Last edited by wyokid; 06-15-2012 at 11:58 PM.
Plawsky, if I've been unkind, cruel or abusive to Wyokid in anyway please PM me and tell me off privately please. And at least quote me where I have been. I enjoy these discussions, I really do, and in every post I've sent I've been very well mannered. Sure, I've been thorough in my explanations because I believe it helps the flow of communication and the safe passage of information therefore making sense to the poster receiving any information or knowledge I'd be providing in the discussion, just like everyone else. I try to articulate my thoughts and feelings on the subject material and I try to remain polite and well-mannered whilst doing so. Some of the American posters say I swear a little too much and that it's because the British are very "liberal" in their language. I can't really agree with that definition but I've tried to minimalise the F's and whatnot and occasionally use stars. I find swearing to help articulate emotion well, the F word for example is a wonderfully universal adjective. Lol. I know it is sorta against the rules though but even still, I struggle to understand what you mean by critical. I'd say no more than you. You tend to argue every single one of Wyokid's post on one thread for days sometimes.
He kills all the time. He had a "Licence To Kill" meaning: if he kills with intent, he doesn't get arrested for it as long as they are enemies of his government, similarly to soldiers.-James Bond
EDIT - Sorry I thought you said he DIDN'T kill not did kill. Agreed. Sorry about that.
Sorry Mr Mod have I done something wrong? If so PM me or something. The least you could do is quote me to back up your claims. Otherwise they hold very little weight and I feel offended that you of all people will your holy modding powers wouldn't edit or PM or work your magic some other way instead of cutting in and trying to out me.I'm guessing it has to do with your history of criticizing his viewpoints rather than rational discussions, but I don't want to speak for him.
Last edited by Robbie_Jee; 06-16-2012 at 09:31 AM.
OMG I'm still being ignored.
Have I done something wrong?
Plawsky, How have I not been rational? I quote: "history of criticising his viewpoints." Unlike many posters on this forum, I have fully accepted all opinions as opinions. It is actually you who is always criticising his logic more than anyone. I never expected you to be so hypocritical. I still don't know what Wyo meant by 'Wrong' and I fail to understand the immorality of the writers in question. Am I at fault for being confused? How have I been irrational?
Mark Millar was there when the UU began. Ultimate X-Men #1 came out before Uncle Ben was dead, only three months after the Ultimate line started. To say what he should have been doing is a little off point. Again, you're faulting him for not writing the story you wanted. Do you watch romantic comedies and criticize them for not being scary enough? There was no precedent to Millar's Ultimates, so there's nothing to say what it should have been. Though, modernizing the 616 stories is exactly what he did. He just didn't modernize them as cut and dry heroes.When the Ultimate universe began it was modernizing the 616 stories, in other words, Millar SHOULD have been writing heroes.
Loeb's Ultimates, on the other hand, were following something that came before. There was an expectation of what an Ultimates book was. If Loeb's Ultimates run was called "The Avengers from Earth 45," then a lot of the story's flaws would be gone. It wouldn't fix the problems with pacing and inconsistent plots, but the characterization and disconnect with previous stories would be gone.
Long story short, it's not bad writing just because you wanted it to be different.
Ah, I see what you did there!Yes, but this is a discussion on Ultimates, so it's not important.
And that's fine; I only mentioned it because you brought it up first. But that means you can't have it both ways. If Millar doesn't write heroes, then neither does Loeb. Though I would argue that non-Ultimates Ultimate work is still a valid topic. I've said several times before that I think the Ultimate Cap Annual was good, though that characterization of Cap was missing from Ultimates 3.
I'm still not really sure what you're referring to. A quote or issue number would be great.When Cap dismisses the line as something you say in the heat of the moment.
So you wouldn't consider 616-Cap or any of the member in the Avengers film superheroes? That's fine - we all have our definitions. But it seems odd to slight Millar's Ultimates for being unheroic when most other superhero comics don't feature heroes, by that very definition.Exactly.
Why would a single slap be any better than the fight? Obviously it would be better for Jan's physical health, but I don't see how it would change the story at all.Then it could have been like it was in 616 and just have him hit her once, but it wasn't.
Didn't I already say that? I don't know... I forget.Impossible. Plawsky forgets nothing.
Uh... *cough, cough* you said I wasn't discussing tings rationally.Did you think that maybe it's because it's a Saturday afternoon and there are less people posting right now? I never said you were being irrational or rude on this thread. I was offering up a reason, based on past experiences, as to why wyokid might not be answering you. Maybe I'm wrong, though, and I should just let wyokid speak for himself if he wants. As for my disagreements with him, they've never been anything but civil. Yeah, he and I don't agree on everything, but we're here to talk about comics, after all. We get along just fine.
EDIT - I can quote you if you like.
But I haven't been?? Is that what you meant by not discussing things rationally? I'm not trying to accuse you of being uncivil, I never said that, I just feel that you're dodging away from the discussion and won't admit what you said. I wasn't calling you uncivil. I just detailing the relation.
Last edited by Robbie_Jee; 06-17-2012 at 10:12 AM.
I feel like the frailty of character that exists in Ultimate heroes is realistic. If real people randomly got super powers, there wouldn't just be golden heroes and evil super villains. There'd be some good guys with personality disorders, adhd, poor self esteem, or who knows what. There would be some douchey heroes. There would also be villains like doc ock who realize the things they've done were wrong and decide to stop.
I think the character flaws of some of the characters not only make them more interesting, but make the real top notch heroes like Spider-Man really stand out. Peter was so much more special in the ultimate universe because heroes who refuse to kill, put others' safety before their own, and constantly fight for what's right aren't a dime a dozen.
Taking out him patting himself on the back for getting away with such an Anti-American and Anti-French scene, who writes a joke and then says how good their joke was?
Hawkeye and Black Widow murder ALIENS on their first appearance; they only happen to look like civilians, which ended up being a pretty cool reveal after the wtf moment. Banner just can't catch a break, I don't see where you're getting the self centered jealous man thing. You're stretching on Tony big time. He's 616 Stark without the melodramatics about him being sober. Alcohol has been an integral part of the character since the 70s.
And again, there's the problem that Loeb did the exact same thing with them for the most part and you LoOoOoOvE Ultimates 3 ;). Clearly this isn't the barrier to entry, which will always render this side argument moot.
Marriage Era Spidey bashers are shameful opportunists (Like you REALLY didn't enjoy a single Spidey comic in 20 years)
Conversely, BND haters REALLY need to get over their continuity elitism already