Hanamichi Sakuragi

Wrong. Several writers have left books and gone on record that they didn't want to follow through with with editorial mandates. Azzarello for one, has repeatedly expressed his displeasure with the Superman/Wonder Woman relationship. It's also clear that you don't know much about either Jason Aaron or Rick Remender, if you think they are going to resign themselves to telling stories they don't want to tell for dozens of issues, and then be quiet about it. Yes, but he didn't define the character as you claimed. The character had already been defined. And The Dark Knight Strikes Back isn't anywhere near as bad as people make it out be. It has its flaws, and the JokerRobin development is garbage, but there's still a lot of good things in the book that people would see if they didn't go in expecting a rehash of The Dark Knight Returns. Taking advantage of something that can generate publicity isn't the same as doing something for the sake of publicity. Nothing about the new Thor rings close to the Death of Superman. That storyline came about because writers had to put all their stories on old, because they were told they had to match up the Clark/Lois marriage in the comics with that of the TV show that was airing at the time. He wasn't even supposed to be dead as long as he was, but they kept him dead because of how well the comics were selling, and the attention they were receiving. On the other hand, all Marvel did regarding the new Thor, is announce what would be happening, so that that it would garner some attention. Not the same thing as a decision made because of decisions made by people not involved in the creative process, for purely commercial reasons. So, you have no proof to provide. That's a very simple look at why the Nu52 occurred, and reversing continuity isn't going to change the poor state of editorial at DC, but that's a whole other matter that we don't have to get into. As for something being entirely good, neither was Pre-Crisis continuity or Post-Crisis continuity. And you're excited for another potential publicity stunt, or something that's an ongoing publicity stunt? What happened to publicity stunt = bad? So stuff that that made changes, sometimes even to the entire status quo. Well, at least you're not still going with the change = bad angle, because if that were still the case, listing these comics would be laughable, considering how you came across with your early posts in this thread.

These stories are not editorially mandated. They are what the writers want to do, as stated by them. The point is, killing off a character isn't always a decision made as a publicity stunt. They can also be creative decisions. And Frank Miller didn't define Batman, he redefined him. Bill Finger had defined Batman long before Frank Miller ever started writing comics. Prove it. I've got evidence of writers stating that these are the stories they want to tell, or they were ideas pitched by writers. Can you provide evidence to the contrary? You've also said that you find the Nu52 Darkseid interesting. Are you now going to change your mind about that, since you're apparently now against something if it stems from a publicity stunt? Do you now have the same disdain for Nu52 Darkseid that you do for the upcoming Thor and Captain America? And Mulder I'm curious, just exactly what are the Marvel stories you've enjoyed and looked fondly upon?

Except none of these ideas are for publicity. Everything going on with Thor is what Jason Aaron has been building towards. Everything going on with Captain America is what Rick Remender has been building towards. Even the death of Wolverine was something that was pitched by Paul Cornell, even though Marvel picked a different writer to follow through with the story. Even the Death of Captain America under Brubaker was suggested by him, not editorial. He wasn't even with the first writer to want to move away from Steve Rogers. J. M. DeMatteis wanted to kill off Steve Rogers and get a new Captain America, but his editor nixed those plans, leading him to leaving the book he had been writing for years. He went on to write the story he wanted to tell using original characters, when working for another publisher. With Wolverine, he was originally supposed to die under Claremont, you know, the guy that defined the character. He was working towards making Magneto a hero, and killing off Wolverine, before he lost creative control of the books. And the thing is, even if things are editorially mandated publicity stunts, that doesn't mean the stories are going to turn out bad. Simonson's introduction of Beta Ray Bill came out because of a suggestion by editorial, but he made it work. The Symbiote Saga was pitched as a publicity stunt, but today it remains one of the best Spider-Man stories. John Walker's time as Captain America was a complete publicity stunt, but it remains one of the high-points of Gruenwald's run. Anyway, if you're bashing the changes to Thor and Captain America because you think they're publicity stunts, then you can stop, because they aren't. Going back to Nu52 Darkseid, one could argue that the rebooting of the Post-Crisis Universe and the creation of the Nu52 was a publicity stunt. So, if you're going to bash something because it could be considered a publicity stunt, even when there's evidence to contrary, shouldn't be bashing Nu52 Darkseid, rather than using him as an avatar? But see, that's not where your hypocrisy ends. You said you can't wait for this change to reverse when the movie comes out, but that means you actually want a completely business decision (matching up the comics with the movies) to dictate what happens in the comics.

Uh, not the same thing at all, for several reasons. First, I do not actually like the new Thor yet, as she hasn't even appeared yet. I'm looking forward to it, because I like the writer's previous work. Whether or not I actually end up liking the new character remains to be seen. Two, there is no pretense that the new Thor is the same as the old Thor, she's a different character. Someone else wielding the hammer is not character assassination, as it was stated in Thor's first appearance that others had the capacity to wield the hammer. Three, I've never been averse to change, just on the basis that something is different. You on the other hand, just listed some changes, took no account as to their execution, and criticized them and Marvel Comics. So you suddenly being a fan of character changes is you being a hypocrite, while the same isn't true to me at all. What you're doing is trying to act like these changes in the status quo are an indicator of quality, without them even having occurred yet. Which is why I'll ask again, why don't you actually wait and see how things turn out, before condemning them?

So now you're ok with change as long as it appeals to you? Then if you're actually open to change, why don't you actually read the upcoming comics before just dismissing them? Anyway, so tell me, what exactly is that makes the Kirby/Simonson Darkseid uninteresting? The Nu52 Darkseid, even as written by Johns, is a not a walking embodiment of death. The Darkseid that appeared in the opening JL arc was just just another typical brutish world conquering villain, with the exception that they took from Morrison's idea that the New Gods were Multiversal beings, not that it has any impact on his behavior. We do not even know if he even killed the Watcher, and even if did, we do not know why he would do such a thing. Uh, not really. Nick Fury's been doing morally ambiguous things since forever, doing shady things has been a large part of the character. Fighting other heroes is something that people of much higher moral integrity have been willing to do, to act like Nick Fury doing it is some slight against the character is ridiculous. What's next, you're going to say Punisher getting into fights with heroes is character assassination? It actually isn't, but what definitely is character assassination is the Darkseid that appeared in the opening JL arc, which you're apparently fine with. So, you're fine with character assassination as long as it appeals to you?

The Darkseid that appeared in the opening arc of Justice League, and the vast majority of comics that weren't by Kirby or Simonson are only Darkseid in a very superficial sense. He's Darkseid on the surface, but that's it. If your understanding of Darkseid is so shallow that you base how "true" a character is on the basis of if that character is the same character in terms of continuity, then sure "Darkseid" is still Darkseid, but that doesn't change the fact that character is written vastly different to how he was originally written. If we go by your standards, then "Captain America" would still be Captain America, if Steve Rogers were written as a homicidal jingoistic madman, and "Reed Richards" would still be Reed Richards if he were written as an anti-intellectual rapist that targeted scientists, and this would be acceptable by your standard of staying true to the character, since it's still the same character in terms of continuity. But if that's the case, why were you taking issue with Nick Fury? After all, he's still Nick Fury, despite the retcons and occurrences in Original Sin.

Because you know it sucks before you've even read it? If Tom Brevoort is to be believed (not that he always is), then this will last past Age of Ultron. He's even bet people money that the new Thor will last past Age of Ultron. That's probably one of the reasons why we're getting Rage of Ultron in April 2015, which seems to take place in the past and feature the older versions of the characters. By the way dude, if you're going to stick with the aversion to change shtick, then you might want to ditch the Nu52 Darkseid avatar, since the way Geoff Johns wrote the character is nothing like how Kirby wrote the character. The only other writer who's been truly faithful to Kirby's Darkseid is Walter Simonson. This is exactly the kind of hypocrisy that makes it hard to take complaints about "ruining" characters or comics becoming "dogshit" seriously.

Only a month to go.

I'm going to go to IMDB, make an account, and rate Kung Fu Panda 2 ten stars.

It ain't going to top this.

Ten years since it came out, and The Incredibles is still the best superhero movie around.

Mortal Kombat + Frozen

Would you shut up, woman! We're talking about my leader!

Then again, part of your greatness is not conforming to what anyone's said, including yourself. So I should follow your example and not stop? This is all so confusing. No, I should stop. I should definitely stop.

If you say so. Who am I to question the ways of the master.

Clearly. This is some next level hipster shit.

Whoa, we've already established that you won the argument. I've already said I'm no match for you. This is now all about my admiration for just how different you are.

You say you're done, but then you come right back. You don't conform to anyone's words, not even your own. A true hipster if there ever was one. I am left humbled by our interaction.

Whoa, now not only are you not using standard grammar like the rest of us, but you're interchanging between capitalizing your sentences, and not. You're right, Jessie, I have been served. No way can I handle a rebel like you. As a fellow hipster, you've shown me what I should aspire to. Carry on, brother.

Now you're just making excuses like the guy that didn't want to count Despicable Me and Frozen. We get it Jessie, you're quite the individual. I mean, you don't even start your name with a capital letter like the rest of us. But you do think that Avatar is the best movie of the last 11 years, right? Even you can't be that much of a rebel.

You're trying so hard to be different. Face the facts, the general audience don't agree with you that The Croods, Megamind, or Wreck it Ralph were more enjoyable than the listed Pixar movies. Stop making excuses for your attempts to stand out as an individual. You said I was a hipster. I love and/or enjoy all the movies I mentioned in that post. Therefore, if I constitute as a hipster to you, then my comment stands. But it's fine I guess, since it seems you're also a hipster.

So by your definition, hipsters also like MCU movies, love animated Disney movies, Spider-Man movies, Indiana Jones movies, Lord of the Rings, and lots of other immensely popular movies. Talk about taking liberties.

Nah, you're definitely just trying to be different. I've never met a single person in the real world who thought any of those movies were better than the Pixar movies mentioned. You like it because you think it makes you different. Simple. You're too much of an "individual" to like those more popular Pixar movies over those less popular animated movies listed.