Geoff says "the third army" is actually only a prologue to ANOTHER story

[Mr. Holmes]

It doesn't "proof a point" it's describing an opinion using something we learned in elementary school called the metaphor.

[Deviates]

It doesn't "proof a point" it's describing an opinion using something we learned in elementary school called the metaphor.

Must have missed the part on what makes bad and broken metaphors then I'm guessing.

[Mr. Holmes]

You must have.

[Deviates]

You must have.

such a Michael Bay thing to say.

[Mr. Holmes]

Uhh, cute, but no. Michael Bay describes all flash and no substance (like things Johns writes) not posts on a forum.

[Deviates]

Uhh, cute, but no. Michael Bay describes all flash and no substance (like things Johns writes) not posts on a forum.

Yet it still manages to hold as much value as the other Bay comparisons in this thread; none.

[Mr. Holmes]

Maybe for you, but not for those making the point and those that understand it.

[Deviates]

Maybe for you, but not for those making the point and those that understand it.

I find it amazing you'd go to such lengths to defend an overused, terrible analogy. I totally respect your opinion on Johns' work but comparing anything to Michael Bay is so done to death it's valueless. Much like Chuck Norris jokes, Godwin's law and making implications about someone's intelligence on messageboards.

[Mr. Holmes]

I find it amazing you'd go to such lengths to defend an overused, terrible analogy. I totally respect your opinion on Johns' work but comparing anything to Michael Bay is so done to death it's valueless. Much like Chuck Norris jokes, Godwin's law and making implications about someone's intelligence on messageboards.

For me to be defending it, you would have to be attacking it in the first place, but you're just trying to sweep it under the rug.

Michael Bay analogy means something is all flash and little substance, like his movies. That's how people feel about Johns's writing as of lately. If you disagree with it fine, but the analogy has meaning.

[Bone2pick]

Maybe for you, but not for those making the point and those that understand it.

Yes, the Bay analogy is renown for its originality and complexity.

[Bone2pick]

For me to be defending it, you would have to be attacking it in the first place, but you're just trying to sweep it under the rug.

Michael Bay analogy means something is all flash and little substance, like his movies. That's how people feel about Johns's writing as of lately. If you disagree with it fine, but the analogy has meaning.

Because an analogy has meaning doesn't mean it needs to be attacked. I have the option to simply not entertain it. If someone uses the Bay analogy as an insult to Whedon's Avengers, I don't have to counter it. In fact, if a poster would use that analogy I'd probably not waste the effort on them.

[Whip Whirlwind]

Geoff Johns as of late has been like Michael Bay only in that he's taken his best attribute as a creator and ran with it, to the point of going too far. That being said, Green Lantern isn't badly written and aquaman is flat out great, so he's still not as bad as Bay.

My only issue with Johns is that at some point it needs to end. I'm tired of lantern wars and secret guardian plots. It'd be different if GLC or NG could get away from that, but really I'd love if GL was just Hal and Sinestro being space cops, and due to Sinestro, Hal having to live life without the ring on occasion.

[Bone2pick]

Geoff Johns as of late has been like Michael Bay only in that he's taken his best attribute as a creator and ran with it, to the point of going too far. That being said, Green Lantern isn't badly written and aquaman is flat out great, so he's still not as bad as Bay.

My only issue with Johns is that at some point it needs to end. I'm tired of lantern wars and secret guardian plots. It'd be different if GLC or NG could get away from that, but really I'd love if GL was just Hal and Sinestro being space cops, and due to Sinestro, Hal having to live life without the ring on occasion.

I agree with you on the 'Johns on GL needs to end.' I think his solo work with that character and franchise has run its course, and he and Hal would be better off separating at this point. It happens to all writers, no shame in it.

[Whip Whirlwind]

I agree with you on the 'Johns on GL needs to end.' I think his solo work with that character and franchise has run its course, and he and Hal would be better off separating at this point. It happens to all writers, no shame in it.

Oh, I really wouldn't mind if he stayed with the franchise/character for a little longer. I mean, nobody expects Sinestro to stay a GL right? And Sinestro Corps War was easily his best work. If he went slow with it (2-3 years) and eased up on the light stuff, I think he could develop Sinestro as a GL enough that his inevitable turn back to villainy could be a great story. That, and I think Bedard and Tomasi would do better. Well, Tomasi's not bad, but Bedard needs to get back to stories like REBELS.

[Mr. Holmes]

Because an analogy has meaning doesn't mean it needs to be attacked. I have the option to simply not entertain it. If someone uses the Bay analogy as an insult to Whedon's Avengers, I don't have to counter it. In fact, if a poster would use that analogy I'd probably not waste the effort on them.

And no one is saying you have to entertain it, so idk what your point is.