thor leak on aisle five . . .

LOL!!

Pax.

[Will.S]

If his handling of Dr. Strange in "Strange" was any indication, I have to disagree. Just because he can rip off "The Matrix" doesn't make him qualified to write Thor. I also feel that the introduction of mystical elements into Spider-Man's origin was inappropriate.

Also, there are the "Sins Past" and "The Other" fiascos. "The Other", which JMS co-scripted with Hudlin and Peter David, was the absolute worst Spider-Man story I've read (although I haven't read the Clone Saga, which may be worse).

JMS's first arc on Fantastic Four was also, I feel, poorly done, especially coming off of the highly imaginative Mark Waid run. Reed Richards created the universe?? WTF??

All in all, JMS hasn't written a single comic I've enjoyed. Bendis, I have criticisms about as well, but I have to admit that I've enjoyed his Daredevil and "Alias". When Bendis is good, he's good. JMS, not a single book.

Which makes me fear for Thor. I want Thor to come back, but I am hoping hoping hoping that this rumor is false and someone else is writing it.

Pax. I haven't read his Dr. Strange book so I can't really comment on that but he handles the mystical aspects of his Spider-Man so well with Dr. Strange showing up in the book in a cool way, the Mindless Ones, the whole Spider-Totem idea, and even Thor for the little that he wrote.

He also knows how to write very epic scope stuff which also was an aspect of the mystical natured stuff in Spider-Man. Fantastic Four has the current Thor story underway with the Asgardians making their return during Doom's time in hell so that was interwoven quite nicely. Plus add in his Babylon 5 work and he's more than qualified to do Thor, hell even Neil Gaimen had pitch everyone seemed to have hated and he's a really natural fit for a Thor relaunch.

I guess it just depends on liking JMS's writing style and such but I think he has the ability surprise people with Thor.

[Carlton Donaghe]

Well, I'm a huge Thor fan (I'm not that big, actually, but I really like Thor), I have been since the Kirby days, but I've had this ominous feeling that when they bring Thor back it's just not going to be good...

So, if it's true that JMS takes over Thor, my fears will surely be realized. I can't even imagine that JMS will even bother with Thor's quasi-Shakespearean/King James-type speech patterns.

It just seems like Marvel under Joe Quesada is screwing up their characters. I'm totally not reading Spider-Man. Avengers? Forget it.

I'll admit this: I have started picking up Captain America again. It's good, with a real classic feel. I have no faith that JMS can write Thor... but I'll keep an eye out. If he can, I'll read it, and say so. Still, I'm betting against it.

[Micro]

Also, there are the "Sins Past" and "The Other" fiascos. "The Other", which JMS co-scripted with Hudlin and Peter David, was the absolute worst Spider-Man story I've read (although I haven't read the Clone Saga, which may be worse).


It's not, the Clone Saga is better than "The Other", but IMO "Sins Past" is the absolute worst Spider-Man story EVER. But if putting JMS on Thor gets him off Spider-Man, it will be an improvement.

[Mjolnir]

Civil War Fantastic Four this month:
Loki strikes a deal with the Shadow Gods!
Sif is kidnapped by Surtur!
Volstagg faces his dark past!

Thor this month: Mole Man!

[Mjolnir]

I think JMS's Thor stuff in the pages of F4 is just awesome, but i'm a bit worried that maybe he won't know what to do once Thor actually appears.
Seems to have a good grip on the mysterious 'ghost' of the god, if you know what i mean. But the physical reality could very well be different.

Thor enters JMS's office:
"Aye, you there mortal, is thou mine scribe or no? What adventures shall we fathom today?"
JMS looks stunned, head explodes.

"Odin's Crows!"

[Siddon]

Very very well said. Kind of reminds me of all the people that have a misperception about Jean Grey dying.

Lets not forget the fainting.

[Michael P]

What exactly did he do to Dr. Strange?
The worst thing possible.

He... *choke* retold his origin!

[protege]

I think JMS's Thor stuff in the pages of F4 is just awesome, but i'm a bit worried that maybe he won't know what to do once Thor actually appears.
Seems to have a good grip on the mysterious 'ghost' of the god, if you know what i mean. But the physical reality could very well be different.

Thor enters JMS's office:
"Aye, you there mortal, is thou mine scribe or no? What adventures shall we fathom today?"
JMS looks stunned, head explodes.

"Odin's Crows!"
I don't think JMS would take on Thor, unless he had some idea of what he wanted to do with him.

[Bobster777]

I don't think JMS would take on Thor, unless he had some idea of what he wabted to do with him.
For all we know, he probably has a story arc done for him. I'll give him a chance if he is writing Thor. People have been really on him (I agree that FF has been stale) but overall, I've liked what he has done on FF and ASM.

[protege]

The worst thing possible.

He... *choke* retold his origin!
Let me guess- he was bitten by a radioactive magician?

[DDM]

Let me guess- he was bitten by a radioactive magician?

No, far worse. As Michael Pullman said, JMS wrote a movie version turned into a comic called Strange which retold his origin in a torturous limited series when all it took was a few panels in the original Strange Tales. Doctor Strange does not need a revamped origin.

[Bobster777]

No, far worse. As Michael Pullman said, JMS wrote a movie version turned into a comic called Strange which retold his origin in a torturous limited series when all it took was a few panels in the original Strange Tales. Doctor Strange does not need a revamped origin.
Yeah, I agree there. I have always liked his origin. Makes him look really human in my book.

[JulianPerez]

I sincerely hope this rumor is not true: Straczynski writing a regular MIGHTY THOR title. Not when there is so much talent around comics at the present time (Dan Slott and Brubaker come readily to mind).

Straczynski's best stuff has always been things that he himself created or had input in creating, such as JAYCE AND THE WHEELED WARRIORS and BABYLON 5. However, he approaches some works, like Spider-Man, with a lack of a sense about how of what the book is about. Okay, lets' get out of the way the 2-ton elephant in the middle of the room: Straczynski's Spider-Man.

As I recall, one writer (I'm not sure who it was, I think it was Macchio) proposed a much-needed solution to the Spider-Clone Saga mess, which by then had snowballed out of control: the idea was that Mephisto would have sent Spider-Man back in time to five years ago without his memory, creating two Spider-Men that are both "real," resolving Spider-Clone Saga forever.

This idea was turned down, because, in the words of Kurt Busiek, "Mephisto isn't a Spider-Man villain." Spider-Man, like Batman, is a street-level guy that busts bank robbers and crime-commanders and whatnot. Spider-Man's stories don't involve extremely cosmic or outrageous science fiction elements, because that's who Spider-Man IS.

Thus, when Straczynski brought in myticism into Spider-Man, it was very out of place and unwelcome, and had nothing to do with what Spider-Man's book is about, showing that Straczynski had a tenuous grasp at best on WHO. SPIDER-MAN. IS. What his stories are like, and so forth.

And that brings us to THOR. Thor is a character who is prone to misinterpretation quite easily. Thor is a character that doesn't make sense and isn't cool...AND WE LIKE HIM FOR THAT VERY REASON. He is a Viking, a bloodthirsty and savage world civilization, who lives by a "King Arthur" style code of heroism. He is mythological, but at the same time, has science fiction elements. Thor occupies a position between myth and science fiction (Asgard, after all, looks like Attillan), and anyone that doesn't get Thor could upset this very precarious position between extremes that Thor occupies, by pulling him too much in the direction of myth, for instance.

Also, the most interesting thing about Thor is that he is exactly who he says he is: he's a god. Any alteration or removal of this concept eliminates Thor's uniqueness and grandeur. It's a very courageous position to say, "yes, Thor is a GOD." It's less ballsy to give some flimsier identity to him.

Plus, Straczynski has just plain been awful when he's allowed, for instance, his glacially paced SQUADRON SUPREME? The idea of, Superman, for all intents and purposes...going to a titty bar?

[Tommy]

Plus, Straczynski has just plain been awful when he's allowed, for instance, his glacially paced SQUADRON SUPREME? The idea of, Superman, for all intents and purposes...going to a titty bar?
Have you read the original SS? Just as glacially paced, in fact more so. SS is about making Decompression work for you.

And in a max book what is wrong with Superman going to a "titty bar"? Did you miss the entire point of the scene? He went there just because he had never gone there before, and was curious. He was a fully-grown man who had never experienced anything sexual. The fact that he was not particularly interested in what he found was a great character defining moment. Very reminiscent of how the Silver Age Superman never chose between Lois and Lana and didn't really seem interested in either of them despite them throwing themselves at him. Much more interesting take on Superman than the original Hyperion.

[Lex]

I hope this rumor isn't true. I was actually hoping to buy the new Thor book (whenever it comes out). Now I'll probably pass until JMS leaves.

[Red Lotus]

Thus, when Straczynski brought in myticism into Spider-Man, it was very out of place and unwelcome, and had nothing to do with what Spider-Man's book is about, showing that Straczynski had a tenuous grasp at best on WHO. SPIDER-MAN. IS. What his stories are like, and so forth.


This isn't really true there has been hints of a myticism connection with Spider-man since the 90s at least.

[JulianPerez]

Have you read the original SS? Just as glacially paced, in fact more so. SS is about making Decompression work for you.

Thank you, I already know decompression doesn't work for me.

And to be honest, I didn't like the Gruenwald mini either.

And in a max book what is wrong with Superman going to a "titty bar"?

Well, apart from the fact that it's seedy, unseemly, and excessively sensationalist?

There have been other ways to establish that Hyperion wasn't interested in human women that had a lot more warmth and humor. I'm reminded of Steve Englehart and George Perez's AVENGERS #147 (1976) where Lady Lark and Golden Archer were arguing violently. Of course, Hyperion sees through their arguing right away:

"QUIET, you lovebirds! We have a JOB to do here! No matter HOW LONG I live on your planet, I'll NEVER understand the COURTING RITUALS here! Luckily for ME, my position as Earth's most powerful superhero has made it IMPOSSIBLE for me to become interested in women!"

Very reminiscent of how the Silver Age Superman never chose between Lois and Lana and didn't really seem interested in either of them despite them throwing themselves at him. Much more interesting take on Superman than the original Hyperion.

Nothing like that at all. Superman in the Silver Age felt profound passion for Lois Lane and Lana that he never acted on because of his responsibilities, a very different state of affairs than not being attracted to them at all. Obviously, the two were very special to him.

[Edward J Cunningham]

Apparently, JMS accidently (?) let slip at the Comic Con that he'll be writing the new Thor series.

I read it on the internet, so it must be true. :rolleyes:

Anyway, if this is true, it seems like a poor choice to me. I'd prefer to see Marvel give Oeming a chance on a regular Thor series. Or Neil Gaiman or Mark Millar. Or Kirkman. Or anyone but JMS (or Bendis).

Gods. Why? Wwwwhhhhyyyyy?!?!?!?

Probably too much to hope for, but if JMS is writing a new Thor series, might that mean he would be leaving Fantastic Four which would open the door for a writer like----Dan Slott?

Eddie Cunningham

http://s5.photobucket.com/albums/y165/eddiejc1/New_Fem_Four.gif (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/femfour/)

[JulianPerez]

This isn't really true there has been hints of a myticism connection with Spider-man since the 90s at least.

I'll take your word for it. However, just because it has a precedence doesn't mean it fits in with what Spider-Man's stories ought to be about. I am reminded of the science fiction elements that emerged in Batman in the 1950s and early 1960s before Carmine Infantino started the "New Look" Batman. They did science fiction stories for years, but that doesn't make Batman or his world space opera. If someone wanted to do a space opera-centered Batman today, they cannot point to these stories as justification.

[Edward J Cunningham]

Nothing like that at all. Superman in the Silver Age felt profound passion for Lois Lane and Lana that he never acted on because of his responsibilities, a very different state of affairs than not being attracted to them at all. Obviously, the two were very special to him.

Nope. You might not want to admit it, but the real reason Superman acted that way in the Silver Age was because he was a....you know! (http://www.superdickery.com/dick/1.html)


Eddie Cunningham

http://s5.photobucket.com/albums/y165/eddiejc1/New_Fem_Four.gif (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/femfour/)

[Tommy]

Thank you, I already know decompression doesn't work for me.

And to be honest, I didn't like the Gruenwald mini either.
Aww someone is bitter!

Well, apart from the fact that it's seedy, unseemly, and excessively sensationalist?
Hence why it had "MAX" on the cover spelled out in big red letters! Plus it was a perfectly normal thing for a perfectly normal adult to do. Add in all of Hyp's characterization up to that point and it would have been strange to not have that scene.

There have been other ways to establish that Hyperion wasn't interested in human women that had a lot more warmth and humor. I'm reminded of Steve Englehart and George Perez's AVENGERS #147 (1976) where Lady Lark and Golden Archer were arguing violently. Of course, Hyperion sees through their arguing right away:

"QUIET, you lovebirds! We have a JOB to do here! No matter HOW LONG I live on your planet, I'll NEVER understand the COURTING RITUALS here! Luckily for ME, my position as Earth's most powerful superhero has made it IMPOSSIBLE for me to become interested in women!"
So... they should just slip in a line of dialog about it after the fact? Really when the entire series was about Hyp growing from his birth there is no after the fact. They showed it, like they should have shown it.

Nothing like that at all. Superman in the Silver Age felt profound passion for Lois Lane and Lana that he never acted on because of his responsibilities, a very different state of affairs than not being attracted to them at all. Obviously, the two were very special to him.
Please. Lois was getting married, super powers, or just being weird every other issue. Lana was just as bad. But both were always plotting and scheming to marry him. While I certainly wouldn't want to a choice of those two, if Superman was truly attracted to one or the other he could have easily acted upon it. He after all, lost his virginity to a girl who was under the mental control of his robot teacher.

[Michael P]

Actually, Julian, JMS has a very good grasp of who Spider-Man is. Just because he's putting him through different paces than he's been in in the last forty years (which is altogether different from who he is as a character; you don't stop being you just because something happens to you that's never happened before), doesn't mean he's changing the fundamentals of the character: Rational idealism, humorously skewed view of life, responsibility. These things have held true, even as Peter's had some very strange experiences. Even during Sins Past, Peter was still the same person he always was.

You can send Tarzan into space, as long as you make him react like Tarzan would.

[Red Lotus]

I'll take your word for it. However, just because it has a precedence doesn't mean it fits in with what Spider-Man's stories ought to be about. I am reminded of the science fiction elements that emerged in Batman in the 1950s and early 1960s before Carmine Infantino started the "New Look" Batman. They did science fiction stories for years, but that doesn't make Batman or his world space opera. If someone wanted to do a space opera-centered Batman today, they cannot point to these stories as justification.


You’re right. It doesn’t fit in to the whole street level thing that Spider-man has and I don’t think he should be facing mystical foes or making his books more like that too. I don’t mind them adding to his origin to me it doesn’t hurt who or what the character is, but they need to make sure that the street level hero is the biggest part of who he is. But I also think that being an Avenger hurts that part of it more then anything else.

[Tommy]

You’re right. It doesn’t fit in to the whole street level thing that Spider-man has and I don’t think he should be facing mystical foes or making his books more like that too. I don’t mind them adding to his origin to me it doesn’t hurt who or what the character is, but they need to make sure that the street level hero is the biggest part of who he is. But I also think that being an Avenger hurts that part of it more then anything else.
Allthough his team up years took him to the Savage Land, hanging out with Dr. Strange, deep space...

He kind of stopped being street level then.

[JulianPerez]

Aww someone is bitter!

You'd be right. Decompression gets my goat like nobody's business, because of four-minute reads and the absence of story progression and density of information. Never has there been a worst case of style over substance in comics history. It was never this bad, even in the Image days.

Hence why it had "MAX" on the cover spelled out in big red letters! Plus it was a perfectly normal thing for a perfectly normal adult to do. Add in all of Hyp's characterization up to that point and it would have been strange to not have that scene.

My point though, is not that there isn't a situation somewhere, that Hyperion wouldn't set foot inside of a Strip Club, nor is it that adults don't go to strip clubs and it isn't a healthy activity, at least for single men. My point is that Straczynski showed a lack of restraint in showing us this. I'm sure there are a lot of things we could learn about the Hulk's character about him going to the toilet, too, but they don't show us this. It's unpleasant to transplant this situation onto a Superman-type character. Further, it is done with no humor and warmth, as the Englehart characterization was. At least when Alan Moore did the love/sex triangle in MIRACLEMAN, he had a sense of humor about it.

I do have to agree, that some of Straczynski's insights into Hyperion were rather interesting. For instance, the idea that the baby in a rocket were just a distraction from the viruses that came out is a rather intriguing twist. Further, the idea that only an alien could protect the earth because he could see the big picture, was spot-on.

Please. Lois was getting married, super powers, or just being weird every other issue. Lana was just as bad. But both were always plotting and scheming to marry him. While I certainly wouldn't want to a choice of those two, if Superman was truly attracted to one or the other he could have easily acted upon it. He after all, lost his virginity to a girl who was under the mental control of his robot teacher.

Superman never acted on his feelings for Lois or Lana because of his responsibilities. It's obvious he truly did love them; for one thing, there was an entire room in the Fortress of Solitude dedicated to Lois and Lana's momentos. There have been many occasions where Superman has stated that he "loves" or "loved" Lois or Lana. The fact that he cares about them is a big part of his Silver Age characterization.

Actually, Julian, JMS has a very good grasp of who Spider-Man is. Just because he's putting him through different paces than he's been in in the last forty years (which is altogether different from who he is as a character; you don't stop being you just because something happens to you that's never happened before), doesn't mean he's changing the fundamentals of the character: Rational idealism, humorously skewed view of life, responsibility. These things have held true, even as Peter's had some very strange experiences. Even during Sins Past, Peter was still the same person he always was.

You can send Tarzan into space, as long as you make him react like Tarzan would.

I disagree, for three reasons:

1) The introduction of mysticism into Spider-Man. Spider-Man has had mystical stories, to be sure (his battle against Kulan Gath comes to mind), but the fact is, that Spider-Man's stories have never been explicitly about the supernatural and the mystical. That's not the world that Spider-Man inhabits; that's not Spider-Man's New York, street-level landscape. There's a difference of an order of magnitude between Spider-Man going to the Savage Land for a single issue team-up and placing something as significant to the character as his ORIGIN and POWERS as mystical in nature. Not to mention what a waste of time it is; Spider-Man's origin is straightforward and doesn't have gaps. It's been perfectly serviceable thus far; Straczynski was fixing something that wasn't broke.

2) THE OTHER deliberately made Spider-Man unambiguously scary and spooky and monstrous. Stan and Steve and others have gone out of their way to make Spider-Man not monstrous: they gave Spidey a sense of humor, wisecracks, and called him "your friendly neighborhood Spider-Man." Even his potentially most gross power, his webbing, was turned into a plastic made from a gadget. Note what a reversal it is from this, to have Spider-Man become a Werespider that eats folk, with mutated arm stingers.

On a related note...

3) Spider-Man...ATE a guy. That's not Spider-Man. Where's the "humorous skewing of life and rational idealism" there? Spider-Man ATE a guy! I can't think of anything that is more a break from his established characterization, except maybe transvestitism. Yeah, sure, the Devil Made Him Do It, but the idea of the instinct or split personality or whatever it was inside of Spider-Man, is a deeply unwelcome

And all things aside about Straczynski's failure to grasp Spider-Man (and to say nothing of the monstrous inability to grasp characterization that was the Gwen pregnancy) Straczynski's most severe problem is that he is unimaginative and lame. There are many ways to have Norman Osborn's children in a story that would be fascinating...but have them be mutants in Ninja costumes? One of them being a Gwen lookalike? (gee, never seen that before)

Also, Straczynski didn't do his homework, which is lazy and unprofessional. For instance, he had Spider-Man say that he "never goes to the bridge and avoids it," when actually, he goes there each year to leave a rose at the top of the building. Also, there was no several month gap in the original Spider-Man stories, which were sequential, that Gwen could have gone to have children in Europe.

So, to get us back on topic and summarize why I believe Straczynski shouldn't touch THOR:

1) He has difficulty grasping the characters created by others;

2) When working on characters created by others, he is really not that great; nor is he imaginative;

3) He doesn't do his homework.

[Red Lotus]

And all things aside about Straczynski's failure to grasp Spider-Man (and to say nothing of the monstrous inability to grasp characterization that was the Gwen pregnancy) Straczynski's most severe problem is that he is unimaginative and lame. There are many ways to have Norman Osborn's children in a story that would be fascinating...but have them be mutants in Ninja costumes? One of them being a Gwen lookalike? (gee, never seen that before)

Every time Sins Past comes up I have to jump in and say what I always say(its in my CBR contract) so here goes. It has been said that when JMS did the Sins Past story he had Peter as the father, but Marvel wouldn't let him write that because we all know what Joe thinks about Peter with kids.

As for the look of the kids. They weren't big time bad guys. They were punk kids looking for payback. I think the look worked for them.

[Tommy]

You'd be right. Decompression gets my goat like nobody's business, because of four-minute reads and the absence of story progression and density of information. Never has there been a worst case of style over substance in comics history. It was never this bad, even in the Image days.
Actually that is a huge packet of different items that you all label "decompressed."

Four-minute reads would be Astonishing X-men. Personally I really do wish they would tighten down on the splash pages, but Jack Kirby did it. If you read Mr. Miracle there are issues with a double page splash and four or so full page splashes.

Absence of story progression would be Alias. And that is only if you are reading it for a series of pointless slap fights. Alias progressed every issue in the story of Jessica Jones.

Density of information would Chris Claremont on any book. Really this contradicts your first claim. You cannot have both density of information and a four-minute read.

Really it is just you not liking a certain style of writing (one that emphasizes characterization over plot). Which is of course your right. However you cannot say that a book written in that style is bad because of it. As a rather wise man said about dance "Just because there are some styles I don't particularly like doesn't mean I can not tell if they are danced well." Certainly there are bad books written decompressed. And there are good books written decompressed.

My point though, is not that there isn't a situation somewhere, that Hyperion wouldn't set foot inside of a Strip Club, nor is it that adults don't go to strip clubs and it isn't a healthy activity, at least for single men. My point is that Straczynski showed a lack of restraint in showing us this. I'm sure there are a lot of things we could learn about the Hulk's character about him going to the toilet, too, but they don't show us this. It's unpleasant to transplant this situation onto a Superman-type character. Further, it is done with no humor and warmth, as the Englehart characterization was. At least when Alan Moore did the love/sex triangle in MIRACLEMAN, he had a sense of humor about it.
And you know. If Hulk was a Max book I would not mind that at all. Wildstorm has a gay Superman having sex with Batman. The actual silver age Superman raped a girl. Hell Mark Waid wrote a rather odd sex scene in Fantastic Four. It was a very important, and well-written scene. Humor about the subject matter would have been wildly out of place in it. But there was, in fact, a joke in it.

Hyp: I never even saw a woman naked until-- well until recently.

General: Lucky woman. Where is she now?

Hyp: I don't know. I think she went shopping.

Extremely black comedy. But still a joke.

Superman never acted on his feelings for Lois or Lana because of his responsibilities. It's obvious he truly did love them; for one thing, there was an entire room in the Fortress of Solitude dedicated to Lois and Lana's momentos. There have been many occasions where Superman has stated that he "loves" or "loved" Lois or Lana. The fact that he cares about them is a big part of his Silver Age characterization.
Didn't he also have rooms dedicated to Jimmy Olsen? And as far as "love" or "loves" there were also many occasions where he did something horribly mean to them. They were a nasty group of people all around. Note that he didn't let his responsibilities get in the way with Misty whom he really should have put a stop to. You can care about some one a lot, even talk about how much you love them, and it still does not mean you are interested in them. I have many friends and family that fall into that category. JMS was probably putting in some logic behind why Superman never decided between the two.
Also, Straczynski didn't do his homework, which is lazy and unprofessional. For instance, he had Spider-Man say that he "never goes to the bridge and avoids it," when actually, he goes there each year to leave a rose at the top of the building. Also, there was no several month gap in the original Spider-Man stories, which were sequential, that Gwen could have gone to have children in Europe.
Well throw Mark Waid in that boat too. He made some goofs in his Fantastic Four run. Kurt Busiek has made goofs before. Really any reason for Spider-Man to NOT go to that damn bridge is good enough for me. If I never see Spider-man having a touching a sentimental moment up there again I can die happy. It was okay the first twenty or thirty times I saw it, but after that it got a little stale.

[Keith_Martineau]

It's funny to me when people complain about adding mystic elements or having Spiderman face mystic foes "isn't what Spiderman is about."

So I suppose the symbiote suit and Venom were just right in line with his "street level" character style?

Get real kids. It's a comic book. It's supposed to run the gamut of the fantastic. The moment you limit something with "we can't do that" is the moment you begin slowly killing the character.

What was the last memorable thing done with Mickey Mouse?

[JulianPerez]

Really it is just you not liking a certain style of writing (one that emphasizes characterization over plot). Which is of course your right. However you cannot say that a book written in that style is bad because of it. As a rather wise man said about dance "Just because there are some styles I don't particularly like doesn't mean I can not tell if they are danced well." Certainly there are bad books written decompressed. And there are good books written decompressed.

By definition, a decompressed book is a BAD book.

There's no "right" way to use decompression. Decompression isn't a story technique like drama, characterization, or comedy - its something actively detrimental to a book itself, because what ultimately happens is a lot less happening.

I'm not talking about characterization vs. plot, because even characterization centered stories have an obligation to MOVE. Notice how much happened in even a characterization centered story like, for instance, AVENGERS #4 (Busiek and Perez), which barely has a villain, and is pretty much about the selection of a roster, BUT LOOK HOW MUCH HAPPENS! I'm talking about lazy nonsense like NEW AVENGERS where there's an entire splash page of the Earth...and later, a splaash page of the Earth again...with a corkscrew of energy moving towards it. What progressed? What characterization was shown here? It's lazy page-chewing, which is deeply unfair to the reader because we didn't get our money's worth.

Another example of this is in PLANETARY #3, which features a ghost flipping over a car. A whole. PAGE. Of a ghost flipping over a car. This is panel misuse at its absolute worst - someone should tell Ellis that no matter how many panels he devotes to it, a ghost flipping over a car isn't cool, it's meaningless because unlike movies, comics lack the element of motion.

I'm reminded of an article in US NEWS AND WORLD REPORT that concerned itself with Global Warming. The title of it was, "Can We Live With It?" A typical act of apologism. Likewise, treating a lapse in style like decompression as style in and of itself, is similar apologism as well as being insulting to the intelligence of a reader that wants their money's worth.

Four-minute reads would be Astonishing X-men. Personally I really do wish they would tighten down on the splash pages, but Jack Kirby did it. If you read Mr. Miracle there are issues with a double page splash and four or so full page splashes.

What you point to as perfectly justified decompression, I point to as a part of the totally unjustified pattern of Kirby's art becoming lazier because he is no longer working with a writer or editor to ensure pacing and curb self-indulgence. Some of Kirby's MR. MIRACLE splash pages have no rhyme or reason: there are splash pages in, for instance, nothing but Orion and Barda and Scott talking in a room (as seen in MISTER MIRACLE #7). Compare this with his work in say, FANTASTIC FOUR #52 :there's only ONE splash page in the whole thing, which is just to start the story. It only has TWO pages with three panels or less, and each introduce a significant respective concept: the Techno-Jungle, or Wakanda itself.

Ultimately, this is why decompression is a so lazy and vile: it contradicts the aesthetic that everything in the story has to accomplish or DO something.

Busiek has made goofs before.

Really? I don't doubt it, as we're all human and make mistakes, but pardon me for being a little incredulous that somebody like Busiek, who has demonstrated an encyclopedaic level of Marvel and DC lore to a degree that it's actually a little SCARY (anybody that's seen his responses to fan mail knows exactly what I'm talking about), would slip and make a boo-boo.

So I suppose the symbiote suit and Venom were just right in line with his "street level" character style?

You're right, both of them were not in keeping with Spidey's overall identity, and thus did not belong in Spider-Man's world. At least in the form that they actually took, they were lousy ideas from the absolute nadir of Spider-Man's publishing history, though Straczynski is giving the Alien Costume a run for its money.

(Though I must say, as loathesome as he is as a human being, and as a writer, too, Todd MacFarlane is a very gifted artist.)

Get real kids. It's a comic book. It's supposed to run the gamut of the fantastic. The moment you limit something with "we can't do that" is the moment you begin slowly killing the character.

You're right that ultimately change is good (at least the kind that is organic and comes naturally from the characters, anyway). But that does not mean that EVERY idea is automatically a good one, JUST because it is change.

And you are correct too, that all superhero stories involve the fantastic, it is up to the unique identity and style of each book to determine what fantastic elements are appropriate and which are not. I can buy alien invasions in AVENGERS. With BATMAN or DAREDEVIL, they are out of place and don't belong.

[Expletive Deleted]

By definition, a decompressed book is a BAD book.So those of us who like any decompressed comic book are objectively wrong?

Nifty.

[protege]

Actually that is a huge packet of different items that you all label "decompressed."

Four-minute reads would be Astonishing X-men. Personally I really do wish they would tighten down on the splash pages, but Jack Kirby did it. If you read Mr. Miracle there are issues with a double page splash and four or so full page splashes.

Absence of story progression would be Alias. And that is only if you are reading it for a series of pointless slap fights. Alias progressed every issue in the story of Jessica Jones.

Density of information would Chris Claremont on any book. Really this contradicts your first claim. You cannot have both density of information and a four-minute read.

Really it is just you not liking a certain style of writing (one that emphasizes characterization over plot). Which is of course your right. However you cannot say that a book written in that style is bad because of it. As a rather wise man said about dance "Just because there are some styles I don't particularly like doesn't mean I can not tell if they are danced well." Certainly there are bad books written decompressed. And there are good books written decompressed.


And you know. If Hulk was a Max book I would not mind that at all. Wildstorm has a gay Superman having sex with Batman. The actual silver age Superman raped a girl. Hell Mark Waid wrote a rather odd sex scene in Fantastic Four. It was a very important, and well-written scene. Humor about the subject matter would have been wildly out of place in it. But there was, in fact, a joke in it.

Hyp: I never even saw a woman naked until-- well until recently.

General: Lucky woman. Where is she now?

Hyp: I don't know. I think she went shopping.

Extremely black comedy. But still a joke.


Didn't he also have rooms dedicated to Jimmy Olsen? And as far as "love" or "loves" there were also many occasions where he did something horribly mean to them. They were a nasty group of people all around. Note that he didn't let his responsibilities get in the way with Misty whom he really should have put a stop to. You can care about some one a lot, even talk about how much you love them, and it still does not mean you are interested in them. I have many friends and family that fall into that category. JMS was probably putting in some logic behind why Superman never decided between the two.

Well throw Mark Waid in that boat too. He made some goofs in his Fantastic Four run. Kurt Busiek has made goofs before. Really any reason for Spider-Man to NOT go to that damn bridge is good enough for me. If I never see Spider-man having a touching a sentimental moment up there again I can die happy. It was okay the first twenty or thirty times I saw it, but after that it got a little stale.
What? Didn't Perry White get a trophy room? great ceaser's ghost!

[JulianPerez]

So those of us who like any decompressed comic book are objectively wrong?

Nifty.

There's no such thing as objectively wrong when it comes to opinions on fiction. However, decompression goes in the face of several valued characteristics that are associated with good writing, such as pacing and stories MOVING, and the belief in "density" of a story, as well as the amount of story actually present in a single individual book.

And as I said, it conflicts with the aesthetic that everything in a comic has to have some sort of significance or value to the long-term story.

[Expletive Deleted]

There's no such thing as objectively wrong when it comes to opinions on fiction. However, decompression goes in the face of several valued characteristics that are associated with good writing, such as pacing and stories MOVING, and the belief in "density" of a story, as well as the amount of story actually present in a single individual book.I guess I'm just not parsing you correctly.

It seems like you're saying that no decompressed writing can be considered "good." The logical consequence of that would be that anyone who considered said writing "good" would be incorrect.

[JulianPerez]

I guess I'm just not parsing you correctly.

It seems like you're saying that no decompressed writing can be considered "good."

Yes, that is what I'm saying.

Decompression isn't a style of writing - it's LACK of style of writing. No matter the story, it has to move forward, it has to have plot points that come to entertain the reader regularly; this is pacing. And while this is certainly subjective, it has to be "substantial" a read, or at least feel that way - something that quick reads that feature splash pages and two-panel pages certainly lack.

The logical consequence of that would be that anyone who considered said writing "good" would be incorrect.

Well, *I* would think they'd be incorrect, certainly, because when I determine whether a book is good or bad, I look the above mentioned values and aesthetics in the previous post.

[Charles01]

Apparently, JMS accidently (?) let slip at the Comic Con that he'll be writing the new Thor series.

I read it on the internet, so it must be true. :rolleyes:

Anyway, if this is true, it seems like a poor choice to me. I'd prefer to see Marvel give Oeming a chance on a regular Thor series. Or Neil Gaiman or Mark Millar. Or Kirkman. Or anyone but JMS (or Bendis).

Gods. Why? Wwwwhhhhyyyyy?!?!?!?
I'm open to a JMS Thor as long as it's the REAL THOR and not some knock-off replacement; and if that does not work, the job should go back to that Ragnarok creative team as long as it's the real Thor, a Ragnarok hardcover would be nice too

On related news, I'm glad someone is finally working on a Thor movie; it's about time, but which studio will get this one, hopefully The Avengers Big Three wont be split between studios

[Kirk G]

The moment you limit something with "we can't do that" is the moment you begin slowly killing the character.

What was the last memorable thing done with Mickey Mouse?


Ummmm, probably the drug abuse poster that was banned back in the 70s???

[venuscameback]

Probably too much to hope for, but if JMS is writing a new Thor series, might that mean he would be leaving Fantastic Four which would open the door for a writer like----Dan Slott?

Eddie Cunningham


http://s5.photobucket.com/albums/y165/eddiejc1/New_Fem_Four.gif (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/femfour/)

Substitute Medusa for Crystal and it works for me :)

[Tommy]

By definition, a decompressed book is a BAD book.
Someone is super super wrong. Or your definition of decompressed is so very very very wrong that you aren't even sure what you are talking about.

There's no "right" way to use decompression. Decompression isn't a story technique like drama, characterization, or comedy - its something actively detrimental to a book itself, because what ultimately happens is a lot less happening.
Well then, I have never read a decompressed book. Supreme Power certainly isn't by your definition.

I'm not talking about characterization vs. plot, because even characterization centered stories have an obligation to MOVE. Notice how much happened in even a characterization centered story like, for instance, AVENGERS #4 (Busiek and Perez), which barely has a villain, and is pretty much about the selection of a roster, BUT LOOK HOW MUCH HAPPENS! I'm talking about lazy nonsense like NEW AVENGERS where there's an entire splash page of the Earth...and later, a splaash page of the Earth again...with a corkscrew of energy moving towards it. What progressed? What characterization was shown here? It's lazy page-chewing, which is deeply unfair to the reader because we didn't get our money's worth.
Once more not Supreme Power... You aren't complaining about decompression you are complaining about Splash pages. I would get the terminology right if I was doing it.Plus in the 18 issues of Supreme Power there were only... 18 splashes. So according to you it is not decompressed.

Another example of this is in PLANETARY #3, which features a ghost flipping over a car. A whole. PAGE. Of a ghost flipping over a car. This is panel misuse at its absolute worst - someone should tell Ellis that no matter how many panels he devotes to it, a ghost flipping over a car isn't cool, it's meaningless because unlike movies, comics lack the element of motion.
And Jack Kirby devoted two page spreads to people lifting things... Oh wait...

Plus Planetary is so far from being Decompressed I am certain you don't know what decompression really is.

I'm reminded of an article in US NEWS AND WORLD REPORT that concerned itself with Global Warming. The title of it was, "Can We Live With It?" A typical act of apologism. Likewise, treating a lapse in style like decompression as style in and of itself, is similar apologism as well as being insulting to the intelligence of a reader that wants their money's worth.
Once again you don't seem to actually know what decompression is. In fact what you are complaining about right now isn't "decompression" what you are complaining about is "Splash pages gone wild" two entirely different things.

What you point to as perfectly justified decompression, I point to as a part of the totally unjustified pattern of Kirby's art becoming lazier because he is no longer working with a writer or editor to ensure pacing and curb self-indulgence. Some of Kirby's MR. MIRACLE splash pages have no rhyme or reason: there are splash pages in, for instance, nothing but Orion and Barda and Scott talking in a room (as seen in MISTER MIRACLE #7). Compare this with his work in say, FANTASTIC FOUR #52 :there's only ONE splash page in the whole thing, which is just to start the story. It only has TWO pages with three panels or less, and each introduce a significant respective concept: the Techno-Jungle, or Wakanda itself.
I never said it was "Justified" I said Jack Kirby did it.

And it takes balls to say Jack Kirby was lazy in general.

It takes more balls to say that when working on four books Jack Kirby was being lazy.

It takes even more balls than that to say that when Jack was simultaneously trying to reimagine how a comic should look, creating the miniseries, and creating the TPB market he was being lazy.

And it takes huge brass ones to say that the work Jack himself thought was his best was lazy.

And it takes a certain degree of ignorance to not know Jack was at the time of FF #52 pretty much coming up with the story all on his own, just like he was in the later Fourth World period.

And it takes a much greater degree of ignorance to say that Jack was writting decompressed.

So while you are astoundingly wrong, you do have balls.

Ultimately, this is why decompression is a so lazy and vile: it contradicts the aesthetic that everything in the story has to accomplish or DO something.
So the reading experience for you is goal oriented? How very sad. The point of reading should not be to cross some mythical finish line. It should be to enjoy the process.
Really? I don't doubt it, as we're all human and make mistakes, but pardon me for being a little incredulous that somebody like Busiek, who has demonstrated an encyclopedaic level of Marvel and DC lore to a degree that it's actually a little SCARY (anybody that's seen his responses to fan mail knows exactly what I'm talking about), would slip and make a boo-boo.
Since we are talking about him, I am sure he will show up. So Kurt Busiek: Have you ever made a continuity error, ever? Not to mention that the specific continuity error you mentioned had already happened during a team up between X-man and Spider-man.

Although I am glad to see you have finally given up on the strip club scene being inappropriate.

[algertman]

JMS on Thor? Well, I ain't buying

[Will.S]

So the reading experience for you is goal oriented? How very sad. The point of reading should not be to cross some mythical finish line. It should be to enjoy the process.
Quoted for truth.

[phantom1592]

I'll give it a shot. I like Thor, but have a hard reading his solo monthlys. I can't wait for him to get back in the Avengers :).

As for JMS, I liked Strange. I missed the first issue, but the others were cool. I never could figure out what the book was though. Was it going to be an Ulitimate Strange? 616 strange? Was it a retcon or was it different story.

I generally hate retcons, but if it was just a standalone story or Ultimate, than I really enjoyed it.

Rising Stars was one of my favorite stories of all time. Once he started working for Marvel the schedule for it (while already slow) came to a screeching halt. But the STORY was Fantastic. I never cared for his spiderman, but I haven't written him off yet.