Will Dick Stay on as Bruce's partner upon his return?
black...@aol.com
of the Batman. Where does that leave Dick? You've got five charcters
(Bruce, Dick, Tim, Damion, and Jason) fighting for three, maybe four
slots. Batman, Robin, Red Robin, and maybe the Nightwing mantle. Does
Dick stay on as Red Robin or Nightwing and remain Bruce's partner
again? After all Bruce will have been gone too long. The information
Dick has of the Gotham underworld, what's been going on, what's been
happeneing, is not something even Bruce can just pick up like that.
Dick has a wealth of knowledge of Gotham's criminal element now. It
took him months and months to acquire that .Bruce will need him around
for some time while he gets up to speed. What about Tim and Jason? Is
Damion killed? Another dead Robin? That's three of them now that were
killed in action if indeed Damion does die.
grinningdemon
I doubt there will be any change at all initially because I expect DC
to continue ripping off Captain America and come up with some
contrived reason for Bruce not to be Batman even though he has
returned...when he innevitably does become Batman again, Dick will
likely either return to being Nightwing or possibly even get killed
off (potentially to "force" Bruce out of retirement)...I really can't
see Damian remaining as Robin once Bruce is Batman again unless he
becomes more independent or goes off with Dick somewhere else...Tim is
fine as Red Robin (it's essentially the same role he's had all along
since his incarnation of Robin was never joined at the hip with Batman
like the others have been) though I could see him taking over the
Nightwing role down the line if Dick does get killed off...and Jason
has pretty much gone full-on psycho now so I don't think he's even in
the running for a spot.
Michael
Didn't the reveal that Cap was bopping around in time come after it was
pretty apparent in Final Crisis that thats what happened to Batman?
Michael
grinningdemon
wrote:
I suppose it did...but DC and Marvel have been back and forth ripping
each other off rather specifically when it comes to these two
characters for several years now so it's kind of hard to tell who had
what idea first...and, just because a story was published first
doesn't mean they had the idea first...after all, Cap "died" well
before Batman so, if Brubaker always planned to bring him back that
way, he probably had the idea before Final Crisis...at any rate,
Marvel pulled the trigger on Cap choosing not to be Cap first so if,
as I suspect, DC does the same thing with Batman, it's a safe bet they
got that idea from Marvel.
Duggy
> I doubt there will be any change at all initially because I expect DC
> to continue ripping off Captain America and come up with some
> contrived reason for Bruce not to be Batman even though he has
> returned...
Contrived or not, I think the Batman RIP was initially meant to end
with Bruce in a mentor role ala Batman Beyond or League of the Batmen.
For a time.
> when he innevitably does become Batman again, Dick will
> likely either return to being Nightwing or possibly even get killed
> off (potentially to "force" Bruce out of retirement)...
I can't see it. Die Dan Die has had to back out of that one once
already.
> I really can't see Damian remaining as Robin once Bruce is Batman again unless he
> becomes more independent or goes off with Dick somewhere else...
I see if as a possible casuality or someone who disappears off with
his granddaddy.
> Tim is fine as Red Robin (it's essentially the same role he's had all along
> since his incarnation of Robin was never joined at the hip with Batman
> like the others have been)
I can see him resuming Robin. In the far future if Barbara quits, I'd
like to see him replace her as Oracle...
> though I could see him taking over the
> Nightwing role down the line if Dick does get killed off...
There was an element of Tim never wanting to be a hero for life and
that sticks him that rut. Things may have changed, though.
> and Jason has pretty much gone full-on psycho now so I don't think he's even in
> the running for a spot.
Was he ever not? (Since his return, obviously?)
===
= DUG.
===
Duggy
> I suppose it did...but DC and Marvel have been back and forth ripping
> each other off rather specifically when it comes to these two
> characters for several years now so it's kind of hard to tell who had
> what idea first...and, just because a story was published first
> doesn't mean they had the idea first...after all, Cap "died" well
> before Batman so, if Brubaker always planned to bring him back that
> way, he probably had the idea before Final Crisis...at any rate,
> Marvel pulled the trigger on Cap choosing not to be Cap first so if,
> as I suspect, DC does the same thing with Batman, it's a safe bet they
> got that idea from Marvel.
I don't buy it. Similar ideas happen coincidently. DC will have to
fight to avoid that perception, but I think Morrison had the Mentor
Batman Idea as the end of RIP... so unless RIP started after SR
returned, then no.
Of course, Morrison could have been in meetings at Marvel or talked to
Brubaker or the other way around.
Bruce-the-Mentor certainly has out-of-universe progenitors.
===
= DUG.
===
Tim Turnip
Such an idea is a pretty obvious path even if Marvel hadn't done it
first... it makes sense that DC would try to make some hay out of the
idea of a different temporary identity before locking their icon back
into his traditional role. I think at least some of what Marvel and
DC has done to supposedly ape each other can be attributed to
simultaneous invention -- because ultimately there really aren't that
many fresh ideas out there. Not everything is a petty conspiracy even
if that does fit within the convenient fan narrative.
grinningdemon
Similar ideas can happen coincidentally but that's a little too much
coincidence to be believe...both had dead sidekicks return, both
"died" and were replaced by their sidekicks...both turned out to be
lost in time (in different ways but still).
grinningdemon
<Paul....@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
>On Jul 2, 7:01 am, grinningdemon <grinningde...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
>> I doubt there will be any change at all initially because I expect DC
>> to continue ripping off Captain America and come up with some
>> contrived reason for Bruce not to be Batman even though he has
>> returned...
>
>Contrived or not, I think the Batman RIP was initially meant to end
>with Bruce in a mentor role ala Batman Beyond or League of the Batmen.
>
>For a time.
Well, we know he wasn't supposed to actually die in the end, anyway.
>> when he innevitably does become Batman again, Dick will
>> likely either return to being Nightwing or possibly even get killed
>> off (potentially to "force" Bruce out of retirement)...
>
>I can't see it. Die Dan Die has had to back out of that one once
>already.
I wouldn't put it past him.
>> I really can't see Damian remaining as Robin once Bruce is Batman again unless he
>> becomes more independent or goes off with Dick somewhere else...
>
>I see if as a possible casuality or someone who disappears off with
>his granddaddy.
Most likely, he will fade away eventually, one way or other, once
Morrison is done with him.
>> Tim is fine as Red Robin (it's essentially the same role he's had all along
>> since his incarnation of Robin was never joined at the hip with Batman
>> like the others have been)
>
>I can see him resuming Robin. In the far future if Barbara quits, I'd
>like to see him replace her as Oracle...
I'm sick to death of replacements...I don't think we really need a
Robin...Red Robin is close enough (though the costume needs some
work).
>> though I could see him taking over the
>> Nightwing role down the line if Dick does get killed off...
>
>There was an element of Tim never wanting to be a hero for life and
>that sticks him that rut. Things may have changed, though.
That was basically dropped when they killed off his dad...now he's the
tragedy-driven hero like the rest...if anything, Dick Grayson is the
only one of the bunch that could potentially have a normal life at
this point.
>> and Jason has pretty much gone full-on psycho now so I don't think he's even in
>> the running for a spot.
>
>Was he ever not? (Since his return, obviously?)
DC has gone back and forth on this several times since his return but
I'd say Battle For the Cowl was the last nail in the proverbial
coffin.
Duggy
> Similar ideas can happen coincidentally but that's a little too much
> coincidence to be believe...both had dead sidekicks return, both
> "died" and were replaced by their sidekicks...both turned out to be
> lost in time (in different ways but still).
I'm certainly not an expert of Cap, so I'll need clarification on some
of this:
Firstly, picking items to compare is always dangerous/easy/misleading.
As coincidences go there are far less here than there were in the West
Wing predicting the real election...
Now, Dead Sidekicks.
I know the threw line for Jason's return. A Red-Herring in Hush was
so popular that they made it for-real. Not related to this story, so
not really a point for saying one ripped off the other, unless it can
be suggested that Marvel ripped the whole idea off DC in advance.
"Both 'died'"
The implication here is that they didn't actually die... (Not sure
with Cap, again). But this is comics, so not a coincidence, more SOP.
Replaced by Sidekicks.
If they have a sidekick in place it's probably a 50-50 thing for the
sidekick to step up. It's not always the case, certainly, but hardly
unlike enough to make it an issue.
Another question... was the sidekick the one brought back from the
dead in Cap's case... if so that explains the return and illustrates a
major difference.
Lost in Time.
This is a pretty big one... but I don't know Cap. Someone suggested
it was a reference or parody of Batman... so not a coincidence and
while "copying" not a rip-off... then again I need clarification.
Return as Mentor.
We don't know that Batman will. It's an assumption based on the most
obvious course of action... which if it does happen is covered by
"it's obvious" so not copying more coincidence.
So, no, I don't see ripping off...
===
= DUG.
===
grinningdemon
<Paul....@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
>On Jul 3, 7:55 am, grinningdemon <grinningde...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
>> Similar ideas can happen coincidentally but that's a little too much
>> coincidence to be believe...both had dead sidekicks return, both
>> "died" and were replaced by their sidekicks...both turned out to be
>> lost in time (in different ways but still).
>
>I'm certainly not an expert of Cap, so I'll need clarification on some
>of this:
>
>Firstly, picking items to compare is always dangerous/easy/misleading.
>As coincidences go there are far less here than there were in the West
>Wing predicting the real election...
This is true...but when you have major events involving these
characters occuring in sequence right around the same time and they
seem to be mirroring each other, I'd argue it has to be more than
coincidence...if it were only 1 or 2 things, it might be a different
story.
>Now, Dead Sidekicks.
>I know the threw line for Jason's return. A Red-Herring in Hush was
>so popular that they made it for-real. Not related to this story, so
>not really a point for saying one ripped off the other, unless it can
>be suggested that Marvel ripped the whole idea off DC in advance.
This one may have been coincidence since it was the start of the
sequence...it's hard to say...but Jason returned as a borderline
villain and, right around the same time, Bucky returned as a
brainwashed assassin.
>"Both 'died'"
>The implication here is that they didn't actually die... (Not sure
>with Cap, again). But this is comics, so not a coincidence, more SOP.
Well, Cap actually did seem to die...they didn't immediately reveal he
was alive as they did with Batman...but Marvel got a lot of mainstream
media attention when they killed off Cap and the aftermath was
certainly a critical and commercial success so I'm betting this
factored into Didio's decision to off Batman.
>Replaced by Sidekicks.
>If they have a sidekick in place it's probably a 50-50 thing for the
>sidekick to step up. It's not always the case, certainly, but hardly
>unlike enough to make it an issue.
>Another question... was the sidekick the one brought back from the
>dead in Cap's case... if so that explains the return and illustrates a
>major difference.
It's not as much a difference as you might think...Batman has many
sidekicks over the years and Dick is the only one with a chance of
being truly accepted as a replacement...Cap has only ever really had
ONE sidekick so there really weren't any other options there.
And, as I said above, it's not really any one thing here...it's the
sequence of events and that these things are happening more or less
simultaneously.
>Lost in Time.
>This is a pretty big one... but I don't know Cap. Someone suggested
>it was a reference or parody of Batman... so not a coincidence and
>while "copying" not a rip-off... then again I need clarification.
I don't see how it could be claimed as an intentional reference or
parody of Batman...and, as I said in an earlier post, it's actually
hard to say who had the "lost in time" idea first...DC revealed it
first but Cap's resurrection was supposedly planned from the start and
was actually supposed to happen much sooner so who knows?
The major difference is that Cap was actually bouncing around time
reliving moments from his own life while Batman was truly lost in the
past...but it's still rather similar and, once again, the timing is
suspect.
>Return as Mentor.
>We don't know that Batman will. It's an assumption based on the most
>obvious course of action... which if it does happen is covered by
>"it's obvious" so not copying more coincidence.
How is it obvious? The traditional way this plays out is the
character immediately resumes their normal role after the big
resurrection...not that they fade into the background as mentor to
their replacement...this is abnormal...it's true we don't know this
will happen with Batman but I suspect it will...we should find out
soon enough.
>So, no, I don't see ripping off...
Then we'll just have to agree to disagree.
My opinion here isn't just coming from these events...I'm well versed
in both characters and it's just a general sense I've gotten from the
last few years of stories...there are other smaller elements of
similarity as well that fans of both characters would recognize.
YKW
f32d17...@y32g2000prc.googlegroups.com:
> I'm certainly not an expert of Cap, so I'll need clarification on some
> of this:
>
> Firstly, picking items to compare is always dangerous/easy/misleading.
> As coincidences go there are far less here than there were in the West
> Wing predicting the real election...
>
> Now, Dead Sidekicks.
> I know the threw line for Jason's return. A Red-Herring in Hush was
> so popular that they made it for-real. Not related to this story, so
> not really a point for saying one ripped off the other, unless it can
> be suggested that Marvel ripped the whole idea off DC in advance.
>
> "Both 'died'"
> The implication here is that they didn't actually die... (Not sure
> with Cap, again). But this is comics, so not a coincidence, more SOP.
Big difference: Jason was dead to begin with. Dead-dead. In a coffin. For
months. He was accidentally brought back to life by something completely
extrinsic to his story.
Bucky wasn't dead. Never was. Big diff.
> Replaced by Sidekicks.
> If they have a sidekick in place it's probably a 50-50 thing for the
> sidekick to step up. It's not always the case, certainly, but hardly
> unlike enough to make it an issue.
> Another question... was the sidekick the one brought back from the
> dead in Cap's case... if so that explains the return and illustrates a
> major difference.
Bucky wasn't "brought back from the dead". He once was lost but now he's
found. (Don't wanna be too spoilery if ya haven't read Bucky's return
saga. It's really damned good and the twists and turns shouldn't be
telegraphed going in.)
Again, major difference.
> Lost in Time.
> This is a pretty big one... but I don't know Cap. Someone suggested
> it was a reference or parody of Batman... so not a coincidence and
> while "copying" not a rip-off... then again I need clarification.
The Cap story was explicitly referencing Kurt Vonnegut, employing the
very specific phrase "unstuck in time". Cap relived many, many points
along his own timeline but did not see anything outside of it. (It's
suggested he even sees some of his own future.)
At nearly the same time, Grant Morrison referenced John Byrne in FINAL
CRISIS (via Morrison's previous SEVEN SOLDIERS) in having Batman
condemned to live multiple allegedly-wretched lives throughout history.
It's said that if he ever does cross his own timeline, something horrible
will occur.
So, no, not very similar, aside from being believed dead and (very
different) forms of time travel being involved.
> Return as Mentor.
> We don't know that Batman will. It's an assumption based on the most
> obvious course of action... which if it does happen is covered by
> "it's obvious" so not copying more coincidence.
>
> So, no, I don't see ripping off...
Not to mention that Cap is neither Cap nor anyone's mentor upon his
return. He goes out of his way not to have any day-to-day involvement
with Bucky after his return, charging his buddy Sam and the person who
forced Nick Fury out of S.H.I.E.L.D. with that task.
We don't know what will happen at the end of THE RETURN OF BRUCE WAYNE,
but I'm willing to bet money Bats =won't= hang up the cowl and be put in
charge of Checkmate, with Jeff Pierce and Sasha Bordeaux being sent to
babysit Dick in the JLA.
So... no, I'm not foreseeing too much deja vu either.
--
------------------- ------------------------------------------------
|| E-mail: ykw2006 ||"The mystery of government is not how Washington||
|| -at-gmail-dot-com ||works but how to make it stop." -- P.J. O'Rourke||
|| ----------- || ------------------------------------ ||
||Replace "-at-" with|| Keeping Usenet Trouble-Free ||
|| "@" to respond. || Since 1998 ||
------------------- ------------------------------------------------
"It's not that I want to punish your success. [...]I think
when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."
-- The One, 14 Oct 08
YKW
news:ral236t02kru90d4c...@4ax.com:
> It's not as much a difference as you might think...Batman has many
> sidekicks over the years and Dick is the only one with a chance of
> being truly accepted as a replacement...Cap has only ever really had
> ONE sidekick so there really weren't any other options there.
Rick Jones, Sam Wilson and Jack Monroe wanna have a word with you...
Lilith
>
>The Cap story was explicitly referencing Kurt Vonnegut, employing the
>very specific phrase "unstuck in time". Cap relived many, many points
>along his own timeline but did not see anything outside of it. (It's
>suggested he even sees some of his own future.)
And hence, perhaps, his decision to let Bucky continue in the role if
something in his future deemed it prudent.
--
Lilith
Duggy
> On Sun, 4 Jul 2010 19:59:14 -0700 (PDT),Duggy
> >As coincidences go there are far less here than there were in the West
> >Wing predicting the real election...
> This is true...but when you have major events involving these
> characters occuring in sequence right around the same time and they
> seem to be mirroring each other, I'd argue it has to be more than
> coincidence...if it were only 1 or 2 things, it might be a different
> story.
Yeah, but the West Wing example has 8 or 9 things.
> >Now, Dead Sidekicks.
> >I know the threw line for Jason's return. A Red-Herring in Hush was
> >so popular that they made it for-real. Not related to this story, so
> >not really a point for saying one ripped off the other, unless it can
> >be suggested that Marvel ripped the whole idea off DC in advance.
> This one may have been coincidence since it was the start of the
> sequence...it's hard to say...but Jason returned as a borderline
> villain and, right around the same time, Bucky returned as a
> brainwashed assassin.
That is quiet a coincidence. Certainly "hard to say" these things
always are. A lot of it is guesswork by both of us.
> >"Both 'died'"
> >The implication here is that they didn't actually die... (Not sure
> >with Cap, again). But this is comics, so not a coincidence, more SOP.
> Well, Cap actually did seem to die...they didn't immediately reveal he
> was alive as they did with Batman...but Marvel got a lot of mainstream
> media attention when they killed off Cap and the aftermath was
> certainly a critical and commercial success so I'm betting this
> factored into Didio's decision to off Batman.
His decision to allow Morrison to write RIP or his decision to make
him kill off Batman in Final Crisis? The first... maybe, the second,
I think he felt (possibly correctly) that calling something Batman RIP
and not killing Batman would have a publicity backlash... not that
anything was executed properly...
> >Replaced by Sidekicks.
> >If they have a sidekick in place it's probably a 50-50 thing for the
> >sidekick to step up. It's not always the case, certainly, but hardly
> >unlike enough to make it an issue.
> >Another question... was the sidekick the one brought back from the
> >dead in Cap's case... if so that explains the return and illustrates a
> >major difference.
> It's not as much a difference as you might think...Batman has many
> sidekicks over the years and Dick is the only one with a chance of
> being truly accepted as a replacement...Cap has only ever really had
> ONE sidekick so there really weren't any other options there.
So with Batman he was replaced by the natural replacement and with
Captain America it was the only option.
Seems logical and non-coincidental at all.
> And, as I said above, it's not really any one thing here...it's the
> sequence of events and that these things are happening more or less
> simultaneously.
And each one makes sense as a independant decision.
> >Lost in Time.
> >This is a pretty big one... but I don't know Cap. Someone suggested
> >it was a reference or parody of Batman... so not a coincidence and
> >while "copying" not a rip-off... then again I need clarification.
> I don't see how it could be claimed as an intentional reference or
> parody of Batman...and, as I said in an earlier post, it's actually
> hard to say who had the "lost in time" idea first...DC revealed it
> first but Cap's resurrection was supposedly planned from the start and
> was actually supposed to happen much sooner so who knows?
Ah, so Captain America's time travel was planned and not revealed and
Batman was executed first...
So clearly not copying but merely coincidence.
> The major difference is that Cap was actually bouncing around time
> reliving moments from his own life while Batman was truly lost in the
> past...but it's still rather similar and, once again, the timing is
> suspect.
You just made clear that the time isn't suspect at all.
> >Return as Mentor.
> >We don't know that Batman will. It's an assumption based on the most
> >obvious course of action... which if it does happen is covered by
> >"it's obvious" so not copying more coincidence.
> How is it obvious? The traditional way this plays out is the
> character immediately resumes their normal role after the big
> resurrection...not that they fade into the background as mentor to
> their replacement...this is abnormal...it's true we don't know this
> will happen with Batman but I suspect it will...we should find out
> soon enough.
If it's not the obvious course of action why are we assuming that it
will happen?
> >So, no, I don't see ripping off...
> Then we'll just have to agree to disagree.
No. You will agree with me or stop posting to usenet.
> My opinion here isn't just coming from these events...I'm well versed
> in both characters and it's just a general sense I've gotten from the
> last few years of stories...there are other smaller elements of
> similarity as well that fans of both characters would recognize.
They are very similar characters, of course similar things are going
to happen.
===
= DUG.
===
grinningdemon
>Duggy <Paul....@jcu.edu.au> wrote in news:df34cd06-7807-4578-a1cb-
>f32d17...@y32g2000prc.googlegroups.com:
>
>> I'm certainly not an expert of Cap, so I'll need clarification on some
>> of this:
>>
>> Firstly, picking items to compare is always dangerous/easy/misleading.
>> As coincidences go there are far less here than there were in the West
>> Wing predicting the real election...
>>
>> Now, Dead Sidekicks.
>> I know the threw line for Jason's return. A Red-Herring in Hush was
>> so popular that they made it for-real. Not related to this story, so
>> not really a point for saying one ripped off the other, unless it can
>> be suggested that Marvel ripped the whole idea off DC in advance.
>>
>> "Both 'died'"
>> The implication here is that they didn't actually die... (Not sure
>> with Cap, again). But this is comics, so not a coincidence, more SOP.
>
>Big difference: Jason was dead to begin with. Dead-dead. In a coffin. For
>months. He was accidentally brought back to life by something completely
>extrinsic to his story.
>
>Bucky wasn't dead. Never was. Big diff.
Wrong...they were both dead until they retconned back to life...at
roughly the same time...and both came back more or less as villains.
>> Replaced by Sidekicks.
>> If they have a sidekick in place it's probably a 50-50 thing for the
>> sidekick to step up. It's not always the case, certainly, but hardly
>> unlike enough to make it an issue.
>> Another question... was the sidekick the one brought back from the
>> dead in Cap's case... if so that explains the return and illustrates a
>> major difference.
>
>Bucky wasn't "brought back from the dead". He once was lost but now he's
>found. (Don't wanna be too spoilery if ya haven't read Bucky's return
>saga. It's really damned good and the twists and turns shouldn't be
>telegraphed going in.)
>
>Again, major difference.
Again, not so much.
>> Lost in Time.
>> This is a pretty big one... but I don't know Cap. Someone suggested
>> it was a reference or parody of Batman... so not a coincidence and
>> while "copying" not a rip-off... then again I need clarification.
>
>The Cap story was explicitly referencing Kurt Vonnegut, employing the
>very specific phrase "unstuck in time". Cap relived many, many points
>along his own timeline but did not see anything outside of it. (It's
>suggested he even sees some of his own future.)
>
>At nearly the same time, Grant Morrison referenced John Byrne in FINAL
>CRISIS (via Morrison's previous SEVEN SOLDIERS) in having Batman
>condemned to live multiple allegedly-wretched lives throughout history.
>It's said that if he ever does cross his own timeline, something horrible
>will occur.
>
>So, no, not very similar, aside from being believed dead and (very
>different) forms of time travel being involved.
Given that those are the two biggest components of the stories in
question, I'd say that's a pretty big similarity...and you honestly
think that's just coincidental given the timing?
>> Return as Mentor.
>> We don't know that Batman will. It's an assumption based on the most
>> obvious course of action... which if it does happen is covered by
>> "it's obvious" so not copying more coincidence.
>>
>> So, no, I don't see ripping off...
>
>Not to mention that Cap is neither Cap nor anyone's mentor upon his
>return. He goes out of his way not to have any day-to-day involvement
>with Bucky after his return, charging his buddy Sam and the person who
>forced Nick Fury out of S.H.I.E.L.D. with that task.
I never said Batman would be a mentor...Duggy did...I merely said that
I don't believe Bruce will be Batman again for the time being...just
like Cap.
That said, in a way, Cap is currently mentor to the whole damn Marvel
Universe.
>We don't know what will happen at the end of THE RETURN OF BRUCE WAYNE,
>but I'm willing to bet money Bats =won't= hang up the cowl and be put in
>charge of Checkmate, with Jeff Pierce and Sasha Bordeaux being sent to
>babysit Dick in the JLA.
We don't know...I freely admitted that...I'm just making a prediction
and we'll see how it turns out.
grinningdemon
>grinningdemon <grinni...@austin.rr.com> wrote in
>news:ral236t02kru90d4c...@4ax.com:
>
>> It's not as much a difference as you might think...Batman has many
>> sidekicks over the years and Dick is the only one with a chance of
>> being truly accepted as a replacement...Cap has only ever really had
>> ONE sidekick so there really weren't any other options there.
>
>Rick Jones, Sam Wilson and Jack Monroe wanna have a word with you...
Rick Jones has always been far more heavily associated with the Hulk
than he ever was with Cap...Sam Wilson was a partner, not a
sidekick...and Jack Monroe never worked side by side with Cap
consistently for any length of time...now, Jack WAS sidekick to evil,
50s Cap...but that's a different story.
grinningdemon
<Paul....@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
>On Jul 5, 2:06 pm, grinningdemon <grinningde...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 4 Jul 2010 19:59:14 -0700 (PDT),Duggy
>> >Firstly, picking items to compare is always dangerous/easy/misleading.
>> >As coincidences go there are far less here than there were in the West
>> >Wing predicting the real election...
>> This is true...but when you have major events involving these
>> characters occuring in sequence right around the same time and they
>> seem to be mirroring each other, I'd argue it has to be more than
>> coincidence...if it were only 1 or 2 things, it might be a different
>> story.
>
>Yeah, but the West Wing example has 8 or 9 things.
And I should care why? Strange coincidences do happen...but these
things were happening almost as an answer to each other...it's not the
same.
>> >Now, Dead Sidekicks.
>> >I know the threw line for Jason's return. A Red-Herring in Hush was
>> >so popular that they made it for-real. Not related to this story, so
>> >not really a point for saying one ripped off the other, unless it can
>> >be suggested that Marvel ripped the whole idea off DC in advance.
>
>> This one may have been coincidence since it was the start of the
>> sequence...it's hard to say...but Jason returned as a borderline
>> villain and, right around the same time, Bucky returned as a
>> brainwashed assassin.
>
>That is quiet a coincidence. Certainly "hard to say" these things
>always are. A lot of it is guesswork by both of us.
>
>> >"Both 'died'"
>> >The implication here is that they didn't actually die... (Not sure
>> >with Cap, again). But this is comics, so not a coincidence, more SOP.
>> Well, Cap actually did seem to die...they didn't immediately reveal he
>> was alive as they did with Batman...but Marvel got a lot of mainstream
>> media attention when they killed off Cap and the aftermath was
>> certainly a critical and commercial success so I'm betting this
>> factored into Didio's decision to off Batman.
>
>His decision to allow Morrison to write RIP or his decision to make
>him kill off Batman in Final Crisis? The first... maybe, the second,
>I think he felt (possibly correctly) that calling something Batman RIP
>and not killing Batman would have a publicity backlash... not that
>anything was executed properly...
Marvel's success with Cap's death and replacement HAD to have factored
into the decision to do the same with Batman...there's no way in hell
that they weren't paying attention to the successes of their chief
competitors.
>> >Replaced by Sidekicks.
>> >If they have a sidekick in place it's probably a 50-50 thing for the
>> >sidekick to step up. It's not always the case, certainly, but hardly
>> >unlike enough to make it an issue.
>> >Another question... was the sidekick the one brought back from the
>> >dead in Cap's case... if so that explains the return and illustrates a
>> >major difference.
>
>> It's not as much a difference as you might think...Batman has many
>> sidekicks over the years and Dick is the only one with a chance of
>> being truly accepted as a replacement...Cap has only ever really had
>> ONE sidekick so there really weren't any other options there.
>
>So with Batman he was replaced by the natural replacement and with
>Captain America it was the only option.
>
>Seems logical and non-coincidental at all.
Only if you make the leap to say that they have to be replaced at
all...and only after having made the decision to kill off two such
major characters.
>> And, as I said above, it's not really any one thing here...it's the
>> sequence of events and that these things are happening more or less
>> simultaneously.
>
>And each one makes sense as a independant decision.
Perhaps, but these decisions were not made totally independent of one
another...they couldn't have been because they are far too high
profile.
>> >Lost in Time.
>> >This is a pretty big one... but I don't know Cap. Someone suggested
>> >it was a reference or parody of Batman... so not a coincidence and
>> >while "copying" not a rip-off... then again I need clarification.
>> I don't see how it could be claimed as an intentional reference or
>> parody of Batman...and, as I said in an earlier post, it's actually
>> hard to say who had the "lost in time" idea first...DC revealed it
>> first but Cap's resurrection was supposedly planned from the start and
>> was actually supposed to happen much sooner so who knows?
>
>Ah, so Captain America's time travel was planned and not revealed and
>Batman was executed first...
>
>So clearly not copying but merely coincidence.
We don't know that his time travel was planned...only that his
resurrection was planned...we also don't know that it wasn't already
planned but DC somehow found out about it (because I'm sure these guys
NEVER talk to each other)...I just think it all adds up to more than
"merely coincidence"...you seem to think these guys make their
creative decisions off in a bubble somewhere where they are totally
unaware of what the other guy is doing...and I think that is
ridiculous.
>> The major difference is that Cap was actually bouncing around time
>> reliving moments from his own life while Batman was truly lost in the
>> past...but it's still rather similar and, once again, the timing is
>> suspect.
>
>You just made clear that the time isn't suspect at all.
Whatever, man.
>> >Return as Mentor.
>> >We don't know that Batman will. It's an assumption based on the most
>> >obvious course of action... which if it does happen is covered by
>> >"it's obvious" so not copying more coincidence.
>> How is it obvious? The traditional way this plays out is the
>> character immediately resumes their normal role after the big
>> resurrection...not that they fade into the background as mentor to
>> their replacement...this is abnormal...it's true we don't know this
>> will happen with Batman but I suspect it will...we should find out
>> soon enough.
>
>If it's not the obvious course of action why are we assuming that it
>will happen?
I'm not...you are...I am predicting that Bruce will not resume being
Batman right away...YOU added the whole mentor bit...but it only
becomes obvious if they are indeed ripping off Marvel so I guess you
just made my point for me...thanks.
>> >So, no, I don't see ripping off...
>> Then we'll just have to agree to disagree.
>
>No. You will agree with me or stop posting to usenet.
Nice try.
>> My opinion here isn't just coming from these events...I'm well versed
>> in both characters and it's just a general sense I've gotten from the
>> last few years of stories...there are other smaller elements of
>> similarity as well that fans of both characters would recognize.
>
>They are very similar characters, of course similar things are going
>to happen.
They aren't THAT similar...but I'll grant you that, being super
heroes, similar things will happen...but this many in roughly the same
sequence at roughly the same time is a bit much to take.
Michael
True.
Michael
Michael
Around the time of Countdown (?) Jason was moved to the "hero with a
serious edge" pack, even with his still-recent appearances in Teen
Titans (having beaten Tim while wearing a GAWD AWFUL Adult Robin suit)
and Nightwing. If they kept with that they might've been able to keep
him "redeemable" enough (at least to themselves) to be the guy in the
Batsuit under the close personal supervision and leash holding of a
retired to the background Bruce.
I wouldn't have agreed with it based on the ham-handed way things were
being handled.
Michael
Michael
FWIW, didn't Morrison say that FC was plotted out something like a year
before FC#1 hit the stands? I'd think major plot points would include
"Batman gets sent back to the stone age".
Might that have come before Brubaker's plot to send SR boppin' around in
time?
Michael
Michael
> Duggy <Paul....@jcu.edu.au> wrote in news:df34cd06-7807-4578-a1cb-
> f32d17...@y32g2000prc.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>>I'm certainly not an expert of Cap, so I'll need clarification on some
>>of this:
>>
>>Firstly, picking items to compare is always dangerous/easy/misleading.
>>As coincidences go there are far less here than there were in the West
>>Wing predicting the real election...
>>
>>Now, Dead Sidekicks.
>>I know the threw line for Jason's return. A Red-Herring in Hush was
>>so popular that they made it for-real. Not related to this story, so
>>not really a point for saying one ripped off the other, unless it can
>>be suggested that Marvel ripped the whole idea off DC in advance.
>>
>>"Both 'died'"
>>The implication here is that they didn't actually die... (Not sure
>>with Cap, again). But this is comics, so not a coincidence, more SOP.
>
>
> Big difference: Jason was dead to begin with. Dead-dead. In a coffin. For
> months. He was accidentally brought back to life by something completely
> extrinsic to his story.
>
> Bucky wasn't dead. Never was. Big diff.
I always saw Jason's return being due to reaction to what we later found
out was Clayface in "Hush". Other Batwriters saw the reaction, ran with
it, and it still hasn't fully developed from its haphazard
non-Superboy-reality-punch origins.
Michael
Duggy
> Big difference: Jason was dead to begin with. Dead-dead. In a coffin. For
> months. He was accidentally brought back to life by something completely
> extrinsic to his story.
I know. It was crap.
> So... no, I'm not foreseeing too much deja vu either.
Cool.
===
= DUG.
===
Michael
> On Mon, 05 Jul 2010 06:08:05 GMT, YKW <Y...@YKW.YKW> wrote:
>
>
>>Duggy <Paul....@jcu.edu.au> wrote in news:df34cd06-7807-4578-a1cb-
>>f32d17...@y32g2000prc.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>
>>>I'm certainly not an expert of Cap, so I'll need clarification on some
>>>of this:
>>>
>>>Firstly, picking items to compare is always dangerous/easy/misleading.
>>>As coincidences go there are far less here than there were in the West
>>>Wing predicting the real election...
>>>
>>>Now, Dead Sidekicks.
>>>I know the threw line for Jason's return. A Red-Herring in Hush was
>>>so popular that they made it for-real. Not related to this story, so
>>>not really a point for saying one ripped off the other, unless it can
>>>be suggested that Marvel ripped the whole idea off DC in advance.
>>>
>>>"Both 'died'"
>>>The implication here is that they didn't actually die... (Not sure
>>>with Cap, again). But this is comics, so not a coincidence, more SOP.
>>
>>Big difference: Jason was dead to begin with. Dead-dead. In a coffin. For
>>months. He was accidentally brought back to life by something completely
>>extrinsic to his story.
>>
>>Bucky wasn't dead. Never was. Big diff.
>
>
> Wrong...they were both dead until they retconned back to life...at
> roughly the same time...and both came back more or less as villains.
I'd say there's one big difference:
- Bucky's being retconned into never having been dead was a storline
that was well-received and well-reviewed.
- Jason's return has been series of haphazard seat-of-their-@$$es
retcons that are trying to replace (and fill in the holes from) a
Superboy-reality punch that all came from "Jason's" apperance in "Hush",
fan reaction to it, and the Batwriters saying "wouldn't it be COOL if
Jason REALLY DID come back!" without really thinking it through (though
I'd think Talia dumping his remains in a lazarus pit to replace the son
(Damian) she'd lost to Bruce makes a better story and requires no BS
aout where Jason's been all this time).
The various Avengers teams at least.
>>We don't know what will happen at the end of THE RETURN OF BRUCE WAYNE,
>>but I'm willing to bet money Bats =won't= hang up the cowl and be put in
>>charge of Checkmate, with Jeff Pierce and Sasha Bordeaux being sent to
>>babysit Dick in the JLA.
>
>
> We don't know...I freely admitted that...I'm just making a prediction
> and we'll see how it turns out.
>
>
>>So... no, I'm not foreseeing too much deja vu either.
Michael
grinningdemon
wrote:
Actually, Batman wasn't originally slated to "die" so, presumably, his
getting sent back in time was an afterthought when Didio got all
excited about the Batman RIP title...meaning, even if FC was plotted
out so far in advance (and, if it was, that makes the clusterfuck that
saw print all the more laughable), the Batman part was probably added
later.
Duggy
> Wrong...they were both dead until they retconned back to life...at
> roughly the same time...and both came back more or less as villains.
You're talking meta-textually, he's talking in story,
However, while your broad brushstrokes show the similarities it's the
details that reveal the big differences.
> Given that those are the two biggest components of the stories in
> question, I'd say that's a pretty big similarity...and you honestly
> think that's just coincidental given the timing?
The "death" is the biggest component and one was handled as a real
death and the other wasn't. Big difference.
> I never said Batman would be a mentor...Duggydid...I merely said that
> I don't believe Bruce will be Batman again for the time being...just
> like Cap.
Well, we'll see what happens. At the moment you have 3 coincidences
(much more than the 1 or 2 you claim that would just be coincidence.
> That said, in a way, Cap is currently mentor to the whole damn Marvel
> Universe.
For this sort of argument that is stretching the definition too far.
===
= DUG.
===
Duggy
> On Mon, 5 Jul 2010 15:05:17 -0700 (PDT),Duggy
> And I should care why? Strange coincidences do happen...
Exactly. Thanks for conceeding my point.
> Marvel's success with Cap's death and replacement HAD to have factored
> into the decision to do the same with Batman...
Because there's no other precedent ever for a sales bump with a death
and replacement arc. Never ever. Not at DC, not at Marvel, Ever.
I would think that the conincidence could be explained by DC ignoring
the Capt thing. After all, Batman death directly after a Capt death
is a much weaker event.
> there's no way in hell that they weren't paying attention to the successes of their chief competitors.
Yes, but they may have seen the coincidence and decided to do it
anyway, or they may have already been commited to the storyline.
> >So with Batman he was replaced by the natural replacement and with
> >Captain America it was the only option.
> >Seems logical and non-coincidental at all.
> Only if you make the leap to say that they have to be replaced at all...
Because DC really wants to cancel Batman & Detective Comics after
arranging something that would cause a sales bump.
Of course there's going to be a replacement. There's only not a
replacement if it's a minor character who isn't selling well... and
there's often a replacement then too.
Do you honestly think that DC would kill off Batman and not replace
him?
> and only after having made the decision to kill off two such
> major characters.
Happens.
> Perhaps, but these decisions were not made totally independent of one
> another...they couldn't have been because they are far too high
> profile.
When were these decisions made? One year, two years before they were
executed? When did Morrison start on Batman? He was hinting about
RIP back then...
> >Ah, so Captain America's time travel was planned and not revealed and
> >Batman was executed first...
> >So clearly not copying but merely coincidence.
> We don't know that his time travel was planned...only that his
> resurrection was planned...
So your claim is that DC saw the success of the death of Captain
America and so "killed" Batman by sending him back in time and seeing
that Marvel copied by making Capt's death a different kind of time
travel...
Riight.
> I just think it all adds up to more than "merely coincidence"...
Have you ever written books and blogged about your conspiracy
theories? Do random vague coincidences add up to man not walking on
the moon in your universe?
> you seem to think these guys make their
> creative decisions off in a bubble somewhere where they are totally
> unaware of what the other guy is doing...and I think that is
> ridiculous.
I've already discussed whether Brubaker & Morrison talk.
Sure DC & Marvel would know before we do what the other is doing, but
that doesn't mean that they're going to copy each other - it can also
mean that they'll stop stories out of fear of copying.
We also don't know how far ahead these things are planned.
And sometimes there is a common inspiration for things that neither
company is aware off.
But coincidence is not proof of plagarism.
> >If it's not the obvious course of action why are we assuming that it
> >will happen?
> I'm not...you are...I am predicting that Bruce will not resume being
> Batman right away...YOU added the whole mentor bit...but it only
> becomes obvious if they are indeed ripping off Marvel so I guess you
> just made my point for me...thanks.
Ah, so if Bruce become a mentor then DC isn't ripping off Marvel.
Good.
> >> >So, no, I don't see ripping off...
> >> Then we'll just have to agree to disagree.
> >No. You will agree with me or stop posting to usenet.
> Nice try.
I know. I tried, but I realised as I typed it that it wouldn't make
you laugh.
> >They are very similar characters, of course similar things are going
> >to happen.
> They aren't THAT similar...but I'll grant you that, being super
> heroes, similar things will happen...but this many in roughly the same
> sequence at roughly the same time is a bit much to take.
Icons originating in the same era with vaguely "ultimate human" levels
of power, a throwing weapon and a sidekick.
Not Capt-with-Bat-ears or Batman-with-a-Shield, sure, but closer than
Batman is to The Hulk or Captain America to Green Lantern.
===
= DUG.
===
Duggy
> FWIW, didn't Morrison say that FC was plotted out something like a year
> before FC#1 hit the stands? I'd think major plot points would include
> "Batman gets sent back to the stone age".
Clearly Morrison had to make some last minute changes to FC.
Countdown made him claim that outright.
It depends when Dido made his suggestion that RIP become literal.
> Might that have come before Brubaker's plot to send SR boppin' around in
> time?
It's hard to say without being behind the scenes and know the lead in
times for some of these ideas.
===
= DUG.
===
Duggy
> I always saw Jason's return being due to reaction to what we later found
> out was Clayface in "Hush". Other Batwriters saw the reaction, ran with
> it, and it still hasn't fully developed from its haphazard non-Superboy-reality-punch origins.
Agreed.
===
= DUG.
===
Michael
> On Jul 5, 4:08 pm, YKW <Y...@YKW.YKW> wrote:
>
>>Big difference: Jason was dead to begin with. Dead-dead. In a coffin. For
>>months. He was accidentally brought back to life by something completely
>>extrinsic to his story.
>
>
> I know. It was crap.
Except that's been retconned into Jason being only "mostly dead", a'la
The Princess Bride, and no one knew up until he made his way out of the
ground.
Michael
Michael
> On Jul 6, 10:16 am, Michael <thissp...@for.rent> wrote:
>
>>FWIW, didn't Morrison say that FC was plotted out something like a year
>>before FC#1 hit the stands? I'd think major plot points would include
>>"Batman gets sent back to the stone age".
>
>
> Clearly Morrison had to make some last minute changes to FC.
> Countdown made him claim that outright.
If you believe Morrison's story about FC's plotting, then that would be
DC's inability to coherently lead up to it (twice in the case of killing
of the New Gods).
> It depends when Dido made his suggestion that RIP become literal.
I thought it only stayed literal for the RIP collection. For readers he
never was dead. Just for most of the DCU (except Tim and Bruce I think).
>>Might that have come before Brubaker's plot to send SR boppin' around in
>>time?
>
>
> It's hard to say without being behind the scenes and know the lead in
> times for some of these ideas.
True. I was just thinking out loud.
Michael
YKW
@newsfe18.iad:
>> Wrong...they were both dead until they retconned back to life...at
>> roughly the same time...and both came back more or less as villains.
>
> I'd say there's one big difference:
>
> - Bucky's being retconned into never having been dead was a storline
> that was well-received and well-reviewed.
>
> - Jason's return has been series of haphazard seat-of-their-@$$es
> retcons that are trying to replace (and fill in the holes from) a
> Superboy-reality punch that all came from "Jason's" apperance in
> "Hush", fan reaction to it, and the Batwriters saying "wouldn't it be
> COOL if Jason REALLY DID come back!" without really thinking it
> through (though I'd think Talia dumping his remains in a lazarus pit
> to replace the son (Damian) she'd lost to Bruce makes a better story
> and requires no BS aout where Jason's been all this time).
>
Second big difference: Bucky's non-death is no retcon. We never saw the
body. All we saw was the fall. A true retcon involves changing something
that we all saw and knew as truth; Bucky's return only told an untold
tale that fit just fine with what we already saw and knew. The only
change was a presumption, not a fact.
grinningdemon
>Michael <this...@for.rent> wrote in news:RSuYn.11671$YX3.10517
>@newsfe18.iad:
>
>>> Wrong...they were both dead until they retconned back to life...at
>>> roughly the same time...and both came back more or less as villains.
>>
>> I'd say there's one big difference:
>>
>> - Bucky's being retconned into never having been dead was a storline
>> that was well-received and well-reviewed.
>>
>> - Jason's return has been series of haphazard seat-of-their-@$$es
>> retcons that are trying to replace (and fill in the holes from) a
>> Superboy-reality punch that all came from "Jason's" apperance in
>> "Hush", fan reaction to it, and the Batwriters saying "wouldn't it be
>> COOL if Jason REALLY DID come back!" without really thinking it
>> through (though I'd think Talia dumping his remains in a lazarus pit
>> to replace the son (Damian) she'd lost to Bruce makes a better story
>> and requires no BS aout where Jason's been all this time).
>>
>
>Second big difference: Bucky's non-death is no retcon. We never saw the
>body. All we saw was the fall. A true retcon involves changing something
>that we all saw and knew as truth; Bucky's return only told an untold
>tale that fit just fine with what we already saw and knew. The only
>change was a presumption, not a fact.
He was clearly intended to be dead...or he would have been brought
back long before now.
grinningdemon
<Paul....@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
>On Jul 6, 8:39 am, grinningdemon <grinningde...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
>> Wrong...they were both dead until they retconned back to life...at
>> roughly the same time...and both came back more or less as villains.
>
>You're talking meta-textually, he's talking in story,
I'm aware of that, thank you.
>However, while your broad brushstrokes show the similarities it's the
>details that reveal the big differences.
Of course the details are different, but several broad brushstrokes
add up to more than coincidence, in my opinion.
>> Given that those are the two biggest components of the stories in
>> question, I'd say that's a pretty big similarity...and you honestly
>> think that's just coincidental given the timing?
>
>The "death" is the biggest component and one was handled as a real
>death and the other wasn't. Big difference.
Actually, Batman's was handled as a real death too with a body and
every thing (a distinction we've argued over before)...they just only
waited a single issue to reveal he was still alive...but is there
anyone out there who genuinely believed either one of them would stay
dead?
>> I never said Batman would be a mentor...Duggydid...I merely said that
>> I don't believe Bruce will be Batman again for the time being...just
>> like Cap.
>
>Well, we'll see what happens. At the moment you have 3 coincidences
>(much more than the 1 or 2 you claim that would just be coincidence.
Dead sidekick returns, death, replacement by sidekick, resurrection
through time travel...that makes 4 major coincidences...if my
prediction hold true, it will be 5.
>> That said, in a way, Cap is currently mentor to the whole damn Marvel
>> Universe.
>
>For this sort of argument that is stretching the definition too far.
No question...but again, I never said Batman was going to take on the
mentor role...you did.
Michael
> Michael <this...@for.rent> wrote in news:RSuYn.11671$YX3.10517
> @newsfe18.iad:
>
>
>>>Wrong...they were both dead until they retconned back to life...at
>>>roughly the same time...and both came back more or less as villains.
>>
>>I'd say there's one big difference:
>>
>>- Bucky's being retconned into never having been dead was a storline
>>that was well-received and well-reviewed.
>>
>>- Jason's return has been series of haphazard seat-of-their-@$$es
>>retcons that are trying to replace (and fill in the holes from) a
>>Superboy-reality punch that all came from "Jason's" apperance in
>>"Hush", fan reaction to it, and the Batwriters saying "wouldn't it be
>>COOL if Jason REALLY DID come back!" without really thinking it
>>through (though I'd think Talia dumping his remains in a lazarus pit
>>to replace the son (Damian) she'd lost to Bruce makes a better story
>>and requires no BS aout where Jason's been all this time).
>>
>
>
> Second big difference: Bucky's non-death is no retcon. We never saw the
> body. All we saw was the fall. A true retcon involves changing something
> that we all saw and knew as truth; Bucky's return only told an untold
> tale that fit just fine with what we already saw and knew. The only
> change was a presumption, not a fact.
Did we see a fall? IIRC, Cap fell while Bucky was on board whe then
thing blew up.
Michael
Michael
I agree that the intent for all these years is/was that Bucky died in
the explosion that sent Captain America into the frigid waters where he
was frozen and so on and so forth.
BUT!
YKW has a really good point that there was never a body of the dead
Buckster.
And in comics (as well as other media) just because they dead and you
see a body ain't no reason they won't come back. And it's easier if
there never was a body.
Michael
grinningdemon
<Paul....@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
>On Jul 6, 8:53�am, grinningdemon <grinningde...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 5 Jul 2010 15:05:17 -0700 (PDT),Duggy
>> >Yeah, but the West Wing example has 8 or 9 things.
>> And I should care why? �Strange coincidences do happen...
>
>Exactly. Thanks for conceeding my point.
I never said there were no coincidences.
>> Marvel's success with Cap's death and replacement HAD to have factored
>> into the decision to do the same with Batman...
>
>Because there's no other precedent ever for a sales bump with a death
>and replacement arc. Never ever. Not at DC, not at Marvel, Ever.
If it were only those 2 things, I'd dismiss it as coincidence
too...but add in the return of the dead sidekick and resurrection
through time travel and it beomces a little harder to dismiss.
>I would think that the conincidence could be explained by DC ignoring
>the Capt thing. After all, Batman death directly after a Capt death
>is a much weaker event.
It was a weaker story too...but just because the execution was
lackluster doesn't mean they weren't linked.
>> there's no way in hell that they weren't paying attention to the successes of their chief competitors.
>
>Yes, but they may have seen the coincidence and decided to do it
>anyway, or they may have already been commited to the storyline.
We already know Batman's death was tacked on after the fact so I don't
think it was some grand plan they worked up to for years.
>> >So with Batman he was replaced by the natural replacement and with
>> >Captain America it was the only option.
>
>> >Seems logical and non-coincidental at all.
>
>> Only if you make the leap to say that they have to be replaced at all...
>
>Because DC really wants to cancel Batman & Detective Comics after
>arranging something that would cause a sales bump.
Because they've never made seemingly illogical plot decisions before?
>Of course there's going to be a replacement. There's only not a
>replacement if it's a minor character who isn't selling well... and
>there's often a replacement then too.
True...but that doesn't mean it always has to happen...just makes it
likely.
>Do you honestly think that DC would kill off Batman and not replace
>him?
Of course I don't, the death and replacement were certainly planned
together if for no other reason than they made an event out of the
replacement rather than the death...something they didn't do with
Cap...and I actually think that was probably because of the Cap story
too...they were likely trying to intentionally distance the Batman
story from the Cap story as the death of a major character is
typically a much bigger deal...but that doesn't mean one didn't inform
the other.
>> and only after having made the decision to kill off two such
>> major characters.
>
>Happens.
It does...and, again, if that was all it was, I would have dismissed
it as coincidence as well.
>> Perhaps, but these decisions were not made totally independent of one
>> another...they couldn't have been because they are far too high
>> profile.
>
>When were these decisions made? One year, two years before they were
>executed? When did Morrison start on Batman? He was hinting about
>RIP back then...
But we know Batman wasn't slated to die originally...and, as I've
said, I'm not sure who had which idea first...I just think the ideas
were more than coincidence.
>> >Ah, so Captain America's time travel was planned and not revealed and
>> >Batman was executed first...
>
>> >So clearly not copying but merely coincidence.
>
>> We don't know that his time travel was planned...only that his
>> resurrection was planned...
>
>So your claim is that DC saw the success of the death of Captain
>America and so "killed" Batman by sending him back in time and seeing
>that Marvel copied by making Capt's death a different kind of time
>travel...
>
>Riight.
I actually think Marvel and DC are going back and forth copying each
other with these things...I don't think it's all one sided on DC's
part...but, without knowing the genesis of each story and how long it
was in the works, it's impossible to know which side came up with
which idea first.
>> I just think it all adds up to more than "merely coincidence"...
>
>Have you ever written books and blogged about your conspiracy
>theories? Do random vague coincidences add up to man not walking on
>the moon in your universe?
These are more than vague coincidences...and surely you'll admit that
Marvel and DC often swipe successful ideas from each other...I
honestly believe you're partly arguing for the sake of arguing...if
you were as familar with Cap as you are with Batman, I suspect you
would even agree with me on this.
>> you seem to think these guys make their
>> creative decisions off in a bubble somewhere where they are totally
>> unaware of what the other guy is doing...and I think that is
>> ridiculous.
>
>I've already discussed whether Brubaker & Morrison talk.
>Sure DC & Marvel would know before we do what the other is doing, but
>that doesn't mean that they're going to copy each other - it can also
>mean that they'll stop stories out of fear of copying.
Can you think of an example of that? I can't...and we hear about many
aborted story ideas...I don't think they usually worry about copying.
>We also don't know how far ahead these things are planned.
>And sometimes there is a common inspiration for things that neither
>company is aware off.
I've admitted this.
>But coincidence is not proof of plagarism.
Again, the number of events and the sequence add up to more than
coincidence, in my opinion.
>> >If it's not the obvious course of action why are we assuming that it
>> >will happen?
>> I'm not...you are...I am predicting that Bruce will not resume being
>> Batman right away...YOU added the whole mentor bit...but it only
>> becomes obvious if they are indeed ripping off Marvel so I guess you
>> just made my point for me...thanks.
>
>Ah, so if Bruce become a mentor then DC isn't ripping off Marvel.
>Good.
No...if he comes back but doesn't resume being Batman, they are
copying Marvel...I expect the details to be different and your mentor
idea may well happen (although I kind of doubt it since they have just
started up a Batman Beyond book with Bruce in just such a role).
>> >> >So, no, I don't see ripping off...
>> >> Then we'll just have to agree to disagree.
>> >No. �You will agree with me or stop posting to usenet.
>> Nice try.
>
>I know. I tried, but I realised as I typed it that it wouldn't make
>you laugh.
Ah, if only you were actually funny.
>> >They are very similar characters, of course similar things are going
>> >to happen.
>> They aren't THAT similar...but I'll grant you that, being super
>> heroes, similar things will happen...but this many in roughly the same
>> sequence at roughly the same time is a bit much to take.
>
>Icons originating in the same era with vaguely "ultimate human" levels
>of power, a throwing weapon and a sidekick.
That describes half the characters originating in that era.
>Not Capt-with-Bat-ears or Batman-with-a-Shield, sure, but closer than
>Batman is to The Hulk or Captain America to Green Lantern.
I'll grant you that one.
grinningdemon
wrote:
We never saw a fall...although I suppose I should admit that this is
not the first time they planned to bring Bucky back...at one point,
years ago, he was going to show up as an old amputee in a nursing
home.
grinningdemon
wrote:
True...but the circumstances surrounding Bucky's death actually made
it harder to pull off in this case, mostly because no one wanted him
to return...who here didn't originally groan at the thought of his
return? That it was accepted (and likely that Marvel ever allowed him
to do it at all) all comes down to Brubaker's ability as a writer.
Mike B
>> Bucky's non-death is no retcon. We never saw the body. All we saw
>> was the fall. A true retcon involves changing something that we
>> all saw and knew as truth; Bucky's return only told an untold
>> tale that fit just fine with what we already saw and knew. The
>> only change was a presumption, not a fact.
>
> He was clearly intended to be dead...or he would have been brought
> back long before now.
In fact, in that old Avengers classic by Thomas and Buscema, "Death be
Not Proud," (#56) didn't the Avengers go back in time with Cap to that
fateful day, and failing to avert it, actually watch Bucky die?
Mike B
grinningdemon
wrote:
Possibly...I'm not aware of that one...and I'd bet there are probably
some stories where various characters visited the afterlife and saw
Bucky there (as there were with Jason Todd).
Anim8rFSK
Mike B <M1...@yahoo.NOSPAM.com> wrote:
Quote Anna from Hudson Hawk: "You're supposed to be blown up into fiery
chunks of flesh!"
And, yes, the Avengers and TWO, count 'em, TWO Captain Americas saw
Bucky die.
--
TOM SWIFT 100th Anniversary convention! July 16-18 2010, San Diego, CA
TS100 Convention site: http://www.TomSwiftEnterprises.com
TS100 Store: http://www.CafePress.com/TS100
TOM SWIFT INFO: http://www.tomswift.info
Duggy
> Duggy wrote:
> > On Jul 6, 10:16 am, Michael <thissp...@for.rent> wrote:
> > Clearly Morrison had to make some last minute changes to FC.
> > Countdown made him claim that outright.
> If you believe Morrison's story about FC's plotting, then that would be
> DC's inability to coherently lead up to it (twice in the case of killing
> of the New Gods).
True, however Bruce's death obviously wasn't part of the original plan
for FC.
> > It depends when Dido made his suggestion that RIP become literal.
> I thought it only stayed literal for the RIP collection. For readers he
> never was dead. Just for most of the DCU (except Tim and Bruce I think).
Yes, literal for the DCU.
===
= DUG.
===
Duggy
> On Mon, 5 Jul 2010 17:40:15 -0700 (PDT), Duggy
> >details that reveal the big differences.
> Of course the details are different, but several broad brushstrokes
> add up to more than coincidence, in my opinion.
Broad brushstrokes make coincidences very easy.
> >The "death" is the biggest component and one was handled as a real
> >death and the other wasn't. Big difference.
> Actually, Batman's was handled as a real death too with a body and
> every thing (a distinction we've argued over before)...they just only
> waited a single issue to reveal he was still alive...
Less than half an issue.
> but is there
> anyone out there who genuinely believed either one of them would stay
> dead?
Maybe in SR's case. Most people wouldn't, but some may have.
> >Well, we'll see what happens. At the moment you have 3 coincidences
> >(much more than the 1 or 2 you claim that would just be coincidence.
> Dead sidekick returns,
Unrelated in at least one of the cases.
> death,
No uncommon in comics.
> replacement by sidekick,
Happens. Underminds your "dead sidekick returns" claim that the dead
sidekick didn't replace one of them.
Also, Batman has been replaced by a non-sidekick (which didn't make
sense to a lot of people at the time) as part of a point DC was trying
to make and then replaced again soon after by this very side kick.
Makes sense for him to do so again.
> resurrection through time travel...
Batman wasn't resurrected through time travel his death was faked
through time travel. Almost exactly the same way as Booster Gold 3
years earlier.
> that makes 4 major coincidences...
That's one coincidence.
> if my
> prediction hold true, it will be 5.
And if it doesn't you'll accept the truth?
===
= DUG.
===
Duggy
> grinningdemon wrote:
> > On Tue, 06 Jul 2010 03:47:05 GMT, YKW <Y...@YKW.YKW> wrote:
>
Agreed that it was a NBND death, but the lack of body was more a
product of the period is my guess.
===
= DUG.
===
Duggy
> >Because there's no other precedent ever for a sales bump with a death
> >and replacement arc. Never ever. Not at DC, not at Marvel, Ever.
> If it were only those 2 things, I'd dismiss it as coincidence
> too...but add in the return of the dead sidekick and resurrection
> through time travel and it beomces a little harder to dismiss.
And since on of those isn't true and the other (in one case) was an
unrelated even from, what, 2 or more years ago I think it's very, very
easy to dismiss.
> It was a weaker story too...but just because the execution was
> lackluster doesn't mean they weren't linked.
And just because you creat a strwman doesn't mean you're right.
> We already know Batman's death was tacked on after the fact so I don't
> think it was some grand plan they worked up to for years.
I don't recall Batman dying.
> >Because DC really wants to cancel Batman & Detective Comics after
> >arranging something that would cause a sales bump.
> Because they've never made seemingly illogical plot decisions before?
I'm talking about marketing and financial decisions not plot decision.
> >Of course there's going to be a replacement. There's only not a
> >replacement if it's a minor character who isn't selling well... and
> >there's often a replacement then too.
> True...but that doesn't mean it always has to happen...just makes it
> likely.
For a major title in the top 20 it makes no sense not to have a
replacement.
> >Do you honestly think that DC would kill off Batman and not replace
> >him?
> Of course I don't,
Then it's not a coincidence, it's the logical step.
I'm sure we both had dinner last night. Do you think that that is a
coincidence, too?
> the death and replacement were certainly planned
> together
I'd like to think so, but with Die Dan Die in charge...
> if for no other reason than they made an event out of the
> replacement rather than the death...
They made an event out of RIP & Battle for the Cowl, but not the death
because there wasn't one.
> something they didn't do with
> Cap...and I actually think that was probably because of the Cap story
> too...they were likely trying to intentionally distance the Batman
> story from the Cap story as the death of a major character is
> typically a much bigger deal...but that doesn't mean one didn't inform
> the other.
The handling could have informed each other. I even said as much in a
previous post. The simple facts don't add up to plagarism though.
> It does...and, again, if that was all it was, I would have dismissed
> it as coincidence as well.
Instead you pull up weak points and vague coincidences as evidence.
> >When were these decisions made? One year, two years before they were
> >executed? When did Morrison start on Batman? He was hinting about
> >RIP back then...
> But we know Batman wasn't slated to die originally...and, as I've
> said, I'm not sure who had which idea first...I just think the ideas
> were more than coincidence.
I think that Morrison had the idea for RIP in which Batman becomes a
background player. Die Dan Die sees the idea and the name, gets and
sees the PR problems without a death and asks Morrison to create one.
None of that is contingent on Morrison or Die Dan Die knowing about
Captain America.
> I actually think Marvel and DC are going back and forth copying each
> other with these things...I don't think it's all one sided on DC's
> part...but, without knowing the genesis of each story and how long it
> was in the works, it's impossible to know which side came up with
> which idea first.
The only real coincidence is unrelated usages of time travel. Marvel
may have copied the general idea of time travel... but it seems
unlikely. If they had any kind of plan for Capt's return why would
they just go and ditch it just to copy DC. It seems unlikely and
pretty pointless.
> These are more than vague coincidences...
Broad brushstrokes can make lots of things coincidences.
> and surely you'll admit that
> Marvel and DC often swipe successful ideas from each other...
Knowingly or unknowingly I'm sure they swipe from a lot of places.
I know the script I wrote at university includes a scene swiped from
The Simpsons which I recall constructing from scratch.
But many of your coincidences are flawed or overstated and of things
that take too much foreplanning to have been merely copied.
> I honestly believe you're partly arguing for the sake of arguing...
Funny, I've been thinking the same thing about you. I've been
wondering why you thought that such weak links added to up to
evidence.
> if you were as familar with Cap as you are with Batman, I suspect you
> would even agree with me on this.
What Capt details am I missing? Enlighten me.
> Can you think of an example of that? I can't...and we hear about many
> aborted story ideas...I don't think they usually worry about copying.
There's one in the back of my head, but unfortunately I can't bring it
to mind. I'll admit one example wouldn't prove that point, though.
> >But coincidence is not proof of plagarism.
> Again, the number of events and the sequence add up to more than
> coincidence, in my opinion.
Your coincidences are weak and the sequence doesn't add up.
> >Ah, so if Bruce become a mentor then DC isn't ripping off Marvel.
> >Good.
> No...if he comes back but doesn't resume being Batman, they are
> copying Marvel...I expect the details to be different and your mentor
> idea may well happen (although I kind of doubt it since they have just
> started up a Batman Beyond book with Bruce in just such a role).
I can't accept that. Morrison talked about RIP not being a literal
death and about how it opened up new storytelling ideas. That to me
says Bruce as a non-hero character (at least for some period). The
execution of that idea now doesn't sound, to me, like copying an idea
recently executed by Marvel.
> Ah, if only you were actually funny.
I know. To try so hard so often and constantly fail is just so
disappointing.
> >Icons originating in the same era with vaguely "ultimate human" levels
> >of power, a throwing weapon and a sidekick.
> That describes half the characters originating in that era.
True. Not many of those are current though. Broad brushstrokes make
coincidence easy to find.
> >Not Capt-with-Bat-ears or Batman-with-a-Shield, sure, but closer than
> >Batman is to The Hulk or Captain America to Green Lantern.
> I'll grant you that one.
I'd hate to see the person who wouldn't.
===
= DUG.
===
Duggy
> In fact, in that old Avengers classic by Thomas and Buscema, "Death be
> Not Proud," (#56) didn't the Avengers go back in time with Cap to that
> fateful day, and failing to avert it, actually watch Bucky die?
It wouldn't be the first time that a non-retcon of original events
failed to notice later changes/clarifications/hints.
===
= DUG.
===
Duggy
> Possibly...I'm not aware of that one...and I'd bet there are probably
> some stories where various characters visited the afterlife and saw
> Bucky there (as there were with Jason Todd).
I was just about to say that.
===
= DUG.
===
Duggy
> Quote Anna from Hudson Hawk: "You're supposed to be blown up into fiery
> chunks of flesh!"
Would you believe the care had a fire sprinkler?
Would you believe I've seen that whole bit cut from a TV version to
remove swearing?
===
= DUG.
===
Edward McArdle
<3cbd297e-ea17-48f8...@m40g2000prc.googlegroups.com>, Duggy
<Paul....@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
>=3D=3D=3D
>=3D DUG.
>=3D=3D=3D
If they removed the swearing from Hudson Hawk the film would only run
about ten minutes!
Which is why I thought it failed. You can have lots of bad language in a
serious film, but not in a light-hearted one.
--
Edward McArdle
William George Ferguson
>In article <i0vr3b$4vf$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> Mike B <M1...@yahoo.NOSPAM.com> wrote:
>
>> grinningdemon quoted and noted:
>> >> Bucky's non-death is no retcon. We never saw the body. All we saw
>> >> was the fall. A true retcon involves changing something that we
>> >> all saw and knew as truth; Bucky's return only told an untold
>> >> tale that fit just fine with what we already saw and knew. The
>> >> only change was a presumption, not a fact.
>> >
>> > He was clearly intended to be dead...or he would have been brought
>> > back long before now.
>>
>> In fact, in that old Avengers classic by Thomas and Buscema, "Death be
>> Not Proud," (#56) didn't the Avengers go back in time with Cap to that
>> fateful day, and failing to avert it, actually watch Bucky die?
>
>Quote Anna from Hudson Hawk: "You're supposed to be blown up into fiery
>chunks of flesh!"
>
>And, yes, the Avengers and TWO, count 'em, TWO Captain Americas saw
>Bucky die.
The Winter Soldier retcon didn't actually, really, retcon Bucky's death.
The Winter Soldier story as I remember is, Cap drops free and lands in
North Sea, Rocket go boom, Bucky's mangled body drops into North Sea, BMB
fished out of North Seas by Russian ship, Russian scientists rebuild body,
using some non-original parts, and revive body, although brain remains
damaged until Rogers fixes it with Cosmic Cube.
It still sucked.
--
I have a theory, it could be bunnies
Duggy
wrote:
> Russian scientists rebuild body,
> using some non-original parts,
Won't that void the warranty?
===
= DUG.
===
Duggy
> If they removed the swearing from Hudson Hawk the film would only run
> about ten minutes!
It think because the reply to the quotes we included hinged on
swearing, it's couldn't just be covered.
I noticed it particularly because it was by favourite scene in the
film...
My favourite scene in another Bruce Willis film was cut for television
- where he holds a gun to his daughter's head in Last Boy Scout.
> Which is why I thought it failed. You can have lots of bad language in a
> serious film, but not in a light-hearted one.
Never stopped Beverly Hills Cop.
===
= DUG.
===
Anim8rFSK
Gah. So does their friend even survive, just without explanation?
Duggy
> Gah. So does their friend even survive, just without explanation?
Yeah, and it was a hideous cut... if I recall correctly it was "But
didn't the car go off the cliff", jump cut to laughing and closing
credits.
I also recall seeing Die Hard on TV where he sends the bomb down the
lift shaft, explosion - Bruce sees the explosion - sudden silence and
Bruce mouth "shit" and then explosion noises again.
All of these were a fair while ago, but I won't watch Bruce Willis
films on TV anymore.
===
= DUG.
===
grinningdemon
<Paul....@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
>On Jul 7, 2:54 am, grinningdemon <grinningde...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 5 Jul 2010 17:40:15 -0700 (PDT), Duggy
>> >However, while your broad brushstrokes show the similarities it's the
>> >details that reveal the big differences.
>> Of course the details are different, but several broad brushstrokes
>> add up to more than coincidence, in my opinion.
>
>Broad brushstrokes make coincidences very easy.
They also make ripped off ideas very obvious.
>> >The "death" is the biggest component and one was handled as a real
>> >death and the other wasn't. Big difference.
>> Actually, Batman's was handled as a real death too with a body and
>> every thing (a distinction we've argued over before)...they just only
>> waited a single issue to reveal he was still alive...
>
>Less than half an issue.
Doesn't matter...he was still just as dead as Cap...DC just revealed
he wasn't actually dead sooner than Marvel did.
>> but is there
>> anyone out there who genuinely believed either one of them would stay
>> dead?
>
>Maybe in SR's case. Most people wouldn't, but some may have.
>
>> >Well, we'll see what happens. At the moment you have 3 coincidences
>> >(much more than the 1 or 2 you claim that would just be coincidence.
>> Dead sidekick returns,
>
>Unrelated in at least one of the cases.
How so? Were you in the room when they came up with the idea? And
how do you know Brubaker's idea to bring back Bucky wasn't inpired by
the fake-out with Jason Todd in Hush?
>> death,
>
>No uncommon in comics.
Doesn't mean they didn't take the idea from the competition.
>> replacement by sidekick,
>
>Happens. Underminds your "dead sidekick returns" claim that the dead
>sidekick didn't replace one of them.
No it doesn't...as I already explained, there aren't nearly the number
sidekick options for replacements in Cap's case.
>Also, Batman has been replaced by a non-sidekick (which didn't make
>sense to a lot of people at the time) as part of a point DC was trying
>to make and then replaced again soon after by this very side kick.
>Makes sense for him to do so again.
Not really since that whole storyline was about him not wanting to be
Batman and caused a rift between Bruce and Dick for several years
afterwards.
But, even if he is the obvious choice, I refuse to believe it's mere
coincidence that DC pulled the trigger on that particular plot line so
soon after Marvel's success doing the same with Cap.
>> resurrection through time travel...
>
>Batman wasn't resurrected through time travel his death was faked
>through time travel. Almost exactly the same way as Booster Gold 3
>years earlier.
Which is more or less exactly what happened with Cap as well...I was
just tired of typing in the quotes everytime I mention the
"death"...but you knew full well what I meant.
>> that makes 4 major coincidences...
>
>That's one coincidence.
You might want to count again.
>> if my
>> prediction hold true, it will be 5.
>
>And if it doesn't you'll accept the truth?
Will you accept the truth if it does?
That said, I actually hope I'm wrong about my prediction because I
want Batman back...regardless, it's not going to change my opinion on
the connection between Batman and Cap plotlines recently.
grinningdemon
<Paul....@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
>On Jul 7, 3:16 am, grinningdemon <grinningde...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
>> >Because there's no other precedent ever for a sales bump with a death
>> >and replacement arc. Never ever. Not at DC, not at Marvel, Ever.
>> If it were only those 2 things, I'd dismiss it as coincidence
>> too...but add in the return of the dead sidekick and resurrection
>> through time travel and it beomces a little harder to dismiss.
>
>And since on of those isn't true and the other (in one case) was an
>unrelated even from, what, 2 or more years ago I think it's very, very
>easy to dismiss.
The "resurrection" was just as true in Batman's case as in Cap's...in
both cases, a body was left behind and they were later revealed not to
have died at all with an explanation involving time travel.
I'm not sure what unrelated event you're talking about since Jason
Todd and Bucky returned at more or less the same time...and I've
specifically said since the start of this thread that I'm talking
about plotlines from the last several years.
>> It was a weaker story too...but just because the execution was
>> lackluster doesn't mean they weren't linked.
>
>And just because you creat a strwman doesn't mean you're right.
And just because you routinely refuse to admit when you're wrong
doesn't mean you're right.
>> We already know Batman's death was tacked on after the fact so I don't
>> think it was some grand plan they worked up to for years.
>
>I don't recall Batman dying.
He died as much as Cap did.
>> >Because DC really wants to cancel Batman & Detective Comics after
>> >arranging something that would cause a sales bump.
>> Because they've never made seemingly illogical plot decisions before?
>
>I'm talking about marketing and financial decisions not plot decision.
Right...and I'm sure all of those decisions have been perfectly
logical...that's how Marvel ended up bankrupt, after all.
>> >Of course there's going to be a replacement. There's only not a
>> >replacement if it's a minor character who isn't selling well... and
>> >there's often a replacement then too.
>> True...but that doesn't mean it always has to happen...just makes it
>> likely.
>
>For a major title in the top 20 it makes no sense not to have a
>replacement.
I'd argue it makes no sense to ditch and replace such a character.
>> >Do you honestly think that DC would kill off Batman and not replace
>> >him?
>> Of course I don't,
>
>Then it's not a coincidence, it's the logical step.
Possibly...but that doesn't make it any less likely the whole idea was
inspired by what Marvel had done with Cap.
>I'm sure we both had dinner last night. Do you think that that is a
>coincidence, too?
I actually didn't have dinner last night...bet you feel pretty stupid
now, don't you?
>> the death and replacement were certainly planned
>> together
>
>I'd like to think so, but with Die Dan Die in charge...
Well, in that case, you're admitting it wasn't a logical step after
all.
>> if for no other reason than they made an event out of the
>> replacement rather than the death...
>
>They made an event out of RIP & Battle for the Cowl, but not the death
>because there wasn't one.
They easily could have left out the scene of Batman in the cave and
made his death the event...it would have been the more logical and
obvious choice and it wouldn't have affected future storylines in the
least.
>> something they didn't do with
>> Cap...and I actually think that was probably because of the Cap story
>> too...they were likely trying to intentionally distance the Batman
>> story from the Cap story as the death of a major character is
>> typically a much bigger deal...but that doesn't mean one didn't inform
>> the other.
>
>The handling could have informed each other. I even said as much in a
>previous post. The simple facts don't add up to plagarism though.
I never said it was plagarism...I said they were swiping the big ideas
from each other...they details are certainly different enough that I
would never have used that term.
>> It does...and, again, if that was all it was, I would have dismissed
>> it as coincidence as well.
>
>Instead you pull up weak points and vague coincidences as evidence.
I think the points are pretty strong and several, sequential
"coincidences" add up to a pattern...and there is nothing vague about
the similarities here.
>> >When were these decisions made? One year, two years before they were
>> >executed? When did Morrison start on Batman? He was hinting about
>> >RIP back then...
>> But we know Batman wasn't slated to die originally...and, as I've
>> said, I'm not sure who had which idea first...I just think the ideas
>> were more than coincidence.
>
>I think that Morrison had the idea for RIP in which Batman becomes a
>background player. Die Dan Die sees the idea and the name, gets and
>sees the PR problems without a death and asks Morrison to create one.
It's possible...but we don't really know what Morrison's original plan
was beyond not killing him off.
>None of that is contingent on Morrison or Die Dan Die knowing about
>Captain America.
I'd bet money that Didio's decision to "kill" Batman had at least
something to do with Cap...and I think you're reaching with this whole
bit about PR problems...covers and storyline titles are routinely
misleading...I recall a storyline title years about called "The Many
Deaths of Batman"...and Batman didn't die even once in the
story...hell, remember a few years back when every one of the
Bat-family books had the tagline on the cover "This issue...Batman
dies!!!" and it was all bullshit...a few dream sequences and some
didn't even bother to do that much.
>> I actually think Marvel and DC are going back and forth copying each
>> other with these things...I don't think it's all one sided on DC's
>> part...but, without knowing the genesis of each story and how long it
>> was in the works, it's impossible to know which side came up with
>> which idea first.
>
>The only real coincidence is unrelated usages of time travel. Marvel
>may have copied the general idea of time travel... but it seems
>unlikely. If they had any kind of plan for Capt's return why would
>they just go and ditch it just to copy DC. It seems unlikely and
>pretty pointless.
For all either of us know, DC copied Marvel's plan that was already in
the works...this whole thing comes down to a difference of opinion and
neither of us is going to convince the other.
>> These are more than vague coincidences...
>
>Broad brushstrokes can make lots of things coincidences.
>
>> and surely you'll admit that
>> Marvel and DC often swipe successful ideas from each other...
>
>Knowingly or unknowingly I'm sure they swipe from a lot of places.
So you're admitting I could be right, then?
>I know the script I wrote at university includes a scene swiped from
>The Simpsons which I recall constructing from scratch.
>
>But many of your coincidences are flawed or overstated and of things
>that take too much foreplanning to have been merely copied.
I'm talking several years of plotlines here...with each of the
"coincidences" offset by more than enough time for the kind of
planning you're talking about...which actually isn't necessarily as
much as you seem to think it is...we know Batman wasn't originally
slated to "die" at all but they still managed to work in that
change...and we also know that Cap was originally only going to be
gone of a single story arc before his return but they expanded it and
totally changed what was to follow...some stories may be planned out
years in advance but, others, even the big ones, aren't planned that
far ahead at all.
>> I honestly believe you're partly arguing for the sake of arguing...
>
>Funny, I've been thinking the same thing about you. I've been
>wondering why you thought that such weak links added to up to
>evidence.
And I've been wondering why you are arguing so strongly when you
freely admit that you aren't even familar with Cap's storyline...for
all you know, they are exactly the same right down the last bit of
dialogue.
>> if you were as familar with Cap as you are with Batman, I suspect you
>> would even agree with me on this.
>
>What Capt details am I missing? Enlighten me.
As I said before, I'm only listing the major events...there have been
other smaller similarities throughout and, having followed both
characters regularly for most of my life, I see too many to be
dismissed as coincidence...why don't you go read the story in question
before getting into an argument over it? Say what you want about me
but you'll never see me arguing over storypoints for stories I haven't
read.
>> Can you think of an example of that? I can't...and we hear about many
>> aborted story ideas...I don't think they usually worry about copying.
>
>There's one in the back of my head, but unfortunately I can't bring it
>to mind. I'll admit one example wouldn't prove that point, though.
I think that's as close to admitting being wrong as you've ever come
here...don't strain yourself.
>> >But coincidence is not proof of plagarism.
>> Again, the number of events and the sequence add up to more than
>> coincidence, in my opinion.
>
>Your coincidences are weak and the sequence doesn't add up.
The sequence is in perfect order and there's nothing weak about "broad
brushstrokes" that are essentially the same.
>> >Ah, so if Bruce become a mentor then DC isn't ripping off Marvel.
>> >Good.
>> No...if he comes back but doesn't resume being Batman, they are
>> copying Marvel...I expect the details to be different and your mentor
>> idea may well happen (although I kind of doubt it since they have just
>> started up a Batman Beyond book with Bruce in just such a role).
>
>I can't accept that. Morrison talked about RIP not being a literal
>death and about how it opened up new storytelling ideas. That to me
>says Bruce as a non-hero character (at least for some period). The
>execution of that idea now doesn't sound, to me, like copying an idea
>recently executed by Marvel.
You're only guessing what the original plan was...you don't
know...everything your're saying is based on one hell of an assumption
that Morrison intended Bruce to step down from being Batman and become
a mentor...he's never said any such thing in interviews...it might be
true but you don't know for sure any more than I know for sure that
Bruce won't immediately resume being Batman.
>> Ah, if only you were actually funny.
>
>I know. To try so hard so often and constantly fail is just so
>disappointing.
>
>> >Icons originating in the same era with vaguely "ultimate human" levels
>> >of power, a throwing weapon and a sidekick.
>> That describes half the characters originating in that era.
>
>True. Not many of those are current though. Broad brushstrokes make
>coincidence easy to find.
>
>> >Not Capt-with-Bat-ears or Batman-with-a-Shield, sure, but closer than
>> >Batman is to The Hulk or Captain America to Green Lantern.
>> I'll grant you that one.
>
>I'd hate to see the person who wouldn't.
It takes all kinds...I'm sure there's some idiot out there that thinks
Batman and the Hulk might as well be twins.
Michael
> On Jul 6, 11:33 am, Michael <thissp...@for.rent> wrote:
>
>>Duggy wrote:
>>
>>>On Jul 6, 10:16 am, Michael <thissp...@for.rent> wrote:
>>>Clearly Morrison had to make some last minute changes to FC.
>>>Countdown made him claim that outright.
>>
>>If you believe Morrison's story about FC's plotting, then that would be
>>DC's inability to coherently lead up to it (twice in the case of killing
>>of the New Gods).
>
>
> True, however Bruce's death obviously wasn't part of the original plan
> for FC.
It wasn't? Not even his "death"?
Michael
Michael
Maybe the Avengers unknowingly hopped dimensions as well as time travelled?
Michael
Michael
I only stick with Hudson Hawk therought the "Swingin' On A Star" number,
which I like and thoght was pretty clever.
Then the movie takes a sharp drop off a cliff.
Michael
Michael
Hudson Hawk failed because it's a horrible horrible movie.
Michael
Anim8rFSK
<84b68032-b33b-45b2...@y12g2000prb.googlegroups.com>,
Duggy <Paul....@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
> On Jul 8, 8:05 am, Anim8rFSK <ANIM8R...@cox.net> wrote:
> > Gah. So does their friend even survive, just without explanation?
>
> Yeah, and it was a hideous cut... if I recall correctly it was "But
> didn't the car go off the cliff", jump cut to laughing and closing
> credits.
That's just painful.
Anim8rFSK
Michael <this...@for.rent> wrote:
I like it again once they get to Italy. And in the meantime, there's
James Coburn.
Anim8rFSK
Michael <this...@for.rent> wrote:
The vast majority of people that express that opinion have never
actually seen it.
grinningdemon
wrote:
No...it was an afterthought because Didio got all excited over the
Batman RIP title...and, now, after over a year, they are finally going
back to explain how he got from his apparent death at the end of
Batman RIP to showing up in FC...I'm sure it'll be overly complicated
and contrived like all of Morrison's other Batman stories.
Duggy
> On Wed, 7 Jul 2010 00:05:01 -0700 (PDT), Duggy
> They also make ripped off ideas very obvious.
Not really. "Boy meets Girl" are broad brushstrokes, does mean every
film with romance ripped off the first.
> >> >The "death" is the biggest component and one was handled as a real
> >> >death and the other wasn't. Big difference.
> >> Actually, Batman's was handled as a real death too with a body and
> >> every thing (a distinction we've argued over before)...they just only
> >> waited a single issue to reveal he was still alive...
> >Less than half an issue.
> Doesn't matter...he was still just as dead as Cap...DC just revealed
> he wasn't actually dead sooner than Marvel did.
A comic book death that wasn't a real death. Colour me surprised.
> >> >Well, we'll see what happens. At the moment you have 3 coincidences
> >> >(much more than the 1 or 2 you claim that would just be coincidence.
> >> Dead sidekick returns,
> >Unrelated in at least one of the cases.
> How so? Were you in the room when they came up with the idea? And
> how do you know Brubaker's idea to bring back Bucky wasn't inpired by
> the fake-out with Jason Todd in Hush?
I don't. But that's a different issue, isn't it?
I've never claimed despite what you've said I've claimed that DC &
Marvel don't copy... but Todd in Hush is clearly not part of the Death-
of-Batman-story.
> >> death,
> >No uncommon in comics.
> Doesn't mean they didn't take the idea from the competition.
Doesn't make it evidence that they did.
> >> replacement by sidekick,
> >Happens. Underminds your "dead sidekick returns" claim that the dead
> >sidekick didn't replace one of them.
> No it doesn't...as I already explained, there aren't nearly the number
> sidekick options for replacements in Cap's case.
Exactly. Big difference.
> >Also, Batman has been replaced by a non-sidekick (which didn't make
> >sense to a lot of people at the time) as part of a point DC was trying
> >to make and then replaced again soon after by this very side kick.
> >Makes sense for him to do so again.
>
> Not really since that whole storyline was about him not wanting to be
> Batman and caused a rift between Bruce and Dick for several years
> afterwards.
Yeah, I know exactly what you mean... except that "years" was 2 months
as that was when he actually replaced Batman.
> But, even if he is the obvious choice, I refuse to believe
So even if I have tapes of the DC meetings you hold onto your
conspiracy theory.
No point arguing with your type.
> it's mere
> coincidence that DC pulled the trigger on that particular plot line so
> soon after Marvel's success doing the same with Cap.
I see no evidence. All of your evidence has simple explanations.
Now, it's possible, but there's no real evidences and besides a few
minor coincidences the stories are pretty different...
> >> resurrection through time travel...
> >Batman wasn't resurrected through time travel his death was faked
> >through time travel. Almost exactly the same way as Booster Gold 3
> >years earlier.
> Which is more or less exactly what happened with Cap as well...I was
> just tired of typing in the quotes everytime I mention the
> "death"...but you knew full well what I meant.
Not the same way... Batman was sent back in time and a replacement
body was left.
Capt, it appears, had his soul travel backwards in his own body.
> >> that makes 4 major coincidences...
> >That's one coincidence.
> You might want to count again.
One. Yup, one.
> >> if my
> >> prediction hold true, it will be 5.
> >And if it doesn't you'll accept the truth?
> Will you accept the truth if it does?
If he becomes a member of the Cabinet, sure.
Mentor to the Bat-family, no.
Somewhere in between... not sure.
> That said, I actually hope I'm wrong about my prediction because I
> want Batman back...regardless, it's not going to change my opinion on
> the connection between Batman and Cap plotlines recently.
I can see the value in a short term (12 month max) mentor or even
bigger role in the DCU... but they'd need a pretty good reason to
bring him back in after that... rather than a bad reason not to come
back immediately I'd rather see him assume the role upon return... but
of course, the writers will always thing their reason is good.
===
= DUG.
===
YKW
news:4jjc365jt4n756tbj...@4ax.com:
> and, now, after over a year, they are finally going
> back to explain how he got from his apparent death at the end of
> Batman RIP to showing up in FC...
Didn't they already show that at the time? He gets out of Gotham Harbor
(or Bay or whatever they're calling it this week) once all the rescue
vehicles dissipate, gets involved in the FC storyline proper, gets caught
and mentally tortured (and has DNA samples grabbed), gets free, pulls a
gun on Dan Turpin, then winds up on the Great Time-Space Tilt-A-Whirl
courtesy of the Big D.
--
------------------- ------------------------------------------------
|| E-mail: ykw2006 ||"The mystery of government is not how Washington||
|| -at-gmail-dot-com ||works but how to make it stop." -- P.J. O'Rourke||
|| ----------- || ------------------------------------ ||
||Replace "-at-" with|| Keeping Usenet Trouble-Free ||
|| "@" to respond. || Since 1998 ||
------------------- ------------------------------------------------
"It's not that I want to punish your success. [...]I think
when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."
-- The One, 14 Oct 08
Duggy
> On Wed, 7 Jul 2010 00:41:23 -0700 (PDT), Duggy
> both cases, a body was left behind and they were later revealed not to
> have died at all with an explanation involving time travel.
Yes. Like Booster Gold in 52.
> I'm not sure what unrelated event you're talking about since Jason
> Todd and Bucky returned at more or less the same time...and I've
> specifically said since the start of this thread that I'm talking
> about plotlines from the last several years.
Plot lines that have nothing to do with the death.
You can't prove the death was more than a coincidence using things
that happened years ago.
Or is the fact that they both failed to save a guy called Frank in
1962 also a coincidence proving that the death was one copying the
other.
The return of the never-to-return-sidekicks is a completely different
issue.
And if you're talking about the plots "from the last several years"
then 4 coincidences is nothing.
> >> It was a weaker story too...but just because the execution was
> >> lackluster doesn't mean they weren't linked.
> >And just because you creat a strwman doesn't mean you're right.
> And just because you routinely refuse to admit when you're wrong
> doesn't mean you're right.
Ha. In this thread you're the one doing that.
> >> >Because DC really wants to cancel Batman & Detective Comics after
> >> >arranging something that would cause a sales bump.
> >> Because they've never made seemingly illogical plot decisions before?
> >I'm talking about marketing and financial decisions not plot decision.
> Right...and I'm sure all of those decisions have been perfectly
> logical...that's how Marvel ended up bankrupt, after all.
Mistakes can come from logical dicisions.
The makers of Superman Returns made a lot of logical decisions (cast
young actors so the series can last longer) that went wrong (Lois
looked young enough to be her son's sister).
But, a cancelation of Batman comics for a year or two just for story
reasons... you've got to be kidding.
> >For a major title in the top 20 it makes no sense not to have a
> >replacement.
> I'd argue it makes no sense to ditch and replace such a character.
Morrison, rightly or wrongly, thinks it opens things up for story
ideas.
Batman RIP was an event that increased sales on all the Bat-titles and
renewed interest in Batman.
I'm sure similar things apply at Marvel.
There's sense there. Whether it is right or wrong may be subjective.
It certainly will have people who think it is wrong.
Just because you don't agree doesn't mean there isn't a good reason
for it.
You claim that DC copied Marvel in killing off Batman... it makes as
much "sense to ditch and replace such a character" for that reason as
it does any other. You're arguing against your own case here.
> >> >Do you honestly think that DC would kill off Batman and not replace
> >> >him?
> >> Of course I don't,
> >Then it's not a coincidence, it's the logical step.
> Possibly...
OK.
> but that doesn't make it any less likely the whole idea was
> inspired by what Marvel had done with Cap.
It means that there is a conpeting reason that makes sense.
If they were both killed by exploding rabbits and one was clearly
planned after the other happened, then you'd have proof.
But two ideas that make complete (some) sense independently isn't
proof of anything more then coincidence dispite you unwillingness to
believe otherwise.
> >I'm sure we both had dinner last night. Do you think that that is a
> >coincidence, too?
> I actually didn't have dinner last night...bet you feel pretty stupid
> now, don't you?
I eat, you didn't. I think you're the one who should feel pretty
stupid.
> >> the death and replacement were certainly planned
> >> together
> >I'd like to think so, but with Die Dan Die in charge...
> Well, in that case, you're admitting it wasn't a logical step after
> all.
A replacement was surely planned, but details? I don't know.
===
= DUG.
===
Duggy
> >> replacement rather than the death...
> >They made an event out of RIP & Battle for the Cowl, but not the death
> >because there wasn't one.
> They easily could have left out the scene of Batman in the cave and
> made his death the event...it would have been the more logical and
> obvious choice and it wouldn't have affected future storylines in the
> least.
True. But in that way they'd have been copying Marvel, which clearly
they weren't.
> >The handling could have informed each other. I even said as much in a
> >previous post. The simple facts don't add up to plagarism though.
> I never said it was plagarism...I said they were swiping the big ideas
> from each other...they details are certainly different enough that I
> would never have used that term.
But the big ideas aren't new. And big ideas are easily coincidental.
Two TV shows are about homicide cops in NY. Doesn't mean one copied
the other.
> >Instead you pull up weak points and vague coincidences as evidence.
> I think the points are pretty strong and several, sequential
> "coincidences" add up to a pattern...and there is nothing vague about
> the similarities here.
All of which are obvious logical commonly used ideas.
> >I think that Morrison had the idea for RIP in which Batman becomes a
> >background player. Die Dan Die sees the idea and the name, gets and
> >sees the PR problems without a death and asks Morrison to create one.
> It's possible...but we don't really know what Morrison's original plan
> was beyond not killing him off.
True.
> >None of that is contingent on Morrison or Die Dan Die knowing about
> >Captain America.
> I'd bet money that Didio's decision to "kill" Batman had at least
> something to do with Cap...
I wouldn't bet either way. There's no evidence that Die Dan Die's
decision was based on what Marvel was doing. "Killing" a major
character has happened to just about every major character. It bumps
sales.
Neither is a safe bad, and as such it's an unfair accusation.
> and I think you're reaching with this whole
> bit about PR problems...covers and storyline titles are routinely
> misleading...I recall a storyline title years about called "The Many
> Deaths of Batman"...and Batman didn't die even once in the
> story...hell, remember a few years back when every one of the
> Bat-family books had the tagline on the cover "This issue...Batman
> dies!!!" and it was all bullshit...a few dream sequences and some
> didn't even bother to do that much.
And the one title I got had the story replaced.
There's a difference between a cover "misrepresentation" and going out
selling an idea.
> >The only real coincidence is unrelated usages of time travel. Marvel
> >may have copied the general idea of time travel... but it seems
> >unlikely. If they had any kind of plan for Capt's return why would
> >they just go and ditch it just to copy DC. It seems unlikely and
> >pretty pointless.
> For all either of us know, DC copied Marvel's plan that was already in
> the works...
How?
> this whole thing comes down to a difference of opinion and
> neither of us is going to convince the other.
You're correct. I'm not going to accept your accusations about DC and
Marvel without proof.
> >> and surely you'll admit that
> >> Marvel and DC often swipe successful ideas from each other...
> >Knowingly or unknowingly I'm sure they swipe from a lot of places.
> So you're admitting I could be right, then?
You could be but your "evidence" is pathetically weak. Never said
otherwise.
> I'm talking several years of plotlines here...
You're talking about 2 plots.
> >> I honestly believe you're partly arguing for the sake of arguing...
> >Funny, I've been thinking the same thing about you. I've been
> >wondering why you thought that such weak links added to up to
> >evidence.
> And I've been wondering why you are arguing so strongly when you
> freely admit that you aren't even familar with Cap's storyline...for
> all you know, they are exactly the same right down the last bit of
> dialogue.
Really? Present that evidence instead of vague broad brushstrokes
that prove nothing more than normal operating procedures and
concidence.
> >> if you were as familar with Cap as you are with Batman, I suspect you
> >> would even agree with me on this.
> >What Capt details am I missing? Enlighten me.
> As I said before, I'm only listing the major events...there have been
> other smaller similarities throughout and, having followed both
> characters regularly for most of my life,
As I said before they are - in broad brushstrokes - similar
characters.
> I see too many to be dismissed as coincidence...
List more than the 4 pathetic ones that you have so far pretended are
proof.
> why don't you go read the story in question before getting into an argument over it?
Why don't you present proof before accusing Marvel and DC or
unoriginality?
> Say what you want about me
You're a pooey-pants.
> but you'll never see me arguing over storypoints for stories I haven't
> read.
Present your proof don't pretend to have hidden evidence.
> >There's one in the back of my head, but unfortunately I can't bring it
> >to mind. I'll admit one example wouldn't prove that point, though.
> I think that's as close to admitting being wrong as you've ever come
> here...don't strain yourself.
I'm not admitting I'm wrong, I'm saying I can't prove something so I'm
not going to claim it.
Sort of like how sad and pathetic it would be to claim that Marvel and
DC were copying each other without proof.
> The sequence is in perfect order and there's nothing weak about "broad
> brushstrokes" that are essentially the same.
Explain the sequence of events in your conspiracy theory.
> >I can't accept that. Morrison talked about RIP not being a literal
> >death and about how it opened up new storytelling ideas. That to me
> >says Bruce as a non-hero character (at least for some period). The
> >execution of that idea now doesn't sound, to me, like copying an idea
> >recently executed by Marvel.
> You're only guessing what the original plan was...
True.
You're only guess who copied who about which points.
> you don't
> know...everything your're saying is based on one hell of an assumption
See your entire argument.
> that Morrison intended Bruce to step down from being Batman
He implied it heavily at the time.
> >I'd hate to see the person who wouldn't.
> It takes all kinds...I'm sure there's some idiot out there that thinks
> Batman and the Hulk might as well be twins.
They are both called Bruce... perhaps they're not twins... they're the
same person!
===
= DUG.
===
grinningdemon
<Paul....@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
>On Jul 8, 12:53 pm, grinningdemon <grinningde...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 7 Jul 2010 00:05:01 -0700 (PDT), Duggy
>> >Broad brushstrokes make coincidences very easy.
>> They also make ripped off ideas very obvious.
>
>Not really. "Boy meets Girl" are broad brushstrokes, does mean every
>film with romance ripped off the first.
No...but, if several other major plot points of the movie match the
first, then it's probably more than coincidence.
>> >> >The "death" is the biggest component and one was handled as a real
>> >> >death and the other wasn't. Big difference.
>> >> Actually, Batman's was handled as a real death too with a body and
>> >> every thing (a distinction we've argued over before)...they just only
>> >> waited a single issue to reveal he was still alive...
>> >Less than half an issue.
>> Doesn't matter...he was still just as dead as Cap...DC just revealed
>> he wasn't actually dead sooner than Marvel did.
>
>A comic book death that wasn't a real death. Colour me surprised.
Then I suppose we all need to add quotes around death everytime we
talk about any comic book character here.
>> >> >Well, we'll see what happens. At the moment you have 3 coincidences
>> >> >(much more than the 1 or 2 you claim that would just be coincidence.
>> >> Dead sidekick returns,
>> >Unrelated in at least one of the cases.
>
>> How so? Were you in the room when they came up with the idea? And
>> how do you know Brubaker's idea to bring back Bucky wasn't inpired by
>> the fake-out with Jason Todd in Hush?
>
>I don't. But that's a different issue, isn't it?
How is it a different issue? I never claimed this was all a single
storyline or that it was all planned out at one time...I'm not even
saying that all the idea swiping in one-sided...furthermore, I've
never presented this as fact...merely my own opinon...much as it is
your opinion that Morrison intended Batman to retire and take on the
mentor role and believe it might happen now.
>I've never claimed despite what you've said I've claimed that DC &
>Marvel don't copy... but Todd in Hush is clearly not part of the Death-
>of-Batman-story.
I never said it was...I'm talking major plot points involving these
characters over several years...I never said it was all a single
storyline and, if that was how you understood it, I apologize...I'll
try to use smaller words for you next time.
>> >> death,
>> >No uncommon in comics.
>> Doesn't mean they didn't take the idea from the competition.
>
>Doesn't make it evidence that they did.
It's an opinion I have formed from having read all the stories in
question...something you haven't even done but still feel compelled to
argue over.
>> >> replacement by sidekick,
>> >Happens. Underminds your "dead sidekick returns" claim that the dead
>> >sidekick didn't replace one of them.
>
>> No it doesn't...as I already explained, there aren't nearly the number
>> sidekick options for replacements in Cap's case.
>
>Exactly. Big difference.
No, it's not...in each case, they were replaced by the obvious
choice...it just happens that, in Cap's case, there only ever was
choice...that's arguably true of Batman as well because no one but
Dick ever could have been accepted as a lasting replacement.
>> >Also, Batman has been replaced by a non-sidekick (which didn't make
>> >sense to a lot of people at the time) as part of a point DC was trying
>> >to make and then replaced again soon after by this very side kick.
>> >Makes sense for him to do so again.
>>
>> Not really since that whole storyline was about him not wanting to be
>> Batman and caused a rift between Bruce and Dick for several years
>> afterwards.
>
>Yeah, I know exactly what you mean... except that "years" was 2 months
>as that was when he actually replaced Batman.
And the first several years of the solo Nightwing title where Dick was
working through his daddy issues stemming from that time.
>> But, even if he is the obvious choice, I refuse to believe
>
>So even if I have tapes of the DC meetings you hold onto your
>conspiracy theory.
Produce your tapes and we'll talk.
>No point arguing with your type.
I was thinking the same of you...even before this discussion began.
>> it's mere
>> coincidence that DC pulled the trigger on that particular plot line so
>> soon after Marvel's success doing the same with Cap.
>
>I see no evidence. All of your evidence has simple explanations.
>Now, it's possible, but there's no real evidences and besides a few
>minor coincidences the stories are pretty different...
Major plotlines in sequence are more than "minor coincidences."
>> >> resurrection through time travel...
>> >Batman wasn't resurrected through time travel his death was faked
>> >through time travel. Almost exactly the same way as Booster Gold 3
>> >years earlier.
>
>> Which is more or less exactly what happened with Cap as well...I was
>> just tired of typing in the quotes everytime I mention the
>> "death"...but you knew full well what I meant.
>
>Not the same way... Batman was sent back in time and a replacement
>body was left.
>
>Capt, it appears, had his soul travel backwards in his own body.
In each case, they were seemingly killed, a body was left behind, and
they were ultimately revealed never to have died due to explantions
involving time travel.
>> >> that makes 4 major coincidences...
>> >That's one coincidence.
>> You might want to count again.
>
>One. Yup, one.
I guess you Aussies (you are Australian, right?) must have a different
numbering system from this side of the world because I still count
4...with a probably 5th on the way.
>> >> if my
>> >> prediction hold true, it will be 5.
>> >And if it doesn't you'll accept the truth?
>> Will you accept the truth if it does?
>
>If he becomes a member of the Cabinet, sure.
Cap isn't a member of the Cabinet.
>Mentor to the Bat-family, no.
Cap is essentially mentor to the Avengers as it stands now.
>Somewhere in between... not sure.
>
>> That said, I actually hope I'm wrong about my prediction because I
>> want Batman back...regardless, it's not going to change my opinion on
>> the connection between Batman and Cap plotlines recently.
>
>I can see the value in a short term (12 month max) mentor or even
>bigger role in the DCU... but they'd need a pretty good reason to
>bring him back in after that... rather than a bad reason not to come
>back immediately I'd rather see him assume the role upon return... but
>of course, the writers will always thing their reason is good.
There might have been some value to it if they had done this
immediately following RIP instead of the fake death...but the
didn't...and making a big deal out of his return only to have him
stand on the sidelines seems like a major cop-out to me...as it did
with Cap...it was very disappointing...and I can't think of any
believable reason Bruce would choose not to be Batman as long as he
were physically able...and, if he ends up glimpsing the future and
seeing that Dick will die if he doesn't continue being Batman (as Cap
did with Bucky), then we'll have yet another plot point to prove me
right.
grinningdemon
<Paul....@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
>On Jul 8, 1:31 pm, grinningdemon <grinningde...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 7 Jul 2010 00:41:23 -0700 (PDT), Duggy
>> The "resurrection" was just as true in Batman's case as in Cap's...in
>> both cases, a body was left behind and they were later revealed not to
>> have died at all with an explanation involving time travel.
>
>Yes. Like Booster Gold in 52.
And? Morrison was involved in both storylines so maybe he ripped
himself off...doesn't mean the motivation to do so didn't come from
Marvel's success with Cap or that Marvel's idea with Cap didn't come
from what was going on with Batman...either is a possibility you can't
disprove.
>> I'm not sure what unrelated event you're talking about since Jason
>> Todd and Bucky returned at more or less the same time...and I've
>> specifically said since the start of this thread that I'm talking
>> about plotlines from the last several years.
>
>Plot lines that have nothing to do with the death.
I never said they did...I said they were all major plotlines involving
these characters...not that it was all a single storyline.
>You can't prove the death was more than a coincidence using things
>that happened years ago.
As you've said, it takes time for these big events to be planned
out...but the timing is still close enough to be relevant...all the
Cap storylines were spaced out over the course of several years as
well.
>Or is the fact that they both failed to save a guy called Frank in
>1962 also a coincidence proving that the death was one copying the
>other.
Yes, that's exactly it.
>The return of the never-to-return-sidekicks is a completely different
>issue.
Hardly...both occured right around the same time and were only the
beginning of a sequence of similar major plotlines involving the
characters...in fact, pretty much EVERY major plotline involving these
characters since.
>And if you're talking about the plots "from the last several years"
>then 4 coincidences is nothing.
When they are unquestionably the 4 biggest events involving these
characters and they occur in the exact same order, I say it's
something.
>> >> It was a weaker story too...but just because the execution was
>> >> lackluster doesn't mean they weren't linked.
>> >And just because you creat a strwman doesn't mean you're right.
>> And just because you routinely refuse to admit when you're wrong
>> doesn't mean you're right.
>
>Ha. In this thread you're the one doing that.
Whatever you need to tell yourself.
>> >> >Because DC really wants to cancel Batman & Detective Comics after
>> >> >arranging something that would cause a sales bump.
>> >> Because they've never made seemingly illogical plot decisions before?
>> >I'm talking about marketing and financial decisions not plot decision.
>> Right...and I'm sure all of those decisions have been perfectly
>> logical...that's how Marvel ended up bankrupt, after all.
>
>Mistakes can come from logical dicisions.
So you're saying businessmen never make illogical decisions?
You want a comic example, look at the early 90s JSA series...it was
selling well and sales were increasing but someone decided that no one
would be interested in reading about elderly characters so it was
summarily cancelled...and the relaunch several years later became one
of DC's top sellers.
>The makers of Superman Returns made a lot of logical decisions (cast
>young actors so the series can last longer) that went wrong (Lois
>looked young enough to be her son's sister).
Which, to me, makes that casting choice illogical given the plot of
the movie.
>But, a cancelation of Batman comics for a year or two just for story
>reasons... you've got to be kidding.
I never said they were cancel it...they actually could have continued
without Batman for a while (as Cap did at first) and that acutally
would have been a more interesting story, in my opinion.
>> >For a major title in the top 20 it makes no sense not to have a
>> >replacement.
>> I'd argue it makes no sense to ditch and replace such a character.
>
>Morrison, rightly or wrongly, thinks it opens things up for story
>ideas.
>Batman RIP was an event that increased sales on all the Bat-titles and
>renewed interest in Batman.
It increased sales because it was over-hyped and people expected an
actual death...as to renewing interest in Batman, I'd say that's
debatable...it's not like the books were tanking before RIP.
>I'm sure similar things apply at Marvel.
>
>There's sense there. Whether it is right or wrong may be subjective.
>It certainly will have people who think it is wrong.
>
>Just because you don't agree doesn't mean there isn't a good reason
>for it.
And it doesn't mean there is, either.
>You claim that DC copied Marvel in killing off Batman... it makes as
>much "sense to ditch and replace such a character" for that reason as
>it does any other. You're arguing against your own case here.
Once again, we're not just talking about a single event here...we're
talking about a sequence of events over several years...as I've said,
if it were only the death, I wouldn't be so convinced (although I
still might suspect it was at least partially motivated by the
creative and critical success Marvel had with Cap)
>> >> >Do you honestly think that DC would kill off Batman and not replace
>> >> >him?
>> >> Of course I don't,
>> >Then it's not a coincidence, it's the logical step.
>> Possibly...
>
>OK.
>
>> but that doesn't make it any less likely the whole idea was
>> inspired by what Marvel had done with Cap.
>
>
>It means that there is a conpeting reason that makes sense.
But my theory makes just as much sense...and you've already admitted
there is precedence for it.
>If they were both killed by exploding rabbits and one was clearly
>planned after the other happened, then you'd have proof.
Again, I'm not clear on who is copying who when...I never claimed to
be...I just think there are too many similarities for simple
coincidence.
>But two ideas that make complete (some) sense independently isn't
>proof of anything more then coincidence dispite you unwillingness to
>believe otherwise.
It's still 4 ideas...with a possible 5th on the way.
>> >I'm sure we both had dinner last night. Do you think that that is a
>> >coincidence, too?
>> I actually didn't have dinner last night...bet you feel pretty stupid
>> now, don't you?
>
>I eat, you didn't. I think you're the one who should feel pretty
>stupid.
I'm not starving so I'm not all that worried about it...but thanks for
your concern.
>> >> the death and replacement were certainly planned
>> >> together
>> >I'd like to think so, but with Die Dan Die in charge...
>> Well, in that case, you're admitting it wasn't a logical step after
>> all.
>
>A replacement was surely planned, but details? I don't know.
You don't know any of this...you can't pove I'm wrong anymore than I
can prove I'm right...it's all opinion.
Lilith
Actually BHC only had one bad word, albeit repeated once every 15
seconds.
--
Lilith
grinningdemon
<Paul....@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
>On Jul 8, 1:31 pm, grinningdemon <grinningde...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
>> >> if for no other reason than they made an event out of the
>> >> replacement rather than the death...
>> >They made an event out of RIP & Battle for the Cowl, but not the death
>> >because there wasn't one.
>> They easily could have left out the scene of Batman in the cave and
>> made his death the event...it would have been the more logical and
>> obvious choice and it wouldn't have affected future storylines in the
>> least.
>
>True. But in that way they'd have been copying Marvel, which clearly
>they weren't.
You still don't know that...anymore than you know if Marvel was
copying them.
>> >The handling could have informed each other. I even said as much in a
>> >previous post. The simple facts don't add up to plagarism though.
>> I never said it was plagarism...I said they were swiping the big ideas
>> from each other...they details are certainly different enough that I
>> would never have used that term.
>
>But the big ideas aren't new. And big ideas are easily coincidental.
>Two TV shows are about homicide cops in NY. Doesn't mean one copied
>the other.
These ideas are a little more specific than that...and it's more than
a single idea.
>> >Instead you pull up weak points and vague coincidences as evidence.
>> I think the points are pretty strong and several, sequential
>> "coincidences" add up to a pattern...and there is nothing vague about
>> the similarities here.
>
>All of which are obvious logical commonly used ideas.
There is nothing obvious about bringing back Jason or Bucky...there is
nothing obvious about "killing off" two of the most popular characters
in comics...and replacing them is only obvious after they are killed
off...there is also nothing obvious about bringing them back through
time travel.
>> >I think that Morrison had the idea for RIP in which Batman becomes a
>> >background player. Die Dan Die sees the idea and the name, gets and
>> >sees the PR problems without a death and asks Morrison to create one.
>> It's possible...but we don't really know what Morrison's original plan
>> was beyond not killing him off.
>
>True.
>
>> >None of that is contingent on Morrison or Die Dan Die knowing about
>> >Captain America.
>> I'd bet money that Didio's decision to "kill" Batman had at least
>> something to do with Cap...
>
>I wouldn't bet either way. There's no evidence that Die Dan Die's
>decision was based on what Marvel was doing. "Killing" a major
>character has happened to just about every major character. It bumps
>sales.
As it did with Marvel shortly before this happened...you honestly
don't think that success and all the mainstream media coverage
surrounding it was factored in at all?
>Neither is a safe bad, and as such it's an unfair accusation.
Only if I'm declaring it fact...it is my opinion...your guesses about
Morrison's original ideas could also be considered unfair accusations.
>> and I think you're reaching with this whole
>> bit about PR problems...covers and storyline titles are routinely
>> misleading...I recall a storyline title years about called "The Many
>> Deaths of Batman"...and Batman didn't die even once in the
>> story...hell, remember a few years back when every one of the
>> Bat-family books had the tagline on the cover "This issue...Batman
>> dies!!!" and it was all bullshit...a few dream sequences and some
>> didn't even bother to do that much.
>
>And the one title I got had the story replaced.
I'm not sure what you're referring to here.
>There's a difference between a cover "misrepresentation" and going out
>selling an idea.
The only difference is scale...if they hadn't hyped Batman RIP, it
would have just been another Batman story...no substantive changes
actually happened to any of the characters involved and it would have
been quickly forgotten.
>> >The only real coincidence is unrelated usages of time travel. Marvel
>> >may have copied the general idea of time travel... but it seems
>> >unlikely. If they had any kind of plan for Capt's return why would
>> >they just go and ditch it just to copy DC. It seems unlikely and
>> >pretty pointless.
>> For all either of us know, DC copied Marvel's plan that was already in
>> the works...
>
>How?
You think none of these people talk to each other? Most of the
creators work for both companies or at least have in the past so I'm
sure that both Marvel and DC end up finding out about some future
plotlines before they happen...hell, half the internet finds out about
future plotlines before they happen.
>> this whole thing comes down to a difference of opinion and
>> neither of us is going to convince the other.
>
>You're correct. I'm not going to accept your accusations about DC and
>Marvel without proof.
I'm not trying to prove a fact...I'm stating an opinion I have formed
from following both characters for several years.
>> >> and surely you'll admit that
>> >> Marvel and DC often swipe successful ideas from each other...
>> >Knowingly or unknowingly I'm sure they swipe from a lot of places.
>> So you're admitting I could be right, then?
>
>You could be but your "evidence" is pathetically weak. Never said
>otherwise.
That's your opinion, I don't think there's anything "pathetically
weak" about it...and let's see how you feel when my prediction come
true.
>> I'm talking several years of plotlines here...
>
>You're talking about 2 plots.
I'm talking about 4 with a possible 5th on the way...how many times
are going to make me say that?
>> >> I honestly believe you're partly arguing for the sake of arguing...
>> >Funny, I've been thinking the same thing about you. I've been
>> >wondering why you thought that such weak links added to up to
>> >evidence.
>
>> And I've been wondering why you are arguing so strongly when you
>> freely admit that you aren't even familar with Cap's storyline...for
>> all you know, they are exactly the same right down the last bit of
>> dialogue.
>
>Really? Present that evidence instead of vague broad brushstrokes
>that prove nothing more than normal operating procedures and
>concidence.
Those are the major similarities but there are other smaller ones
within the stories themselves and a general sense I get from following
both characters and seeing how DC and Marvel generally operate...I'm
not going to explain ever little detail...go read the story yourself
and we'll talk...the Cap storylines are actually good (for the most
part)...which far more than I can say about the Batman side of things.
>> >> if you were as familar with Cap as you are with Batman, I suspect you
>> >> would even agree with me on this.
>> >What Capt details am I missing? Enlighten me.
>
>> As I said before, I'm only listing the major events...there have been
>> other smaller similarities throughout and, having followed both
>> characters regularly for most of my life,
>
>As I said before they are - in broad brushstrokes - similar
>characters.
Not nearly as similar as the plotlines in question.
>> I see too many to be dismissed as coincidence...
>
>List more than the 4 pathetic ones that you have so far pretended are
>proof.
Again, we have very different options of what constitiutes pathetic.
>>> why don't you go read the story in question before getting into an argument over it?
>
>Why don't you present proof before accusing Marvel and DC or
>unoriginality?
How about another, unrelated example...two major events going on
simultaneously at Marvel and DC...both centered around massive
resurrections of dead characters as zombies (more or less) under the
control of archvillains surprisingly obcessed with death...and both
used as a springboard to permanently restore some of these formerly
dead characters...but I'm sure you think the similarity between
Blackest Night and Necrosha X was just coincidence as well.
>> Say what you want about me
>
>You're a pooey-pants.
Clever...you're sparkling wit never ceases to impress.
>> but you'll never see me arguing over storypoints for stories I haven't
>> read.
>
>Present your proof don't pretend to have hidden evidence.
Read the stories before arguing over something you really don't know
anything about.
>> >There's one in the back of my head, but unfortunately I can't bring it
>> >to mind. I'll admit one example wouldn't prove that point, though.
>> I think that's as close to admitting being wrong as you've ever come
>> here...don't strain yourself.
>
>I'm not admitting I'm wrong, I'm saying I can't prove something so I'm
>not going to claim it.
Except you already DID claim it.
>Sort of like how sad and pathetic it would be to claim that Marvel and
>DC were copying each other without proof.
There's really no point in arguing over this anymroe...you don't
actually know anything about the Cap stories beyond what you've been
told and clearly prefer to remain ignorant and yet pretend to be an
authority on the subject.
>> The sequence is in perfect order and there's nothing weak about "broad
>> brushstrokes" that are essentially the same.
>
>Explain the sequence of events in your conspiracy theory.
I already have...dead side kick returns (each one no one ever expected
or wanted to come back)...seeming character death...replaced by
sidekick...returned through time travel...and probably about to add
choosing not resume their traditional role to the list (though,
admittedly, the jury is still out on this one).
>> >I can't accept that. Morrison talked about RIP not being a literal
>> >death and about how it opened up new storytelling ideas. That to me
>> >says Bruce as a non-hero character (at least for some period). The
>> >execution of that idea now doesn't sound, to me, like copying an idea
>> >recently executed by Marvel.
>> You're only guessing what the original plan was...
>
>True.
>
>You're only guess who copied who about which points.
Which I have freely admitted...I'm not sure who copied who when...I
just think there has been copying going on here...likely on both
sides.
>> you don't
>> know...everything your're saying is based on one hell of an assumption
>
>See your entire argument.
Hardly...I formed an opinion based on years of storylines...you made a
big assumption based on things Morrison didn't actually say in an
interview.
>> that Morrison intended Bruce to step down from being Batman
>
>He implied it heavily at the time.
That's your opinion...with far weaker evidence than I had in forming
mine, I might add.
>> >I'd hate to see the person who wouldn't.
>> It takes all kinds...I'm sure there's some idiot out there that thinks
>> Batman and the Hulk might as well be twins.
>
>They are both called Bruce... perhaps they're not twins... they're the
>same person!
Nah...one of them wears glasses...couldn't possibly be the same guy.
Duggy
> On Thu, 8 Jul 2010 15:30:46 -0700 (PDT),Duggy
> <Paul.Dug...@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
> >On Jul 8, 12:53 pm, grinningdemon <grinningde...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
> >> On Wed, 7 Jul 2010 00:05:01 -0700 (PDT),Duggy
> >> >Broad brushstrokes make coincidences very easy.
> >> They also make ripped off ideas very obvious.
> >Not really. "Boy meets Girl" are broad brushstrokes, does mean every
> >film with romance ripped off the first.
> No...but, if several other major plot points of the movie match the
> first, then it's probably more than coincidence.
So it's not about broad brushstrokes, but details.
> >A comic book death that wasn't a real death. Colour me surprised.
> Then I suppose we all need to add quotes around death everytime we
> talk about any comic book character here.
So you agree comic book deaths frequently are actually deaths?
> >> How so? Were you in the room when they came up with the idea? And
> >> how do you know Brubaker's idea to bring back Bucky wasn't inpired by
> >> the fake-out with Jason Todd in Hush?
> >I don't. But that's a different issue, isn't it?
> How is it a different issue?
Because if you list every coincidence in several years you're going to
get a huge number of coincidences.
Booster Gold had a fake death using time travel, had a dead sidekick
return, was replaced as SuperNova... that's just a ten second think,
I'm sure that there are many others...
> I never claimed this was all a single
> storyline or that it was all planned out at one time...I'm not even
> saying that all the idea swiping in one-sided...
But you're saying that all coincidences are swipes.
> furthermore, I've
> never presented this as fact...merely my own opinon...much as it is
> your opinion that Morrison intended Batman to retire
http://www.comicbookresources.com:8080/?page=article&id=16024 :
(16/04/08)
But while “Batman & Son” was Morrison’s first storyline to find its
way to shelves, it wasn’t his first idea. “The first story I came up
with when I got to do the book was ‘Batman R.I.P.’ I came up with this
cover image of Batman kissing a girl and the costume being discarded
and that was the idea that just came into my head,” Morrison said. “So
I came to [Executive Editor] Dan DiDio back then and said, ’Okay. I am
going to work towards this big storyline called ‘Batman R.I.P.’’ And
he said, ‘Okay. Go for it. But it just can’t be ‘R.I.P.’ and nothing
happens, we have to do something with him.’ So he encouraged me to
take it more literally and that’s where it has ended up. This is the
end of Bruce Wayne as Batman.”
&
“Yes,” he said. “But like I say, it’s so much better than death.
People have killed characters in the past but to me, that kind of ends
the story! I like to keep the story twisting and turning. So what I am
doing is a fate worse than death. Things that no one would expect to
happen to these guys at all.”
> >I've never claimed despite what you've said I've claimed that DC &
> >Marvel don't copy... but Todd in Hush is clearly not part of the Death-
> >of-Batman-story.
> I never said it was...I'm talking major plot points involving these
> characters over several years...I never said it was all a single
> storyline and, if that was how you understood it, I apologize...I'll
> try to use smaller words for you next time.
Well the returning sidekick is pointless to the death discussion,
isn't it?
> >Doesn't make it evidence that they did.
> It's an opinion I have formed from having read all the stories in
> question...something you haven't even done but still feel compelled to
> argue over.
An opinion that every coincidence is a swipe.
> >Exactly. Big difference.
> No, it's not...in each case, they were replaced by the obvious
> choice...
Exactly. The obvious choice. So not a swiping but making obvious
choices.
> >Yeah, I know exactly what you mean... except that "years" was 2 months
> >as that was when he actually replaced Batman.
> And the first several years of the solo Nightwing title where Dick was
> working through his daddy issues stemming from that time.
I read the ongoing and he really wasn't. It was more the pre-
Knightfall minis where that crap happened.
> >> But, even if he is the obvious choice, I refuse to believe
> >So even if I have tapes of the DC meetings you hold onto your
> >conspiracy theory.
> Produce your tapes and we'll talk.
So you're backing down on your refusal to believe anything that
contradicts your opinion?
> I was thinking the same of you...even before this discussion began.
Ah, once again you are showing you're closed minded.
> >I see no evidence. All of your evidence has simple explanations.
> >Now, it's possible, but there's no real evidences and besides a few
> >minor coincidences the stories are pretty different...
> Major plotlines in sequence are more than "minor coincidences."
Sequence: Sidekick Returns, Character Dies, Sidekick replaces
Character, Character returns.
Oh my god! They followed the only, most logical sequence of events!
Call the police - there's evidence of theft.
> >Not the same way... Batman was sent back in time and a replacement
> >body was left.
> >Capt, it appears, had his soul travel backwards in his own body.
> In each case, they were seemingly killed, a body was left behind, and
> they were ultimately revealed never to have died due to explantions
> involving time travel.
Broad brushstrokes.
> >> >> that makes 4 major coincidences...
> >> >That's one coincidence.
> >> You might want to count again.
> >One. Yup, one.
> I guess you Aussies (you are Australian, right?)
Yup.
> must have a different
> numbering system from this side of the world because I still count
> 4...with a probably 5th on the way.
The time travel thing is a coincidence or a swipe. The others are
perfectly logical steps.
> >If he becomes a member of the Cabinet, sure.
> Cap isn't a member of the Cabinet.
> >Mentor to the Bat-family, no.
> Cap is essentially mentor to the Avengers as it stands now.
As Batman was to the JLA when he was force out... More coincidences!
Or are you trying to compare Avengers to Bat-family because there
isn't any Captain America-Family to play your coincidence game?
> >I can see the value in a short term (12 month max) mentor or even
> >bigger role in the DCU... but they'd need a pretty good reason to
> >bring him back in after that... rather than a bad reason not to come
> >back immediately I'd rather see him assume the role upon return... but
> >of course, the writers will always thing their reason is good.
> There might have been some value to it if they had done this
> immediately following RIP instead of the fake death...
Which seemed to the plan before Die Dan Die did his usual "take a good
idea and screw it"
> but the
> didn't...and making a big deal out of his return only to have him
> stand on the sidelines seems like a major cop-out to me...
Agreed... and makes the eventual return harder to accept.
Perfect execution may save the story, but even brillant execution
won't be enough.
Then I've seen prefect exection turned to crap by you-know-who.
> as it did
> with Cap...it was very disappointing...and I can't think of any
> believable reason Bruce would choose not to be Batman as long as he
> were physically able...and, if he ends up glimpsing the future and
> seeing that Dick will die if he doesn't continue being Batman (as Cap
> did with Bucky), then we'll have yet another plot point to prove me
> right.
Another of you possible future coincidences? Let's stick to present
coincidences.
The only reason I can see not to return as Batman is not to undermine
Dick. And the only way to return after that Bruce is to undermine
Dick... kill him... or promote him... but where do you get promoted to
from Batman...
===
= DUG.
===
grinningdemon
<Paul....@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
>On Jul 9, 2:25 pm, grinningdemon <grinningde...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 8 Jul 2010 15:30:46 -0700 (PDT),Duggy
>> <Paul.Dug...@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
>> >On Jul 8, 12:53 pm, grinningdemon <grinningde...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
>> >> On Wed, 7 Jul 2010 00:05:01 -0700 (PDT),Duggy
>> >> >Broad brushstrokes make coincidences very easy.
>> >> They also make ripped off ideas very obvious.
>> >Not really. "Boy meets Girl" are broad brushstrokes, does mean every
>> >film with romance ripped off the first.
>> No...but, if several other major plot points of the movie match the
>> first, then it's probably more than coincidence.
>
>So it's not about broad brushstrokes, but details.
Combination of both.
>> >A comic book death that wasn't a real death. Colour me surprised.
>> Then I suppose we all need to add quotes around death everytime we
>> talk about any comic book character here.
>
>So you agree comic book deaths frequently are actually deaths?
Are or aren't? It happens both ways but, regardless of whether of not
a character is truly dead or only presumed dead, they almost always
come back...and, for the purposes of this discussion, it's simpler to
refer to Batman and Cap as dead than having to make that distinction
everytime it comes up...since we both know how it played out and all.
>> >> How so? Were you in the room when they came up with the idea? And
>> >> how do you know Brubaker's idea to bring back Bucky wasn't inpired by
>> >> the fake-out with Jason Todd in Hush?
>> >I don't. But that's a different issue, isn't it?
>> How is it a different issue?
>
>Because if you list every coincidence in several years you're going to
>get a huge number of coincidences.
Which is why I stuck to major plot points in sequence...all 4 of the
biggest events for each character over the last few years mirror each
other.
>Booster Gold had a fake death using time travel, had a dead sidekick
>return, was replaced as SuperNova... that's just a ten second think,
>I'm sure that there are many others...
I'm not sure I'd count a small robot as a sidekick returned from the
dead but, regardless, you'd be hardpressed to think of another
character that fits all 4 criteria...death and replacement, sure, but
return of dead sidekick and "resurrection" via some form of time
travel are a bit harder to lock down, don't you think?
>> I never claimed this was all a single
>> storyline or that it was all planned out at one time...I'm not even
>> saying that all the idea swiping in one-sided...
>
>But you're saying that all coincidences are swipes.
I never said any such thing...there certainly are coincidences...but 4
major plot points mirroring each other in the same sequence over
roughly the same period of time goes beyond coincidence...and
sometimes, even a single event is an obvious swipe (as with Blackest
Night and Necrosha X that I mentioned in another post).
>> furthermore, I've
>> never presented this as fact...merely my own opinon...much as it is
>> your opinion that Morrison intended Batman to retire
>
>http://www.comicbookresources.com:8080/?page=article&id=16024 :
>
>(16/04/08)
>
>But while “Batman & Son” was Morrison’s first storyline to find its
>way to shelves, it wasn’t his first idea. “The first story I came up
>with when I got to do the book was ‘Batman R.I.P.’ I came up with this
>cover image of Batman kissing a girl and the costume being discarded
>and that was the idea that just came into my head,” Morrison said. “So
>I came to [Executive Editor] Dan DiDio back then and said, ’Okay. I am
>going to work towards this big storyline called ‘Batman R.I.P.’’ And
>he said, ‘Okay. Go for it. But it just can’t be ‘R.I.P.’ and nothing
>happens, we have to do something with him.’ So he encouraged me to
>take it more literally and that’s where it has ended up. This is the
>end of Bruce Wayne as Batman.”
>
>&
>
>“Yes,” he said. “But like I say, it’s so much better than death.
>People have killed characters in the past but to me, that kind of ends
>the story! I like to keep the story twisting and turning. So what I am
>doing is a fate worse than death. Things that no one would expect to
>happen to these guys at all.”
There are many ways that could have played out other than Batman
becoming a mentor...and you also have to consider that this is
Morrison here so you certainly can't take his words at face value.
>> >I've never claimed despite what you've said I've claimed that DC &
>> >Marvel don't copy... but Todd in Hush is clearly not part of the Death-
>> >of-Batman-story.
>> I never said it was...I'm talking major plot points involving these
>> characters over several years...I never said it was all a single
>> storyline and, if that was how you understood it, I apologize...I'll
>> try to use smaller words for you next time.
>
>Well the returning sidekick is pointless to the death discussion,
>isn't it?
It's not pointless to a discussion regarding similarities in Cap and
Batman plotlines, of which the returning sidekick and death are two
examples.
>> >Doesn't make it evidence that they did.
>> It's an opinion I have formed from having read all the stories in
>> question...something you haven't even done but still feel compelled to
>> argue over.
>
>An opinion that every coincidence is a swipe.
Again, I never said any such thing.
>> >Exactly. Big difference.
>> No, it's not...in each case, they were replaced by the obvious
>> choice...
>
>Exactly. The obvious choice. So not a swiping but making obvious
>choices.
Again, they are only obvious choices if you choose to kill off/replace
the character in the first place...and there is nothing obvious about
that choice.
>> >Yeah, I know exactly what you mean... except that "years" was 2 months
>> >as that was when he actually replaced Batman.
>> And the first several years of the solo Nightwing title where Dick was
>> working through his daddy issues stemming from that time.
>
>I read the ongoing and he really wasn't. It was more the pre-
>Knightfall minis where that crap happened.
No, actually, much of the early plotline of the ongoing Nightwing
series was about him deliberately distancing himself from Batman and
working through his issues at being forced to temporarily take over
for him.
>> >> But, even if he is the obvious choice, I refuse to believe
>> >So even if I have tapes of the DC meetings you hold onto your
>> >conspiracy theory.
>> Produce your tapes and we'll talk.
>
>So you're backing down on your refusal to believe anything that
>contradicts your opinion?
I never refused to believe anything that contradicts my opinion...I
freely admitted that any one of these events could be a
coincidence...but, taken together, I believe a pattern begins to
emerge that goes beyond coincidence...if anything, you are the one
refusing to believe anything that contradicts your own opinion.
>> I was thinking the same of you...even before this discussion began.
>
>Ah, once again you are showing you're closed minded.
And once again I was thinking the same of you.
>> >I see no evidence. All of your evidence has simple explanations.
>> >Now, it's possible, but there's no real evidences and besides a few
>> >minor coincidences the stories are pretty different...
>> Major plotlines in sequence are more than "minor coincidences."
>
>Sequence: Sidekick Returns, Character Dies, Sidekick replaces
>Character, Character returns.
You are over simplifying...character dying and sidekick replacing
character are fairly standard, I'll grant you, but the other two are a
bit more specific...it's not just a dead sidekick returning but a dead
sidekick that no one ever thought would be brought back (which is
really saying something in a genre where just about everyone comes
back)...and it's not just a character returning but a character
returning via some means of time travel after being revealed to never
be dead in the first place (not unheard of, I'll admit, but not
exactly common place)...factor in the exact same sequence of events
and that they occur at roughly the same time I don't think it's
unreasonable to see a connection.
>Oh my god! They followed the only, most logical sequence of events!
>Call the police - there's evidence of theft.
>> >Not the same way... Batman was sent back in time and a replacement
>> >body was left.
>> >Capt, it appears, had his soul travel backwards in his own body.
>
>> In each case, they were seemingly killed, a body was left behind, and
>> they were ultimately revealed never to have died due to explantions
>> involving time travel.
>
>Broad brushstrokes.
A bit more specific than that, actually.
>> >> >> that makes 4 major coincidences...
>> >> >That's one coincidence.
>> >> You might want to count again.
>> >One. Yup, one.
>> I guess you Aussies (you are Australian, right?)
>
>Yup.
>
>> must have a different
>> numbering system from this side of the world because I still count
>> 4...with a probably 5th on the way.
>
>The time travel thing is a coincidence or a swipe. The others are
>perfectly logical steps.
I disagree...and we are clearly at an impasse here.
>> >If he becomes a member of the Cabinet, sure.
>> Cap isn't a member of the Cabinet.
>
>> >Mentor to the Bat-family, no.
>> Cap is essentially mentor to the Avengers as it stands now.
>
>As Batman was to the JLA when he was force out... More coincidences!
It's a bit more than that actually...Cap isn't just offering help from
the sidelines...he's choosing the specific teams and directing all
their missions...a better comparison would be to Old Bruce in Batman
Beyond...though it's certainly not a perfect fit as Cap is still
active himself (just not in his traditional role).
>Or are you trying to compare Avengers to Bat-family because there
>isn't any Captain America-Family to play your coincidence game?
It's arguable that the Avengers ARE the Cap-family...Cap is far more
inherently linked to the Avengers than Batman is to the JLA...the
relationship actually is closer to that of Batman and the Bat-family.
>> >I can see the value in a short term (12 month max) mentor or even
>> >bigger role in the DCU... but they'd need a pretty good reason to
>> >bring him back in after that... rather than a bad reason not to come
>> >back immediately I'd rather see him assume the role upon return... but
>> >of course, the writers will always thing their reason is good.
>> There might have been some value to it if they had done this
>> immediately following RIP instead of the fake death...
>
>Which seemed to the plan before Die Dan Die did his usual "take a good
>idea and screw it"
It's your opinion that was the plan...and I don't really think it's
that good of an idea...though I agree Didio can screw anything
up...but I actually think Quesada is worse.
>> but the
>> didn't...and making a big deal out of his return only to have him
>> stand on the sidelines seems like a major cop-out to me...
>
>Agreed... and makes the eventual return harder to accept.
>
>Perfect execution may save the story, but even brillant execution
>won't be enough.
>
>Then I've seen prefect exection turned to crap by you-know-who.
>
>> as it did
>> with Cap...it was very disappointing...and I can't think of any
>> believable reason Bruce would choose not to be Batman as long as he
>> were physically able...and, if he ends up glimpsing the future and
>> seeing that Dick will die if he doesn't continue being Batman (as Cap
>> did with Bucky), then we'll have yet another plot point to prove me
>> right.
>
>Another of you possible future coincidences? Let's stick to present
>coincidences.
Let me ask you this? If these things do come to pass, are you still
going to irrationally insist they are all coincidences?
>The only reason I can see not to return as Batman is not to undermine
>Dick.
Except Dick has never wanted to be Batman and Batman never wanted him
to be Batman either...so that wouldn't make much sense.
And the only way to return after that Bruce is to undermine
>Dick... kill him... or promote him... but where do you get promoted to
>from Batman...
Even if there were a place to promote him to, there is no believable
way to put Dick ahead of Bruce while he's still around.
Duggy
> >Booster Gold had a fake death using time travel, had a dead sidekick
> >return, was replaced as SuperNova... that's just a ten second think,
> >I'm sure that there are many others...
> I'm not sure I'd count a small robot as a sidekick returned from the
> dead
Wait... Booster's sister is a robot?
Is that even possible?
===
= DUG.
===
Will Dockery
> grinningdemon quoted and noted:
>
> >> Bucky's non-death is no retcon. We never saw the body. All we saw
> >> was the fall. A true retcon involves changing something that we
> >> all saw and knew as truth; Bucky's return only told an untold
> >> tale that fit just fine with what we already saw and knew. The
> >> only change was a presumption, not a fact.
>
> > He was clearly intended to be dead...or he would have been brought
> > back long before now.
>
> In fact, in that old Avengers classic by Thomas and Buscema, "Death be
> Not Proud," (#56) didn't the Avengers go back in time with Cap to that
> fateful day, and failing to avert it, actually watch Bucky die?
>
Does Marvel even still consider those 40 year old stories to be in
continuity at this point?
--
Will Dockery, Folk Rock / Blues / Experimental:
http://www.myspace.com/willdockery
Will Dockery
wrote:
> On Tue, 06 Jul 2010 20:04:33 -0700, Anim8rFSK <ANIM8R...@cox.net> wrote:
> >In article <i0vr3b$4v...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> > Mike B <M1...@yahoo.NOSPAM.com> wrote:
>
> >> grinningdemon quoted and noted:
> >> >> Bucky's non-death is no retcon. We never saw the body. All we saw
> >> >> was the fall. A true retcon involves changing something that we
> >> >> all saw and knew as truth; Bucky's return only told an untold
> >> >> tale that fit just fine with what we already saw and knew. The
> >> >> only change was a presumption, not a fact.
>
> >> > He was clearly intended to be dead...or he would have been brought
> >> > back long before now.
>
> >> In fact, in that old Avengers classic by Thomas and Buscema, "Death be
> >> Not Proud," (#56) didn't the Avengers go back in time with Cap to that
> >> fateful day, and failing to avert it, actually watch Bucky die?
>
> >chunks of flesh!"
>
> >Bucky die.
>
> The Winter Soldier retcon didn't actually, really, retcon Bucky's death.
> The Winter Soldier story as I remember is, Cap drops free and lands in
> North Sea, Rocket go boom, Bucky's mangled body drops into North Sea, BMB
> fished out of North Seas by Russian ship, Russian scientists rebuild body,
> using some non-original parts, and revive body, although brain remains
> damaged until Rogers fixes it with Cosmic Cube.
>
> It still sucked.
Yeah... glad I didn't read all that after all, now.
--
Will Dockery, Folk Rock / Blues / Experimental:
http://www.myspace.com/willdockery
> --
> I have a theory, it could be bunnies
Duggy
> >> Of course the details are different, but several broad brushstrokes
> >> add up to more than coincidence, in my opinion.
> They also make ripped off ideas very obvious.
Broad brushstrokes make genre norms look like rip-offs.
> >> >The "death" is the biggest component and one was handled as a real
> >> >death and the other wasn't. Big difference.
> >> Actually, Batman's was handled as a real death too with a body and
> >> every thing (a distinction we've argued over before)...they just only
> >> waited a single issue to reveal he was still alive...
> >Less than half an issue.
> Doesn't matter...he was still just as dead as Cap...DC just revealed
> he wasn't actually dead sooner than Marvel did.
True, but a with a single issue death is massively different to a
appears-perminent-for-month and promoted that way.
> And how do you know Brubaker's idea to bring back Bucky wasn't inpired by
> the fake-out with Jason Todd in Hush?
Maybe it was. In which case Bucky's return wasn't copying Jason's
return by inspired by Jason not returning.
> >> death,
> >No uncommon in comics.
> Doesn't mean they didn't take the idea from the competition.
True, but it's a very weak coincidence because it is common.
> But, even if he is the obvious choice, I refuse to believe it's mere
> coincidence that DC pulled the trigger on that particular plot line so
> soon after Marvel's success doing the same with Cap.
You refuse to believe.
> Will you accept the truth if it does?
> That said, I actually hope I'm wrong about my prediction because I
> want Batman back...regardless, it's not going to change my opinion on
> the connection between Batman and Cap plotlines recently.
Ever. Even if you had the recordings.
> >True. But in that way they'd have been copying Marvel, which clearly
> >they weren't.
> You still don't know that...anymore than you know if Marvel was
> copying them.
So let me just be completely clear of what your theory is:
Marvel copies Batman story ideas when plotting Captain American and DC
copy CA ideas when plottting Batman.
Marvel doesn't steal Batman ideas and apply them to other characters,
and v.v.
DC doesn't steal ideas from other characters and apply them to Batman,
and v.v.
> >But the big ideas aren't new. And big ideas are easily coincidental.
> >Two TV shows are about homicide cops in NY. Doesn't mean one copied
> >the other.
> These ideas are a little more specific than that...and it's more than
> a single idea.
Coincidences happen.
> >All of which are obvious logical commonly used ideas.
> There is nothing obvious about bringing back Jason or Bucky...
It was very obvious to bring back Jason.
> there is
> nothing obvious about "killing off" two of the most popular characters
> in comics...
They do it all the time.
> and replacing them is only obvious after they are killed
> off...
Which is the situation we have. Duh.
> there is also nothing obvious about bringing them back through
> time travel.
Yeah, that is a coincidence. So, one.
> >I wouldn't bet either way. There's no evidence that Die Dan Die's
> >decision was based on what Marvel was doing. "Killing" a major
> >character has happened to just about every major character. It bumps
> >sales.
> As it did with Marvel shortly before this happened...you honestly
> don't think that success and all the mainstream media coverage
> surrounding it was factored in at all?
"factored in" isn't the same as "copied".
> >And the one title I got had the story replaced.
> I'm not sure what you're referring to here.
I ordered the Gotham Knights issue, but they changed the story at the
last minute.
> >There's a difference between a cover "misrepresentation" and going out
> >selling an idea.
> The only difference is scale...if they hadn't hyped Batman RIP, it
> would have just been another Batman story...no substantive changes
> actually happened to any of the characters involved and it would have
> been quickly forgotten.
If the point was to remove Bruce from the cowl then they'd be stupid
not to hype it.
(Personally I think the RIP name was the stupid bit)
> That's your opinion, I don't think there's anything "pathetically
> weak" about it...and let's see how you feel when my prediction come
> true.
That Batman joins the Cabinent?
> >As I said before they are - in broad brushstrokes - similar
> >characters.
> Not nearly as similar as the plotlines in question.
Pretty much as similar.
> How about another, unrelated example...two major events going on
> simultaneously at Marvel and DC...both centered around massive
> resurrections of dead characters as zombies (more or less) under the
> control of archvillains surprisingly obcessed with death...and both
> used as a springboard to permanently restore some of these formerly
> dead characters...but I'm sure you think the similarity between
> Blackest Night and Necrosha X was just coincidence as well.
Don't know the details of either. Zombies are hip right now. Any
excuse to bring characters back from the dead is usually taken.
Could be coincidence or not.
> yet pretend to be an
> authority on the subject.
Liar. I have never pretended to be an authority on Captain America.
I've been very clear that I don't know CA.
If you're going to make false claims about me and this arguement, I
don't think I can accept your claims about Batman & CA.
> >> The sequence is in perfect order and there's nothing weak about "broad
> >> brushstrokes" that are essentially the same.
> >Explain the sequence of events in your conspiracy theory.
> I already have...dead side kick returns (each one no one ever expected
> or wanted to come back)...seeming character death...replaced by
> sidekick...returned through time travel...and probably about to add
> choosing not resume their traditional role to the list (though,
> admittedly, the jury is still out on this one).
That's the in-story sequence. Purely circumstantial.
What's the order external to the story?
When did Bucky return? When was it first suggested or announced? How
does that relate to Jason's return? How does it relate to Hush?
> >> that Morrison intended Bruce to step down from being Batman
> >He implied it heavily at the time.
> That's your opinion...with far weaker evidence than I had in forming
> mine, I might add.
A sequence of coincidences - circumstantial evidence.
Questions answered by a writer - testimony of the accused.
Yes, the accused needs to be cross examined, we need other witnesses,
etc, but weaker than evidence which will be immediately dismissed?
No.
---
> >> >I'd hate to see the person who wouldn't.
> >> It takes all kinds...I'm sure there's some idiot out there that thinks
> >> Batman and the Hulk might as well be twins.
>
> >They are both called Bruce... perhaps they're not twins... they're the
> >same person!
>
> Nah...one of them wears glasses...couldn't possibly be the same guy.
---
> >> >Not really. "Boy meets Girl" are broad brushstrokes, does mean every
> >> >film with romance ripped off the first.
> >> No...but, if several other major plot points of the movie match the
> >> first, then it's probably more than coincidence.
> >So it's not about broad brushstrokes, but details.
> Combination of both.
Of course you need both - without the broad brushstrokes the details
won't match.
And as you make clear the broad brushstrokes are meaningless without
the details.
> >Because if you list every coincidence in several years you're going to
> >get a huge number of coincidences.
> Which is why I stuck to major plot points in sequence...all 4 of the
> biggest events for each character over the last few years mirror each
> other.
Batman took a year off... pretty major event. Did Capt?
> I'm not sure I'd count a small robot as a sidekick returned from the
> dead but, regardless, you'd be hardpressed to think of another
> character that fits all 4 criteria...death and replacement, sure, but
> return of dead sidekick and "resurrection" via some form of time
> travel are a bit harder to lock down, don't you think?
The fact that you think I'm talking about Booster's robot suggests you
haven't read the comic.
Please don't tell me you lied when you claimed you don't argue about
comics you don't read.
> I never said any such thing...there certainly are coincidences...but 4
> major plot points mirroring each other in the same sequence over
> roughly the same period of time goes beyond coincidence...
So reality stole from The West Wing?
> and
> sometimes, even a single event is an obvious swipe (as with Blackest
> Night and Necrosha X that I mentioned in another post).
Zombie movies are back in vogue. Zombie comics are hip. Marvel has
had massive success with Marvel Zombies.
The environment is right for in-universe zombie stories. Doesn't mean
there wasn't copying, but there's a logical framework that explains
how non-swiping can occur and cause coincidences.
> >http://www.comicbookresources.com:8080/?page=article&id=16024:
>
> >(16/04/08)
>
> >But while “Batman & Son” was Morrison’s first storyline to find its
> >way to shelves, it wasn’t his first idea. “The first story I came up
> >with when I got to do the book was ‘Batman R.I.P.’ I came up with this
> >cover image of Batman kissing a girl and the costume being discarded
> >and that was the idea that just came into my head,” Morrison said. “So
> >I came to [Executive Editor] Dan DiDio back then and said, ’Okay. I am
> >going to work towards this big storyline called ‘Batman R.I.P.’’ And
> >he said, ‘Okay. Go for it. But it just can’t be ‘R.I.P.’ and nothing
> >happens, we have to do something with him.’ So he encouraged me to
> >take it more literally and that’s where it has ended up. This is the
> >end of Bruce Wayne as Batman.”
>
> >&
>
> >“Yes,” he said. “But like I say, it’s so much better than death.
> >People have killed characters in the past but to me, that kind of ends
> >the story! I like to keep the story twisting and turning. So what I am
> >doing is a fate worse than death. Things that no one would expect to
> >happen to these guys at all.”
> There are many ways that could have played out other than Batman
> becoming a mentor...and you also have to consider that this is
> Morrison here so you certainly can't take his words at face value.
True. But it seems pretty clear that he wanted a period of Bruce
outside the cowl and didn't want an actual death.
> >> >Doesn't make it evidence that they did.
> >> It's an opinion I have formed from having read all the stories in
> >> question...something you haven't even done but still feel compelled to
> >> argue over.
> >An opinion that every coincidence is a swipe.
> Again, I never said any such thing.
So some similarities can be coincidences and some are swipes.
So 4 or 5 similarities can be 2 or 3 coincidences and 2 or 3 swipes?
> >So you're backing down on your refusal to believe anything that
> >contradicts your opinion?
> I never refused to believe anything that contradicts my opinion...I
> freely admitted that any one of these events could be a
> coincidence...but, taken together, I believe a pattern begins to
> emerge that goes beyond coincidence...if anything, you are the one
> refusing to believe anything that contradicts your own opinion.
Superman: Took a year off, came back, found a "son", had a "sidekick"
come back from the dead, went traveling (in space) and was replaced.
Batman: Took a year off, came back, found a son, had a sidekick
come back from the dead, went traveling (in time) and was replaced.
A sequence, broad brushstrokes, of Batman vs Superman.
Year off was part of a story, so for purposes of discussion we'll say
proven "copying".
The writers of Superman were a little peeved that both son stories
came out at the same time, so no copying there.
Sidekicks coming back from the dead were for different reasons (one
Hush, the other because it was a stupid idea)
The details of the travel/replace makes it unwind.
I'm sure I could find a 5th, 6th, etc coincidence if I looked a little
harder.
Coincidences happen. Sequences happen. A sequence of coincidences
proves nothing. Coincidences are cherry picked by our subconscience.
Details and differences are ignored.
> >> I was thinking the same of you...even before this discussion began.
> >Ah, once again you are showing you're closed minded.
> And once again I was thinking the same of you.
I haven't said "I refuse to believe", I haven't decided things about
you "before this discussion started"
> >Sequence: Sidekick Returns, Character Dies, Sidekick replaces
> >Character, Character returns.
> You are over simplifying...
Broad brushstrokes.
Or are they only OK when you do them?
> character dying and sidekick replacing
> character are fairly standard, I'll grant you, but the other two are a
> bit more specific...it's not just a dead sidekick returning but a dead
> sidekick that no one ever thought would be brought back (which is
> really saying something in a genre where just about everyone comes
> back)...
Yeah, Jason and Bucky were both "will never return" characters.
Their return is one event. Jason's was not part of Batman's death
storyline, but was unrelated.
I can't say if Bucky was returned just to set up this story. If Hush
had not come out in 2 years time instead then we wouldn't have this
part of the sequence in this order.
> and it's not just a character returning but a character
> returning via some means of time travel after being revealed to never
> be dead in the first place (not unheard of, I'll admit, but not
> exactly common place)...
But the details on the time travel are different. Most of the other
"cheats" have been done and we can't really expect the DC or Marvel
superheroes not to pick up a someone else's body or shapechanger or
someone else in the costume, etc.
Resurrection brings the problem
> factor in the exact same sequence of events
> and that they occur at roughly the same time I don't think it's
> unreasonable to see a connection.
Coincidence isn't proof of connection. As I said there is a lot more
examples in The West Wing election cf the real election and I'm sure
we can agree that the real election didn't copy the TV show.
If you look at things you can find coincidences everywhere. Then
things that aren't coincidence are ignored or dismissed.
I'm afraid for you. You seem to be falling for the exact things that
fake psychics like John Edwards rely on to rip people off.
> >> In each case, they were seemingly killed, a body was left behind, and
> >> they were ultimately revealed never to have died due to explantions
> >> involving time travel.
> >Broad brushstrokes.
> A bit more specific than that, actually.
So you claim. Never offered any examples.
> >> must have a different
> >> numbering system from this side of the world because I still count
> >> 4...with a probably 5th on the way.
> >The time travel thing is a coincidence or a swipe. The others are
> >perfectly logical steps.
> I disagree...and we are clearly at an impasse here.
Obviously.
> >Or are you trying to compare Avengers to Bat-family because there
> >isn't any Captain America-Family to play your coincidence game?
> It's arguable that the Avengers ARE the Cap-family...Cap is far more
> inherently linked to the Avengers than Batman is to the JLA...the
> relationship actually is closer to that of Batman and the Bat-family.
How many of the Avengers have been CA's sidekick?
How many of the Avengers are blood relatives?
How many of the Avengers have been adopted or fostered by CA?
How many of the Avengers have borrowed motifs from CA?
How many of the Avengers tried to fill the CA role in his absence?
> >Which seemed to the plan before Die Dan Die did his usual "take a good
> >idea and screw it"
> It's your opinion that was the plan...and I don't really think it's
> that good of an idea...though I agree Didio can screw anything
> up...but I actually think Quesada is worse.
Not a big Marvel read so can't speak to that one.
All I can say is that I've seen a string of ideas good and bad made
unbarable by Die Dan Die's interference.
> >Another of you possible future coincidences? Let's stick to present
> >coincidences.
> Let me ask you this? If these things do come to pass, are you still
> going to irrationally insist they are all coincidences?
Depends on the details, timing and whether the things being none make
sense outside of copying.
> >The only reason I can see not to return as Batman is not to undermine
> >Dick.
> Except Dick has never wanted to be Batman and Batman never wanted him
> to be Batman either...so that wouldn't make much sense.
Never?
> > And the only way to return after that Bruce is to undermine
> >Dick... kill him... or promote him... but where do you get promoted to
> >from Batman...
> Even if there were a place to promote him to, there is no believable
> way to put Dick ahead of Bruce while he's still around.
That's true.
I think they'll just undermine Dick.
Then again maybe Die Dan Die is smarter than we think and want people
to demand Dick's death so Bruce returns to the role.
===
= DUG.
===
grinningdemon
I forgot all about her...I was thinking of Skeets...even so, it may be
a closer fit than any other I can think of but it's still out of
sequence...and no one really cared enough about Booster's sister to
give a damn whether or not she returned so it's not like a completely
unexpected turn of events as with Jason or Bucky.
Duggy
> I forgot all about her...I was thinking of Skeets...even so, it may be
> a closer fit than any other I can think of but it's still out of
> sequence...
It's easy to find a sequence with two characters than it is to find a
third to fit that sequence.
It's easy to find a Batman/Superman sequence, hard to find someone
else that fits it.
> and no one really cared enough about Booster's sister to
> give a damn whether or not she returned so it's not like a completely
> unexpected turn of events as with Jason or Bucky.
Once again, broad brushstrokes make coincidences easier to find, the
details are were differences start to show.
===
= DUG.
===
grinningdemon
<Paul....@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
>
>> >> Of course the details are different, but several broad brushstrokes
>> >> add up to more than coincidence, in my opinion.
>> >Broad brushstrokes make coincidences very easy.
>> They also make ripped off ideas very obvious.
>
>Broad brushstrokes make genre norms look like rip-offs.
Again, not all of these are genre norms...and a sequence of several
"broad brushstrokes" (not a good term, in my opinion, because at
leaste 2 of these are more specific than you seem willing to admit).
>> >> >The "death" is the biggest component and one was handled as a real
>> >> >death and the other wasn't. Big difference.
>> >> Actually, Batman's was handled as a real death too with a body and
>> >> every thing (a distinction we've argued over before)...they just only
>> >> waited a single issue to reveal he was still alive...
>> >Less than half an issue.
>> Doesn't matter...he was still just as dead as Cap...DC just revealed
>> he wasn't actually dead sooner than Marvel did.
>
>True, but a with a single issue death is massively different to a
>appears-perminent-for-month and promoted that way.
Not so much...thanks to all the hype surrounding Batman RIP, his death
actually expected by many fans...and, from a story perspective, to the
DCU at large, Bruce was dead for quite a while.
>> And how do you know Brubaker's idea to bring back Bucky wasn't inpired by
>> the fake-out with Jason Todd in Hush?
>
>Maybe it was. In which case Bucky's return wasn't copying Jason's
>return by inspired by Jason not returning.
Your splitting hairs...I've already said I never meant any of this
rose to the level of plagarism...I never said it was all exactly
alike...and, for story purposes, I would lump Hush in with the actual
return that followed because it was almost a direct follow-up and they
even retconned in Jason's fake-out appearance in Hush to actually be
him after all.
>> >> death,
>> >No uncommon in comics.
>> Doesn't mean they didn't take the idea from the competition.
>
>True, but it's a very weak coincidence because it is common.
These are not all common...and especially not in this sequence and
timeframe (which, despite you insistence to the contrary, DOES deserve
to be factored in)
>> But, even if he is the obvious choice, I refuse to believe it's mere
>> coincidence that DC pulled the trigger on that particular plot line so
>> soon after Marvel's success doing the same with Cap.
>
>You refuse to believe.
I'll qualify that...I refuse to believe it without evidence to the
contrary...which you don't have.
>> Will you accept the truth if it does?
>> That said, I actually hope I'm wrong about my prediction because I
>> want Batman back...regardless, it's not going to change my opinion on
>> the connection between Batman and Cap plotlines recently.
>
>Ever. Even if you had the recordings.
I suspect, if we had such recordings, they would actually prove me
right but, if not, I would admit I was wrong.
>> >True. But in that way they'd have been copying Marvel, which clearly
>> >they weren't.
>> You still don't know that...anymore than you know if Marvel was
>> copying them.
>
>So let me just be completely clear of what your theory is:
>
>Marvel copies Batman story ideas when plotting Captain American and DC
>copy CA ideas when plottting Batman.
>Marvel doesn't steal Batman ideas and apply them to other characters,
>and v.v.
>DC doesn't steal ideas from other characters and apply them to Batman,
>and v.v.
I never said that...Marvel and DC steal ideas from each other all the
time...but my specific theory here is based around Cap and Batman
because I think it has been quite obvious here.
If you'd like another example, look at the new Nightwing and
Flamebird...Flamebird is a thinly veiled knockoff of Marvel's Phoenix
both in appearance and basic concept...but Nightwing and Flamebird as
a pair are also swiping elements from Hawkman and Hawkgirl...so, in
this case, DC is swiping from themselves as well as from Marvel.
>> >But the big ideas aren't new. And big ideas are easily coincidental.
>> >Two TV shows are about homicide cops in NY. Doesn't mean one copied
>> >the other.
>> These ideas are a little more specific than that...and it's more than
>> a single idea.
>
>Coincidences happen.
I already admitted that...but this many over the same time period and
in the same sequence make it less likely to be pure coincidence.
>> >All of which are obvious logical commonly used ideas.
>> There is nothing obvious about bringing back Jason or Bucky...
>
>It was very obvious to bring back Jason.
Only after his fake-out return in Hush...and, as I said above, for
purposes of his return as a plotline, I don't distinguish between the
two...that said, one could argue that the fake-out actually makes his
return less obvious and make less sense.
>> there is
>> nothing obvious about "killing off" two of the most popular characters
>> in comics...
>
>They do it all the time.
But it is never the obvious thing to do.
>> and replacing them is only obvious after they are killed
>> off...
>
>Which is the situation we have. Duh.
But killing them is not the obvious thing to do.
>> there is also nothing obvious about bringing them back through
>> time travel.
>
>Yeah, that is a coincidence. So, one.
Still 4...but I don't think they are coincidences...as we've covered
over and over.
>> >I wouldn't bet either way. There's no evidence that Die Dan Die's
>> >decision was based on what Marvel was doing. "Killing" a major
>> >character has happened to just about every major character. It bumps
>> >sales.
>> As it did with Marvel shortly before this happened...you honestly
>> don't think that success and all the mainstream media coverage
>> surrounding it was factored in at all?
>
>"factored in" isn't the same as "copied".
You're splitting hair again...I already said the stories weren't
direct copies but swiping the inspiration for the story and it's basic
premise is what I'm referring to.
>> >And the one title I got had the story replaced.
>> I'm not sure what you're referring to here.
>
>I ordered the Gotham Knights issue, but they changed the story at the
>last minute.
I wasn't aware of that...it happens.
>> >There's a difference between a cover "misrepresentation" and going out
>> >selling an idea.
>> The only difference is scale...if they hadn't hyped Batman RIP, it
>> would have just been another Batman story...no substantive changes
>> actually happened to any of the characters involved and it would have
>> been quickly forgotten.
>
>If the point was to remove Bruce from the cowl then they'd be stupid
>not to hype it.
>(Personally I think the RIP name was the stupid bit)
I thought the story was pretty lame in general, but that's just me...I
haven't liked any of Morrison's Batman stuff since the first issue he
did...the ninja manbats rock.
>> That's your opinion, I don't think there's anything "pathetically
>> weak" about it...and let's see how you feel when my prediction come
>> true.
>
>That Batman joins the Cabinent?
I never predicted that...and Cap is not in the Cabinet.
>> >As I said before they are - in broad brushstrokes - similar
>> >characters.
>> Not nearly as similar as the plotlines in question.
>
>Pretty much as similar.
Not at all.
>> How about another, unrelated example...two major events going on
>> simultaneously at Marvel and DC...both centered around massive
>> resurrections of dead characters as zombies (more or less) under the
>> control of archvillains surprisingly obcessed with death...and both
>> used as a springboard to permanently restore some of these formerly
>> dead characters...but I'm sure you think the similarity between
>> Blackest Night and Necrosha X was just coincidence as well.
>
>Don't know the details of either. Zombies are hip right now. Any
>excuse to bring characters back from the dead is usually taken.
>
>Could be coincidence or not.
Zombies are big right now...but the similarities go beyond the zombie
bit...and, once again, the time is suspect...to major events going on
act exactly the same time when DC had already been hyping Blackest
Night for at least 2 years prior...I'd say Marvel probably swiped the
idea in this case.
>> yet pretend to be an
>> authority on the subject.
>
>Liar. I have never pretended to be an authority on Captain America.
>I've been very clear that I don't know CA.
And yet you still argue as though you are...actions speak louder than
words, so to speak.
>If you're going to make false claims about me and this arguement, I
>don't think I can accept your claims about Batman & CA.
You already don't...so what the hell difference would that make?
>> >> The sequence is in perfect order and there's nothing weak about "broad
>> >> brushstrokes" that are essentially the same.
>> >Explain the sequence of events in your conspiracy theory.
>> I already have...dead side kick returns (each one no one ever expected
>> or wanted to come back)...seeming character death...replaced by
>> sidekick...returned through time travel...and probably about to add
>> choosing not resume their traditional role to the list (though,
>> admittedly, the jury is still out on this one).
>
>That's the in-story sequence. Purely circumstantial.
But it still makes it look bad and contributes to the overall
similarity.
>What's the order external to the story?
>
>When did Bucky return? When was it first suggested or announced? How
>does that relate to Jason's return? How does it relate to Hush?
Bucky's return wasn't hyped at all...it just kind of happened...I'm
just guessing but I think it roughly coincided with Jason's actual
return after Hush...but Jason's return wasn't really hyped either...it
was hinted at, as was Bucky's, for a few issues before the final
reveal.
>> >> that Morrison intended Bruce to step down from being Batman
>> >He implied it heavily at the time.
>> That's your opinion...with far weaker evidence than I had in forming
>> mine, I might add.
>
>A sequence of coincidences - circumstantial evidence.
>Questions answered by a writer - testimony of the accused.
People get convicted of crimes on circumstantial evidence...I think
it's more than enough to form an opinion...and you calling them all
coincidences presumes that I am wrong...and you can't know that for
sure.
>Yes, the accused needs to be cross examined, we need other witnesses,
>etc, but weaker than evidence which will be immediately dismissed?
>
>No.
Circumstantial evidence is not immediately dismissed...and the accused
didn't actually say anything to directly support your arguement so you
don't really have any more evidence than I do.
>> >> >I'd hate to see the person who wouldn't.
>> >> It takes all kinds...I'm sure there's some idiot out there that thinks
>> >> Batman and the Hulk might as well be twins.
>>
>> >They are both called Bruce... perhaps they're not twins... they're the
>> >same person!
>>
>> Nah...one of them wears glasses...couldn't possibly be the same guy.
>
>---
>
>
>
>> >> >Not really. "Boy meets Girl" are broad brushstrokes, does mean every
>> >> >film with romance ripped off the first.
>> >> No...but, if several other major plot points of the movie match the
>> >> first, then it's probably more than coincidence.
>> >So it's not about broad brushstrokes, but details.
>> Combination of both.
>
>
>Of course you need both - without the broad brushstrokes the details
>won't match.
>And as you make clear the broad brushstrokes are meaningless without
>the details.
Not sure what we're arguing about here...we actually seem to agree on
this.
>> >Because if you list every coincidence in several years you're going to
>> >get a huge number of coincidences.
>> Which is why I stuck to major plot points in sequence...all 4 of the
>> biggest events for each character over the last few years mirror each
>> other.
>
>Batman took a year off... pretty major event. Did Capt?
It wasn't really a major event...or at least not a major Batman
event...because they just skipped over it and carried on business as
usual...that said, you keep insisting that sequence doesn't count...if
that's true, then Cap has indeed taken time off more than once
before...and he is right now.
>> I'm not sure I'd count a small robot as a sidekick returned from the
>> dead but, regardless, you'd be hardpressed to think of another
>> character that fits all 4 criteria...death and replacement, sure, but
>> return of dead sidekick and "resurrection" via some form of time
>> travel are a bit harder to lock down, don't you think?
>
>The fact that you think I'm talking about Booster's robot suggests you
>haven't read the comic.
>Please don't tell me you lied when you claimed you don't argue about
>comics you don't read.
I have read the comic...but you were talking about 52 so that's what I
was thinking of...and I was also thinking in sequence and Booster's
sister didn't return until well after his "death" and return...and
she's not really a sidekick either...furthermore, the return through
time travel actually is obvious in Booster's case since time travel is
an inherent element of the character...something you certainly cannot
say about Batman or Cap.
>> I never said any such thing...there certainly are coincidences...but 4
>> major plot points mirroring each other in the same sequence over
>> roughly the same period of time goes beyond coincidence...
>
>So reality stole from The West Wing?
Yes, that's exactly what I meant...you're a genius.
Seriously though, the West Wing was trying to depict realtiy so their
plotlines were meant to be believable possibilites...in that context,
it makes sense that some of them would actually happen.
>> and
>> sometimes, even a single event is an obvious swipe (as with Blackest
>> Night and Necrosha X that I mentioned in another post).
>
>Zombie movies are back in vogue. Zombie comics are hip. Marvel has
>had massive success with Marvel Zombies.
>The environment is right for in-universe zombie stories. Doesn't mean
>there wasn't copying, but there's a logical framework that explains
>how non-swiping can occur and cause coincidences.
Zombie isn't actually an accurate description of the characters in
these two cases...they do have the traditional appearance of zombies
(particularly in Blackest Night) but they don't have the traditional
demeanor of zombies...they have all their memories and act more or
less normally (aside from being evil and all)...but, upon reflection,
the depiction of the black lanterns in Blackest Night actually isn't
far off from Marvel Zombies.
>> >http://www.comicbookresources.com:8080/?page=article&id=16024:
>>
>> >(16/04/08)
>>
>> >But while “Batman & Son” was Morrison’s first storyline to find its
>> >way to shelves, it wasn’t his first idea. “The first story I came up
>> >with when I got to do the book was ‘Batman R.I.P.’ I came up with this
>> >cover image of Batman kissing a girl and the costume being discarded
>> >and that was the idea that just came into my head,” Morrison said. “So
>> >I came to [Executive Editor] Dan DiDio back then and said, ’Okay. I am
>> >going to work towards this big storyline called ‘Batman R.I.P.’’ And
>> >he said, ‘Okay. Go for it. But it just can’t be ‘R.I.P.’ and nothing
>> >happens, we have to do something with him.’ So he encouraged me to
>> >take it more literally and that’s where it has ended up. This is the
>> >end of Bruce Wayne as Batman.”
>>
>> >&
>>
>> >“Yes,” he said. “But like I say, it’s so much better than death.
>> >People have killed characters in the past but to me, that kind of ends
>> >the story! I like to keep the story twisting and turning. So what I am
>> >doing is a fate worse than death. Things that no one would expect to
>> >happen to these guys at all.”
>
>> There are many ways that could have played out other than Batman
>> becoming a mentor...and you also have to consider that this is
>> Morrison here so you certainly can't take his words at face value.
>
>True. But it seems pretty clear that he wanted a period of Bruce
>outside the cowl and didn't want an actual death.
But it doesn't suggest anything about mentor status.
>> >> >Doesn't make it evidence that they did.
>> >> It's an opinion I have formed from having read all the stories in
>> >> question...something you haven't even done but still feel compelled to
>> >> argue over.
>> >An opinion that every coincidence is a swipe.
>> Again, I never said any such thing.
>
>So some similarities can be coincidences and some are swipes.
>So 4 or 5 similarities can be 2 or 3 coincidences and 2 or 3 swipes?
Could be...but the sequence and time frame make that less
likely...certainly not impossible...but less likely.
>> >So you're backing down on your refusal to believe anything that
>> >contradicts your opinion?
>> I never refused to believe anything that contradicts my opinion...I
>> freely admitted that any one of these events could be a
>> coincidence...but, taken together, I believe a pattern begins to
>> emerge that goes beyond coincidence...if anything, you are the one
>> refusing to believe anything that contradicts your own opinion.
>
>Superman: Took a year off, came back, found a "son", had a "sidekick"
>come back from the dead, went traveling (in space) and was replaced.
>Batman: Took a year off, came back, found a son, had a sidekick
>come back from the dead, went traveling (in time) and was replaced.
He didn't find a biological son (and Batman had already had several
such surrogate sons)...the "sidekick" was never actually his sidekick
at all...and had only even died since Jason and Bucky's return (and
some suspect that was due to legal reasons rather than plot
choices)...and he wasn't actually replaced as he was still active and
regularly appearing in the books all that time and Mon-El never called
himself Superman or wore his costume...you're reaching here.
>A sequence, broad brushstrokes, of Batman vs Superman.
>
>Year off was part of a story, so for purposes of discussion we'll say
>proven "copying".
>The writers of Superman were a little peeved that both son stories
>came out at the same time, so no copying there.
>Sidekicks coming back from the dead were for different reasons (one
>Hush, the other because it was a stupid idea)
>The details of the travel/replace makes it unwind.
>
>I'm sure I could find a 5th, 6th, etc coincidence if I looked a little
>harder.
And I could probably pick them apart as I already have most the ones
you just listed.
>Coincidences happen. Sequences happen. A sequence of coincidences
>proves nothing. Coincidences are cherry picked by our subconscience.
>Details and differences are ignored.
These plotlines aren't nearly as similar as the ones we've been
discussing...and, if you think they are, then it makes me wonder if
you've even read all the Superman stories you're mentioning.
>> >> I was thinking the same of you...even before this discussion began.
>> >Ah, once again you are showing you're closed minded.
>> And once again I was thinking the same of you.
>
>I haven't said "I refuse to believe", I haven't decided things about
>you "before this discussion started"
The things I decided about you are based on our previous discussions
so I have good reason.
>> >Sequence: Sidekick Returns, Character Dies, Sidekick replaces
>> >Character, Character returns.
>
>> You are over simplifying...
>
>Broad brushstrokes.
>
>Or are they only OK when you do them?
I never went that broad...I was always more specific than this.
>> character dying and sidekick replacing
>> character are fairly standard, I'll grant you, but the other two are a
>> bit more specific...it's not just a dead sidekick returning but a dead
>> sidekick that no one ever thought would be brought back (which is
>> really saying something in a genre where just about everyone comes
>> back)...
>
>Yeah, Jason and Bucky were both "will never return" characters.
>
>Their return is one event. Jason's was not part of Batman's death
>storyline, but was unrelated.
I never said it was related...doesn't mean it wasn't swiped...or that
Marvel didn't swipe from it.
>I can't say if Bucky was returned just to set up this story.
He wasn't, killing off Cap wasn't planned all along (editorial wanted
to end Civil War with it) and he was actually only supposed to be gone
for a single story arc so Bucky wasn't even originally supposed to
replace him as Cap.
If Hush
>had not come out in 2 years time instead then we wouldn't have this
>part of the sequence in this order.
I'm not sure what you mean here.
>> and it's not just a character returning but a character
>> returning via some means of time travel after being revealed to never
>> be dead in the first place (not unheard of, I'll admit, but not
>> exactly common place)...
>
>But the details on the time travel are different. Most of the other
>"cheats" have been done and we can't really expect the DC or Marvel
>superheroes not to pick up a someone else's body or shapechanger or
>someone else in the costume, etc.
>Resurrection brings the problem
Time travel is specific is enough when we are talking about characters
who aren't inherent time travelers (unlike Booster).
>> factor in the exact same sequence of events
>> and that they occur at roughly the same time I don't think it's
>> unreasonable to see a connection.
>
>Coincidence isn't proof of connection. As I said there is a lot more
>examples in The West Wing election cf the real election and I'm sure
>we can agree that the real election didn't copy the TV show.
>If you look at things you can find coincidences everywhere. Then
>things that aren't coincidence are ignored or dismissed.
I didn't say it was proof...but it is suggestive...a perfectly valid
basis for my opinion.
>I'm afraid for you. You seem to be falling for the exact things that
>fake psychics like John Edwards rely on to rip people off.
What ever you need to think.
>> >> In each case, they were seemingly killed, a body was left behind, and
>> >> they were ultimately revealed never to have died due to explantions
>> >> involving time travel.
>> >Broad brushstrokes.
>> A bit more specific than that, actually.
>
>So you claim. Never offered any examples.
I was always more specific than this.
>> >> must have a different
>> >> numbering system from this side of the world because I still count
>> >> 4...with a probably 5th on the way.
>> >The time travel thing is a coincidence or a swipe. The others are
>> >perfectly logical steps.
>> I disagree...and we are clearly at an impasse here.
>
>Obviously.
Then I guess we'll just keep arguing in circles until one of us gets
sick of it and quits...like many of our previous disagreements.
>> >Or are you trying to compare Avengers to Bat-family because there
>> >isn't any Captain America-Family to play your coincidence game?
>> It's arguable that the Avengers ARE the Cap-family...Cap is far more
>> inherently linked to the Avengers than Batman is to the JLA...the
>> relationship actually is closer to that of Batman and the Bat-family.
>
>How many of the Avengers have been CA's sidekick?
Depends on how loosely you use the term sidekick...several of his
partners have beome Avengers...Falcon, for instance...and Bucky is
currently an Avenger...and not all of the Bat-family have been true
sidekicks to Batman either...only the Robins.
>How many of the Avengers are blood relatives?
None of the bat-family were blood relatives until just recently.
>How many of the Avengers have been adopted or fostered by CA?
The Avengers are typically adults so that part doesn't fit so
well...but he has been a close mentor to many of the Avengers dating
back to the beginning of the team.
>How many of the Avengers have borrowed motifs from CA?
USAgent, Bucky (obviously), Patriot, Taskmaster (if you count the
Initiative)...I'm sure there are more but that's all I can think of at
the moment.
>How many of the Avengers tried to fill the CA role in his absence?
USAgent briefly took over as Cap years ago...Hawkeye was offered the
gig by Iron Man and actually went on a mission with Cap's suit and
shield but ultimately turned it down...and, of course, Bucky.
>> >Which seemed to the plan before Die Dan Die did his usual "take a good
>> >idea and screw it"
>> It's your opinion that was the plan...and I don't really think it's
>> that good of an idea...though I agree Didio can screw anything
>> up...but I actually think Quesada is worse.
>
>Not a big Marvel read so can't speak to that one.
Quesada needs to be fired in the worst way if only for what he's done
to Spiderman...but, in his case, it's mostly bad ideas made
horrible...and some of them come directly from him.
>All I can say is that I've seen a string of ideas good and bad made
>unbarable by Die Dan Die's interference.
>
>
>> >Another of you possible future coincidences? Let's stick to present
>> >coincidences.
>> Let me ask you this? If these things do come to pass, are you still
>> going to irrationally insist they are all coincidences?
>
>Depends on the details, timing and whether the things being none make
>sense outside of copying.
>
>
>> >The only reason I can see not to return as Batman is not to undermine
>> >Dick.
>> Except Dick has never wanted to be Batman and Batman never wanted him
>> to be Batman either...so that wouldn't make much sense.
>
>Never?
Certainly not in recent history...not in several decades.
>> > And the only way to return after that Bruce is to undermine
>> >Dick... kill him... or promote him... but where do you get promoted to
>> >from Batman...
>> Even if there were a place to promote him to, there is no believable
>> way to put Dick ahead of Bruce while he's still around.
>
>That's true.
>
>I think they'll just undermine Dick.
There's really no other way to do it.
>Then again maybe Die Dan Die is smarter than we think and want people
>to demand Dick's death so Bruce returns to the role.
I would have been happier if Dick had died in Infinite Crisis as
originally planned...and, if Didio got fired over it, all the better.
Duggy
> On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 16:37:47 -0700 (PDT), Duggy
> <Paul.Dug...@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
>...and a sequence of several
> "broad brushstrokes" (not a good term, in my opinion, because at
> leaste 2 of these are more specific than you seem willing to admit).
Broad brushstrokes is a bad term, agreed. I think that "Resurrection
through Time Travel" counts as pretty broad... We've seen it happen to
as well as Batman we've seen it happen to Booster, his sister, many
others, and some for brief resurrections until the timeline was
repaired (Blue Beetle and many others)
But I see how there is a difference in level between "Back from the
dead" and "back through time travel", however the difference, and the
devil is in the detail... "fake body, real body sent back in time" and
"travelled through his own life" are details that differ.
My point with the broad brushstrokes is that there will always be
levels at which things look the same.
> >True, but a with a single issue death is massively different to a
> >appears-perminent-for-month and promoted that way.
> Not so much...thanks to all the hype surrounding Batman RIP, his death
> actually expected by many fans...and, from a story perspective, to the
> DCU at large, Bruce was dead for quite a while.
The DCU perspective is meaningless. The read experienced a long-term
supposed real death in CA, but a couple of pages death in Batman.
These are details that differ.
> >> And how do you know Brubaker's idea to bring back Bucky wasn't inpired by
> >> the fake-out with Jason Todd in Hush?
> >Maybe it was. In which case Bucky's return wasn't copying Jason's
> >return by inspired by Jason not returning.
> Your splitting hairs...
What about my splitting hairs?
> I've already said I never meant any of this
> rose to the level of plagarism...I never said it was all exactly
> alike...
Sunk to the level of plagarim, I think you mean.
> and, for story purposes, I would lump Hush in with the actual
> return that followed because it was almost a direct follow-up
I disagree. There is a difference between a story continuing the
previous one and a story being inspired by the previous one.
If Hush had a hint that Jason was still alive, maybe, but it was an
after though a reaction to the reaction to Hush.
> and they
> even retconned in Jason's fake-out appearance in Hush to actually be
> him after all.
I know. But retconning a story doesn't mean that it was planned as
part of that story.
And I think this line is a little bit of mud.
It's clouding the water, but I don't think it is helping your case.
===
= DUG.
===
Duggy
> <Paul.Dug...@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
> >> >> death,
> >> >No uncommon in comics.
> >> Doesn't mean they didn't take the idea from the competition.
> >True, but it's a very weak coincidence because it is common.
> These are not all common...and especially not in this sequence and
> timeframe (which, despite you insistence to the contrary, DOES deserve
> to be factored in)
Sequence does to a degree... but then some of the sequence has to
happen in that order... the resurrection has to happen after the
death, for example.
> I'll qualify that...I refuse to believe it without evidence to the
> contrary...which you don't have.
I refuse to believe your theory without evidence to the contary which
you've failed to provide.
> I suspect, if we had such recordings, they would actually prove me
> right but, if not, I would admit I was wrong.
I think "you can't prove a negative" applies here. If you're right,
and the right moments were recorded, you'd have prrof. You;d have to
record everything the writer and the editor ever said if I'm right and
even then it would be difficult to use it as "proof."
> >So let me just be completely clear of what your theory is:
> >Marvel copies Batman story ideas when plotting Captain American and DC
> >copy CA ideas when plottting Batman.
> >Marvel doesn't steal Batman ideas and apply them to other characters,
> >and v.v.
> >DC doesn't steal ideas from other characters and apply them to Batman,
> >and v.v.
> I never said that...Marvel and DC steal ideas from each other all the
> time...but my specific theory here is based around Cap and Batman
> because I think it has been quite obvious here.
So why, in the case of CA & Batman have they been so obvious? I mean,
sure some copying (consciously or not) goes on... but why so much with
these two characters?
> If you'd like another example, look at the new Nightwing and
> Flamebird...Flamebird is a thinly veiled knockoff of Marvel's Phoenix
> both in appearance and basic concept...but Nightwing and Flamebird as
> a pair are also swiping elements from Hawkman and Hawkgirl...so, in
> this case, DC is swiping from themselves as well as from Marvel.
Character concepts always swipe. Batman had Zorro & the Phantom...
Superman pulps, etc. These days it's pretty hard to create a
character that doesn't echo someone else... Even when in Flamebird's
case their prototypes pre-existed the characters they are now
"copying".
> >Coincidences happen.
> I already admitted that...but this many over the same time period and
> in the same sequence make it less likely to be pure coincidence.
Nothing's pure. There's always the possibility of an external other
as well.
The point is some of these things have explanations. You may thinks
they're weak and not enough, but if one or two are blown it weakens
your case.
As
Duggy
> <Paul.Dug...@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
> >> >All of which are obvious logical commonly used ideas.
> >> There is nothing obvious about bringing back Jason or Bucky...
> >It was very obvious to bring back Jason.
> Only after his fake-out return in Hush...
Exactly.
> and, as I said above, for
> purposes of his return as a plotline, I don't distinguish between the
> two...that said, one could argue that the fake-out actually makes his
> return less obvious and make less sense.
Plotwise it makes less sense. Saleswise it makes more sense.
Which is a company going to prefer?
> But it is never the obvious thing to do.
It is when the story is called RIP.
> >> and replacing them is only obvious after they are killed
> >> off...
> >Which is the situation we have. Duh.
> But killing them is not the obvious thing to do.
Sure, but whether killing them is a coincidence or copying or
something else, replacing them is not another coincidence but a
natural next step.
===
= DUG.
===
Michael
> In article <DjnZn.16565$dx7....@newsfe21.iad>,
> Michael <this...@for.rent> wrote:
>
>
>>Edward McArdle wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article
>>><3cbd297e-ea17-48f8...@m40g2000prc.googlegroups.com>, Duggy
>>><Paul....@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Jul 7, 1:04=A0pm, Anim8rFSK <ANIM8R...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Quote Anna from Hudson Hawk: "You're supposed to be blown up into fiery
>>>>>chunks of flesh!"
>>>>
>>>>Would you believe the care had a fire sprinkler?
>>>>
>>>>Would you believe I've seen that whole bit cut from a TV version to
>>>>remove swearing?
>>>>
>>>>=3D=3D=3D
>>>>=3D DUG.
>>>>=3D=3D=3D
>>>
>>>
>>>If they removed the swearing from Hudson Hawk the film would only run
>>>about ten minutes!
>>>
>>>Which is why I thought it failed. You can have lots of bad language in a
>>>serious film, but not in a light-hearted one.
>>
>>Hudson Hawk failed because it's a horrible horrible movie.
>>
>>Michael
>
>
> The vast majority of people that express that opinion have never
> actually seen it.
But what's the opinion expressed by the vast majority of people who DID
see it?
Michael
Anim8rFSK
Michael <this...@for.rent> wrote:
"Hey, that wasn't NEARLY as bad as I'd heard!"
grinningdemon
<Paul....@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
>On Jul 12, 3:42 pm, grinningdemon <grinningde...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 16:37:47 -0700 (PDT), Duggy
>> <Paul.Dug...@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
>
>>...and a sequence of several
>> "broad brushstrokes" (not a good term, in my opinion, because at
>> leaste 2 of these are more specific than you seem willing to admit).
>
>Broad brushstrokes is a bad term, agreed. I think that "Resurrection
>through Time Travel" counts as pretty broad... We've seen it happen to
>as well as Batman we've seen it happen to Booster, his sister, many
>others, and some for brief resurrections until the timeline was
>repaired (Blue Beetle and many others)
I don't think "resurrection through time travel" is very broad as it
applies to Cap and Batman...as I've already said, these are characters
that don't really lend themselves to time travel stories (unlike
Booster)...and temporary resurrections through time travel shouldn't
count at all...it's a gimmick that is used over and over but permanent
resurrections in this way are surprisingly rare.
>But I see how there is a difference in level between "Back from the
>dead" and "back through time travel", however the difference, and the
>devil is in the detail... "fake body, real body sent back in time" and
>"travelled through his own life" are details that differ.
Yes, but, in each case, a body was left behind...of course the fine
details differ but, on the surface, the stories are rather similar.
>My point with the broad brushstrokes is that there will always be
>levels at which things look the same.
True...but it comes down to what you consider broad...as I've said
repeatedly, death and replacement certainly could, but, coupled with
genuinely unexpected return of dead sidekick and resurrection through
time travel, all in the same sequence and relative time period, it
looks bad.
>> >True, but a with a single issue death is massively different to a
>> >appears-perminent-for-month and promoted that way.
>> Not so much...thanks to all the hype surrounding Batman RIP, his death
>> actually expected by many fans...and, from a story perspective, to the
>> DCU at large, Bruce was dead for quite a while.
>
>The DCU perspective is meaningless. The read experienced a long-term
>supposed real death in CA, but a couple of pages death in Batman.
>These are details that differ.
Fair enough...the "death" itself wasn't emphasized (seeing as how they
immediately revealed he was still alive) but, as with Cap, the
emphasis was on the reaction to the death rather than the event
itself...in that sense, the similarity holds.
>> >> And how do you know Brubaker's idea to bring back Bucky wasn't inpired by
>> >> the fake-out with Jason Todd in Hush?
>> >Maybe it was. In which case Bucky's return wasn't copying Jason's
>> >return by inspired by Jason not returning.
>
>> Your splitting hairs...
>
>What about my splitting hairs?
I'll just leave that one alone.
>> I've already said I never meant any of this
>> rose to the level of plagarism...I never said it was all exactly
>> alike...
>
>Sunk to the level of plagarim, I think you mean.
Actually, many of these copied story ideas actually improve on the
original so it all depends on the specific case, I suppose.
>> and, for story purposes, I would lump Hush in with the actual
>> return that followed because it was almost a direct follow-up
>
>I disagree. There is a difference between a story continuing the
>previous one and a story being inspired by the previous one.
Yes, but, if it's the beginning of the pattern, then the event of the
resurrection (or even the fake-out) could have been enough to kick it
off...the two really can't be seperated in this sense.
>If Hush had a hint that Jason was still alive, maybe, but it was an
>after though a reaction to the reaction to Hush.
Not to knitpick, but Hush had lots of hints that Jason was still
alive...right up to the final part of the story.
>> and they
>> even retconned in Jason's fake-out appearance in Hush to actually be
>> him after all.
>
>I know. But retconning a story doesn't mean that it was planned as
>part of that story.
>
>And I think this line is a little bit of mud.
>
>It's clouding the water, but I don't think it is helping your case.
It's the beginning of the pattern...if my theory is correct, it was
likely the fake-out in Hush that inspired Bucky's return as well as
Jason's real return...I don't think it weakens my case.
grinningdemon
<Paul....@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
>On Jul 12, 3:42 pm, grinningdemon <grinningde...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 16:37:47 -0700 (PDT), Duggy
>> <Paul.Dug...@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
>
>> >> >> death,
>> >> >No uncommon in comics.
>> >> Doesn't mean they didn't take the idea from the competition.
>> >True, but it's a very weak coincidence because it is common.
>> These are not all common...and especially not in this sequence and
>> timeframe (which, despite you insistence to the contrary, DOES deserve
>> to be factored in)
>
>Sequence does to a degree... but then some of the sequence has to
>happen in that order... the resurrection has to happen after the
>death, for example.
True...but, as you agree, it contributes to the theory.
>> I'll qualify that...I refuse to believe it without evidence to the
>> contrary...which you don't have.
>
>I refuse to believe your theory without evidence to the contary which
>you've failed to provide.
It's an opinion...I can't absolutely prove it any more than you can
disprove it...but, if the pattern continues as I suspect it will, we
may have to revisit this discussion.
>> I suspect, if we had such recordings, they would actually prove me
>> right but, if not, I would admit I was wrong.
>
>I think "you can't prove a negative" applies here. If you're right,
>and the right moments were recorded, you'd have prrof. You;d have to
>record everything the writer and the editor ever said if I'm right and
>even then it would be difficult to use it as "proof."
Given the level of similarity here, there's no way it didn't come up
at some point...whether the plots were actually inspired by each other
or it was just someone else noticing the obvious similarity, you would
probably agree that it must have been addressed.
>> >So let me just be completely clear of what your theory is:
>
>> >Marvel copies Batman story ideas when plotting Captain American and DC
>> >copy CA ideas when plottting Batman.
>> >Marvel doesn't steal Batman ideas and apply them to other characters,
>> >and v.v.
>> >DC doesn't steal ideas from other characters and apply them to Batman,
>> >and v.v.
>
>> I never said that...Marvel and DC steal ideas from each other all the
>> time...but my specific theory here is based around Cap and Batman
>> because I think it has been quite obvious here.
>
>So why, in the case of CA & Batman have they been so obvious? I mean,
>sure some copying (consciously or not) goes on... but why so much with
>these two characters?
That's a question for Marvel and DC...the level of animosity between
the two companies seems to have been on the rise in recent years
(hence, the lack of company crossovers these days) so it wouldn't
surprise me if they were intentionally trying to irritate each
other...it seems petty but stranger things have happened...or it could
simply be motivated by the level of publicity surrounding these
plotlines...trying to take advantage of each other's success...or
perhaps a combination of both.
>> If you'd like another example, look at the new Nightwing and
>> Flamebird...Flamebird is a thinly veiled knockoff of Marvel's Phoenix
>> both in appearance and basic concept...but Nightwing and Flamebird as
>> a pair are also swiping elements from Hawkman and Hawkgirl...so, in
>> this case, DC is swiping from themselves as well as from Marvel.
>
>Character concepts always swipe. Batman had Zorro & the Phantom...
>Superman pulps, etc. These days it's pretty hard to create a
>character that doesn't echo someone else... Even when in Flamebird's
>case their prototypes pre-existed the characters they are now
>"copying".
You're right, but usually they try to hide it better...with Flamebird,
it seems rather blatant...almost on the level of the Superman
archetype characters that have popped up with so many other
publishers...but, in those cases, the similarity it meant to be
intentional...I'm not sure what's up here.
>> >Coincidences happen.
>> I already admitted that...but this many over the same time period and
>> in the same sequence make it less likely to be pure coincidence.
>
>Nothing's pure. There's always the possibility of an external other
>as well.
>
>The point is some of these things have explanations. You may thinks
>they're weak and not enough, but if one or two are blown it weakens
>your case.
That's true...but you can't dismiss any of them as coincidence...it
could be either way...but, if any these really are intentional swipes,
then there's a good chance they all are.
grinningdemon
<Paul....@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
>On Jul 12, 3:42 pm, grinningdemon <grinningde...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 16:37:47 -0700 (PDT), Duggy
>> <Paul.Dug...@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
>
>> >> >All of which are obvious logical commonly used ideas.
>> >> There is nothing obvious about bringing back Jason or Bucky...
>> >It was very obvious to bring back Jason.
>> Only after his fake-out return in Hush...
>
>Exactly.
>
>> and, as I said above, for
>> purposes of his return as a plotline, I don't distinguish between the
>> two...that said, one could argue that the fake-out actually makes his
>> return less obvious and make less sense.
>
>Plotwise it makes less sense. Saleswise it makes more sense.
I'm not sure it does coming right on the heels of the fake-out...and I
don't think his actual return was really such a huge sales success.
>Which is a company going to prefer?
I wish I could say they were more concerned with telling good stories.
>> But it is never the obvious thing to do.
>
>It is when the story is called RIP.
Not necessarily...most comic fans would know that story titles like
that are rarely so literal...I myself never expected him to actually
die in that storyline...and he didn't...in any sense, since even his
fake death actually occurred in Final Crisis rather than RIP.
>> >> and replacing them is only obvious after they are killed
>> >> off...
>> >Which is the situation we have. Duh.
>> But killing them is not the obvious thing to do.
>
>Sure, but whether killing them is a coincidence or copying or
>something else, replacing them is not another coincidence but a
>natural next step.
Yes and no...even if it is, there are still ways they could have made
the stories more unique and, thereby, less similar...but, then again,
that holds true for all of these plotlines.
Duggy
> <Paul.Dug...@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
> >"factored in" isn't the same as "copied".
> You're splitting hair again...I already said the stories weren't
> direct copies but swiping the inspiration for the story and it's basic
> premise is what I'm referring to.
"Factored in" means they had the idea independently but knew about
about the other story line.
"Copied" means they only came up with the story line because of the
identical one.
> >> >And the one title I got had the story replaced.
> >> I'm not sure what you're referring to here.
> >I ordered the Gotham Knights issue, but they changed the story at the
> >last minute.
> I wasn't aware of that...it happens.
It does.
I think it was a bank story, so I don't think there was even a fake
"batman dies" (can't remember)
> >If the point was to remove Bruce from the cowl then they'd be stupid
> >not to hype it.
> >(Personally I think the RIP name was the stupid bit)
> I thought the story was pretty lame in general, but that's just me...I
> haven't liked any of Morrison's Batman stuff since the first issue he
> did...the ninja manbats rock.
I mean in the process. The part that made things go off the rails.
If it had been "Batman No More" or something then the pressure would
have been off Die Dan Die to put in a death for to stop PR backlash.
> >That Batman joins the Cabinent?
> I never predicted that...and Cap is not in the Cabinet.
Whatever role he takes in your backward system of government then.
> >Don't know the details of either. Zombies are hip right now. Any
> >excuse to bring characters back from the dead is usually taken.
> >Could be coincidence or not.
> Zombies are big right now...but the similarities go beyond the zombie
> bit...and, once again, the time is suspect...
I remember a few years back both Titans and Supergirl (in a
"crossover" with Young Justice - who were really only guest stars in a
Supergirl story PAD (cool initials) was telling) had fake hell
stories. Superman and Batrman both had simultaneous "son" stories.
DC wasn't copying DC. They didn't realise. Coincidences happen. The
writers usually prefer it not to happen and would hava avoided it if
possible.
> to major events going on
> act exactly the same time when DC had already been hyping Blackest
> Night for at least 2 years prior...I'd say Marvel probably swiped the
> idea in this case.
Maybe, maybe not.
> >Liar. I have never pretended to be an authority on Captain America.
> >I've been very clear that I don't know CA.
> And yet you still argue as though you are...actions speak louder than
> words, so to speak.
I argue the points you give me. You pretend there are otherpoints but
your false to elucidate is telling.
> >If you're going to make false claims about me and this arguement, I
> >don't think I can accept your claims about Batman & CA.
> You already don't...so what the hell difference would that make?
I'm willing to be convinced. You have yet to come up with any
convincing evidence. The fact that you've started lying isn't
helping.
I may disagree. I
Duggy
> >> >> brushstrokes" that are essentially the same.
> >> >Explain the sequence of events in your conspiracy theory.
> >> I already have...dead side kick returns (each one no one ever expected
> >> or wanted to come back)...seeming character death...replaced by
> >> sidekick...returned through time travel...and probably about to add
> >> choosing not resume their traditional role to the list (though,
> >> admittedly, the jury is still out on this one).
> >That's the in-story sequence. Purely circumstantial.
> But it still makes it look bad and contributes to the overall
> similarity.
True, but the real world sequence is what gets to the heart of the
matter.
Tell me how you see the real world sequence working.
> >What's the order external to the story?
> >When did Bucky return? When was it first suggested or announced? How
> >does that relate to Jason's return? How does it relate to Hush?
> Bucky's return wasn't hyped at all... it just kind of happened...I'm
> just guessing
Just guessing?
> but I think it roughly coincided with Jason's actual
> return after Hush...but Jason's return wasn't really hyped either...it
> was hinted at, as was Bucky's, for a few issues before the final
> reveal.
So sounds like a coincidence inspired by fan reaction to Hush.
> >Of course you need both - without the broad brushstrokes the details
> >won't match.
> >And as you make clear the broad brushstrokes are meaningless without
> >the details.
> Not sure what we're arguing about here...we actually seem to agree on
> this.
I think we're clarifying that point, but failing to agree on where
"broad brushstrokes" begin and end.
> >> I never said any such thing...there certainly are coincidences...but 4
> >> major plot points mirroring each other in the same sequence over
> >> roughly the same period of time goes beyond coincidence...
> >So reality stole from The West Wing?
> Yes, that's exactly what I meant...you're a genius.
> Seriously though, the West Wing was trying to depict realtiy so their
> plotlines were meant to be believable possibilites...in that context,
> it makes sense that some of them would actually happen.
True, but Hilary was the most obvious Democrat (after The West Wing
Southland Tales out and stated it in their future)
The West Wing tried to invent reality but they also tried to tell
stories... a minority Democrat creates the stories they wanted to
tell, a female obviously didn't...
There were choices made, some obvious, some not, some fluke guesses.
They all added up to a lot of similarities.
That said, a lot of the smaller points are pretty forced when you get
beyond the broad brushstrokes (ignore the Rep VP candidate which is
different, focus on the Dem VP who is the same, etc...) which happens
when you find a string of coincidences. Anything that is a
coincidence is focused on, anything that isn't is ignored and the
details are handwaved away.
That's how John Edwards defrauds people.
===
= DUG.
===
Duggy
> to end Civil War with it) and he was actually only supposed to be gone
> for a single story arc so Bucky wasn't even originally supposed to
> replace him as Cap.
Fair enough.
> If Hush
> >had not come out in 2 years time instead then we wouldn't have this
> >part of the sequence in this order.
> I'm not sure what you mean here.
The Hush story caused Jason's return. Jason's return isn't needed for
Batman's death... the sequencing is unimportant.
Because Bucky replaced CA, his returned needed to happen first.
> Time travel is specific is enough
I've accepted this as the one true coincidence... the thing hardest to
"explain"
> when we are talking about characters
> who aren't inherent time travelers (unlike Booster).
A fair call.
Actually, Jason's Reality Punch return and Batman's Time Travel death
don't sit well with me.
Not a CA reader so that doesn't worry me as much... not happy with it,
but not upset. A little bit of me likes the WWII soldier/
Slaughterhouse 5 connection... if they referenced that I may become a
fan of the usage... but not my issue.
> I didn't say it was proof...but it is suggestive...a perfectly valid
> basis for my opinion.
Suggestive isn't enough for me.
> >I'm afraid for you. You seem to be falling for the exact things that
> >fake psychics like John Edwards rely on to rip people off.
> What ever you need to think.
I don't need to. It's the way of the world. People look for patterns
in coincidence.
> >> >Broad brushstrokes.
> >> A bit more specific than that, actually.
> >So you claim. Never offered any examples.
> I was always more specific than this.
Than this?
> >Obviously.
> Then I guess we'll just keep arguing in circles until one of us gets
> sick of it and quits...like many of our previous disagreements.
We've argued before?
> >How many of the Avengers have been CA's sidekick?
> Depends on how loosely you use the term sidekick...several of his
> partners have beome Avengers...Falcon, for instance...and Bucky is
> currently an Avenger...and not all of the Bat-family have been true
> sidekicks to Batman either...only the Robins.
The Robins are 5 members of the family (And have been 2 Nightwings,
2-3 Red Robins & a Spoiler)
That leaves a couple of Batgirls and a Batwoman. (borrowed motif)
Huntress was a blood relative in an old universe, has been, briefly a
Batgirl.
> >How many of the Avengers are blood relatives?
> None of the bat-family were blood relatives until just recently.
Historically, one was in the Silver-age, but isn't now.
> >How many of the Avengers have been adopted or fostered by CA?
> The Avengers are typically adults so that part doesn't fit so
> well...but he has been a close mentor to many of the Avengers dating
> back to the beginning of the team.
So not as much of a "family"?
> >How many of the Avengers have borrowed motifs from CA?
> USAgent, Bucky (obviously), Patriot, Taskmaster (if you count the
> Initiative)...I'm sure there are more but that's all I can think of at
> the moment.
But not, pretty much, the entire group?
> >How many of the Avengers tried to fill the CA role in his absence?
> USAgent briefly took over as Cap years ago...Hawkeye was offered the
> gig by Iron Man and actually went on a mission with Cap's suit and
> shield but ultimately turned it down...and, of course, Bucky.
And who is this "Bucky" of which you speak?
OK... now... how many of The Avengers don't fit one of those
groupings? How many of that Batman family?
> >Not a big Marvel read so can't speak to that one.
> Quesada needs to be fired in the worst way if only for what he's done
> to Spiderman...but, in his case, it's mostly bad ideas made
> horrible...and some of them come directly from him.
I agree with the Spider-man from what I've heard... both on the "why
do it?" and "why change an idea that a least made a little more
sense?" level.
> >> Except Dick has never wanted to be Batman and Batman never wanted him
> >> to be Batman either...so that wouldn't make much sense.
> >Never?
> Certainly not in recent history...not in several decades.
Except for the period that he was Batman.
> >I think they'll just undermine Dick.
> There's really no other way to do it.
Agreed.
> I would have been happier if Dick had died in Infinite Crisis as
> originally planned...and, if Didio got fired over it, all the better.
I'd have prefer the thought not come up. The handling of the last
mind change was stupid... Dick is knocked out and Batman goes on a
vengence kick and grabs a gun... Huh?
Even if it was hugely unpopular, I doubt Die Dan Die would have been
fired for it.
===
= DUG.
===
grinningdemon
<Paul....@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
>On Jul 12, 3:42 pm, grinningdemon <grinningde...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 16:37:47 -0700 (PDT), Duggy
>> <Paul.Dug...@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
>
>> >"factored in" isn't the same as "copied".
>> You're splitting hair again...I already said the stories weren't
>> direct copies but swiping the inspiration for the story and it's basic
>> premise is what I'm referring to.
>
>"Factored in" means they had the idea independently but knew about
>about the other story line.
>
>"Copied" means they only came up with the story line because of the
>identical one.
I don't think it's possible to come up with the idea totally
independently if they knew about the identical one...I don't see how
you can either.
>> >> >And the one title I got had the story replaced.
>> >> I'm not sure what you're referring to here.
>> >I ordered the Gotham Knights issue, but they changed the story at the
>> >last minute.
>> I wasn't aware of that...it happens.
>
>It does.
>
>I think it was a bank story, so I don't think there was even a fake
>"batman dies" (can't remember)
That was truly one of the worst sales gimmicks I can think of.
>> >If the point was to remove Bruce from the cowl then they'd be stupid
>> >not to hype it.
>> >(Personally I think the RIP name was the stupid bit)
>> I thought the story was pretty lame in general, but that's just me...I
>> haven't liked any of Morrison's Batman stuff since the first issue he
>> did...the ninja manbats rock.
>
>I mean in the process. The part that made things go off the rails.
>
>If it had been "Batman No More" or something then the pressure would
>have been off Die Dan Die to put in a death for to stop PR backlash.
I think you're overestimating this "PR backlash"...and, need I remind
you, Batman's "death" didn't even happen in RIP.
>> >That Batman joins the Cabinent?
>> I never predicted that...and Cap is not in the Cabinet.
>
>Whatever role he takes in your backward system of government then.
He's taken over Nick Fury's role, essentially head of SHIELD...but
he's got a very hands-on, mentor-vibe going on with the current
Avengers set up, choosing each team line-up and personally directing
their missions.
>> >Don't know the details of either. Zombies are hip right now. Any
>> >excuse to bring characters back from the dead is usually taken.
>> >Could be coincidence or not.
>
>> Zombies are big right now...but the similarities go beyond the zombie
>> bit...and, once again, the time is suspect...
>
>I remember a few years back both Titans and Supergirl (in a
>"crossover" with Young Justice - who were really only guest stars in a
>Supergirl story PAD (cool initials) was telling) had fake hell
>stories. Superman and Batrman both had simultaneous "son" stories.
>DC wasn't copying DC. They didn't realise. Coincidences happen. The
>writers usually prefer it not to happen and would hava avoided it if
>possible.
Coincidences do happen...I've already admitted that...but the stories
you are talking about are mostly low-profile storylines...they weren't
major plotlines and didn't really get all that much attention...and
the Batman's son storyline was actually based off a graphic novel that
came out 20 years ago so the only coincidence was that it came back up
at the same time the Superman son storyline was happening...and, as
you are keen to notice, the details of the stories are significantly
different...beginning with the fundamental difference that Damian
actually IS Batman's son and Chris Kent is NOT Superman's kid.
>> to major events going on
>> act exactly the same time when DC had already been hyping Blackest
>> Night for at least 2 years prior...I'd say Marvel probably swiped the
>> idea in this case.
>
>Maybe, maybe not.
It's impossible to prove...but you have to admit it looks suspect.
>> >Liar. I have never pretended to be an authority on Captain America.
>> >I've been very clear that I don't know CA.
>> And yet you still argue as though you are...actions speak louder than
>> words, so to speak.
>
>I argue the points you give me. You pretend there are otherpoints but
>your false to elucidate is telling.
There are other points, but they are more minor and, in some cases,
the similarities aren't as strong...for instance, right around the
time Damian showed up in the Batman books, there was a Cap storyline
about him getting his girlfriend pregnant (though she ultimately lost
the baby)...there is another parallel between the Damian "raised as an
assassin" plot point and Captain America from the Ultimate line (he
had an illegitimate son he never knew about that grew up to become a
terrorist and the Ultimate version of Red Skull)...there is also a
strong general similarity in the mood and tone of the stories but it's
not something I can really describe (which is why I suggested you read
the Cap stories).
>> >If you're going to make false claims about me and this arguement, I
>> >don't think I can accept your claims about Batman & CA.
>> You already don't...so what the hell difference would that make?
>
>I'm willing to be convinced. You have yet to come up with any
>convincing evidence. The fact that you've started lying isn't
>helping.
I haven't lied about anything...I don't know what you're talking
about.
>I may disagree. I
Lost your train of thought, perhaps?
grinningdemon
<Paul....@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
>On Jul 12, 3:42 pm, grinningdemon <grinningde...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
>> >> >> The sequence is in perfect order and there's nothing weak about "broad
>> >> >> brushstrokes" that are essentially the same.
>> >> >Explain the sequence of events in your conspiracy theory.
>> >> I already have...dead side kick returns (each one no one ever expected
>> >> or wanted to come back)...seeming character death...replaced by
>> >> sidekick...returned through time travel...and probably about to add
>> >> choosing not resume their traditional role to the list (though,
>> >> admittedly, the jury is still out on this one).
>> >That's the in-story sequence. Purely circumstantial.
>> But it still makes it look bad and contributes to the overall
>> similarity.
>
>True, but the real world sequence is what gets to the heart of the
>matter.
>
>Tell me how you see the real world sequence working.
I'd say Hush started it all...that likely inspired, not only the true
return of Jason, but the return of Bucky as well...from there, there
was a slow build up of Bucky in the Cap book which brought Marvel a
lot of critical and commercial success (which may well have
contributed to DC's varied, contradictory, and failed attempts to
reinvent Jason since his return)...then came Civil War and Marvel
wanted to kill off Cap to give the storyline major impact, this got
some serious mainstream media attention (which, I believe, more than
contributed to DC's later decision to kill off Batman)...Bucky had
already been built up as the only possible choice for a replacement
(and Nightwing holds a similar position in the Bat-family though, in
his case, it was more of a slow build over decades rather than recent
like Bucky)...from here, it gets hard to figure out...resurrections on
both sides were obvious but it is impossible to know who had the time
travel idea first...DC obviously pulled the trigger first but, if
interviews can be believed, Cap's return was planned from the start
and supposed to come much sooner so they may have already had the plot
in mind...obviously, this is all conjecture on my part but I think it
seems plausable.
>> >What's the order external to the story?
>> >When did Bucky return? When was it first suggested or announced? How
>> >does that relate to Jason's return? How does it relate to Hush?
>
>> Bucky's return wasn't hyped at all... it just kind of happened...I'm
>> just guessing
>
>Just guessing?
I would have to go back and check when the books came out exactly but
I can say, with certainty, that they storylines roughly coincided
because I remember everyone complaining about how much they didn't
want Jason or Bucky to come back...that they happened right around the
same time seemed to amplify fans' distaste over the ideas...Brubaker
and Marvel were able to overcome this with a well crafted and executed
story...DC fell short.
>> but I think it roughly coincided with Jason's actual
>> return after Hush...but Jason's return wasn't really hyped either...it
>> was hinted at, as was Bucky's, for a few issues before the final
>> reveal.
>
>So sounds like a coincidence inspired by fan reaction to Hush.
If it was inspired by Hush, then it's not a coincidence.
>> >Of course you need both - without the broad brushstrokes the details
>> >won't match.
>> >And as you make clear the broad brushstrokes are meaningless without
>> >the details.
>> Not sure what we're arguing about here...we actually seem to agree on
>> this.
>
>I think we're clarifying that point, but failing to agree on where
>"broad brushstrokes" begin and end.
Fair enough.
>> >> I never said any such thing...there certainly are coincidences...but 4
>> >> major plot points mirroring each other in the same sequence over
>> >> roughly the same period of time goes beyond coincidence...
>> >So reality stole from The West Wing?
>> Yes, that's exactly what I meant...you're a genius.
>
>> Seriously though, the West Wing was trying to depict realtiy so their
>> plotlines were meant to be believable possibilites...in that context,
>> it makes sense that some of them would actually happen.
>
>True, but Hilary was the most obvious Democrat (after The West Wing
>Southland Tales out and stated it in their future)
>
>The West Wing tried to invent reality but they also tried to tell
>stories... a minority Democrat creates the stories they wanted to
>tell, a female obviously didn't...
>
>There were choices made, some obvious, some not, some fluke guesses.
>They all added up to a lot of similarities.
>
>That said, a lot of the smaller points are pretty forced when you get
>beyond the broad brushstrokes (ignore the Rep VP candidate which is
>different, focus on the Dem VP who is the same, etc...) which happens
>when you find a string of coincidences. Anything that is a
>coincidence is focused on, anything that isn't is ignored and the
>details are handwaved away.
As I recall, they also had a tendency on the West Wing to play up
possible but highly irregular and unlikely scenarios that could arise
in the US government, such as the President invoking the 25th
amendment to temporarily step down from office in the middle of a
personal crisis (made even more unlikely by the idea of having no V.P.
at the time and leaving a Republican as the next in line of
succession)...that COULD theoretically happen but it NEVER WOULD...and
this is only one of the bigger plots of this nature...there was also a
level of bi-partisan cooperation on the show that would,
unfortunately, never occur under our current system.
grinningdemon
<Paul....@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
>On Jul 12, 3:42 pm, grinningdemon <grinningde...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
>> He wasn't, killing off Cap wasn't planned all along (editorial wanted
>> to end Civil War with it) and he was actually only supposed to be gone
>> for a single story arc so Bucky wasn't even originally supposed to
>> replace him as Cap.
>
>Fair enough.
>
>> If Hush
>> >had not come out in 2 years time instead then we wouldn't have this
>> >part of the sequence in this order.
>> I'm not sure what you mean here.
>
>The Hush story caused Jason's return. Jason's return isn't needed for
>Batman's death... the sequencing is unimportant.
>Because Bucky replaced CA, his returned needed to happen first.
True...Jason's return isn't important to the sequence of Batman events
the way Bucky's is to Cap...but, given the timing and the sheer
unlikelyhood that either character would ever return, I think they
have to be linked...and, if you want another, admittedly weaker
parallel...when it was originally planned for Dick Grayson to die in
Infinite Crisis, Jason was to replace him as Nightwing...this was the
genesis of that god-awful "two Nightwings" plotline that ran in that
series just after OYL started.
>> Time travel is specific is enough
>
>I've accepted this as the one true coincidence... the thing hardest to
>"explain"
Wouldn't that mean it's the one that you're will to admit is NOT a
coincidence?
I think Bucky's and Jason's returns are equally difficult to explain.
>> when we are talking about characters
>> who aren't inherent time travelers (unlike Booster).
>
>A fair call.
>
>Actually, Jason's Reality Punch return and Batman's Time Travel death
>don't sit well with me.
Me neither...DC has made some seriously bad plot decisions in recent
years.
>Not a CA reader so that doesn't worry me as much... not happy with it,
>but not upset. A little bit of me likes the WWII soldier/
>Slaughterhouse 5 connection... if they referenced that I may become a
>fan of the usage... but not my issue.
I've generally loved Brubaker's Cap but there are a few things I'm not
happy about...one of them was Cap's return...it was a much weaker
storyline than it should have been a more than a little
anti-climactic...both in the way it ended with him not resuming his
traditional role and because the climax of the story itself seemed
more than a little forced...what should have been a very personal
battle between Cap and Red Skull devolved into a super-slugfest with a
giant Red Skull robot.
My other problem was making Bucky become Captain America...the
replacement/legacy card has been played so many times (mostly be DC,
but still...) that it was the least interesting way to go...the book
was actually better in the intervening time between Cap's death and
Bucky taking over...the supporting cast was more than strong enough to
carry the book without Cap (and it almost seemed like Cap had a
continued presence in the book even though he was gone) and Bucky was
more interesting as the Winter Soldier seeking redemption for his time
as an assassin.
>> I didn't say it was proof...but it is suggestive...a perfectly valid
>> basis for my opinion.
>
>Suggestive isn't enough for me.
It's an opinion that I believe has a valid basis...I can't prove it
but you can't disprove it.
>> >I'm afraid for you. You seem to be falling for the exact things that
>> >fake psychics like John Edwards rely on to rip people off.
>> What ever you need to think.
>
>I don't need to. It's the way of the world. People look for patterns
>in coincidence.
And some people dismiss patterns as coincidence.
>> >> >Broad brushstrokes.
>> >> A bit more specific than that, actually.
>> >So you claim. Never offered any examples.
>> I was always more specific than this.
>
>Than this?
I have given several specific examples...and, whenever you mention
them, you typically over-simplify them to downplay the similarity.
>> >Obviously.
>> Then I guess we'll just keep arguing in circles until one of us gets
>> sick of it and quits...like many of our previous disagreements.
>
>We've argued before?
Can't tell if your serious here or not but surely you recall our long,
tedious argument over the nature of deaths in superhero books and the
various distinctions thereof...for starters.
>> >How many of the Avengers have been CA's sidekick?
>> Depends on how loosely you use the term sidekick...several of his
>> partners have beome Avengers...Falcon, for instance...and Bucky is
>> currently an Avenger...and not all of the Bat-family have been true
>> sidekicks to Batman either...only the Robins.
>
>The Robins are 5 members of the family (And have been 2 Nightwings,
>2-3 Red Robins & a Spoiler)
>That leaves a couple of Batgirls and a Batwoman. (borrowed motif)
>Huntress was a blood relative in an old universe, has been, briefly a
>Batgirl.
Don't forget Catwoman.
There are also a number to minor players who have come and gone in the
Bat-family over years...two Azraels, Orpheus and that bald,
ex-assassin chick he was running around with, and most recently, the
new one Kevin Smith is introducing in his current Batman mini
series...to name a few.
>> >How many of the Avengers are blood relatives?
>> None of the bat-family were blood relatives until just recently.
>
>Historically, one was in the Silver-age, but isn't now.
Only on an alternate earth.
>> >How many of the Avengers have been adopted or fostered by CA?
>> The Avengers are typically adults so that part doesn't fit so
>> well...but he has been a close mentor to many of the Avengers dating
>> back to the beginning of the team.
>
>So not as much of a "family"?
As I've said, it's not a perfect fit...there is no true "Cap family"
(although one is beginning to develop with such characters as Bucky,
Falcon, Sharon Carter, etc.)...but his role with the Avengers has
always been more patriarchal than Batman's ever was with the JLA or
even the Outsiders...his relationship to the bat-family is a closer
parallel.
>> >How many of the Avengers have borrowed motifs from CA?
>> USAgent, Bucky (obviously), Patriot, Taskmaster (if you count the
>> Initiative)...I'm sure there are more but that's all I can think of at
>> the moment.
>
>But not, pretty much, the entire group?
There have been many more Bat-family characters that didn't borrow so
heavily from Batman than did...just most of the more popular and
lasting ones have...that said, the Robins arguably DON'T.
>> >How many of the Avengers tried to fill the CA role in his absence?
>> USAgent briefly took over as Cap years ago...Hawkeye was offered the
>> gig by Iron Man and actually went on a mission with Cap's suit and
>> shield but ultimately turned it down...and, of course, Bucky.
>
>And who is this "Bucky" of which you speak?
Ha...ha.
>OK... now... how many of The Avengers don't fit one of those
>groupings? How many of that Batman family?
Fair point...as I said, it's not a perfect fit...but it is a closer
comparison than Batman with the JLA.
>> >Not a big Marvel read so can't speak to that one.
>> Quesada needs to be fired in the worst way if only for what he's done
>> to Spiderman...but, in his case, it's mostly bad ideas made
>> horrible...and some of them come directly from him.
>
>I agree with the Spider-man from what I've heard... both on the "why
>do it?" and "why change an idea that a least made a little more
>sense?" level.
Apparently, "it's magic" is the only explanation we're supposed to
need to enjoy the current Spiderman-titled garbage...or, as I like to
call it, "the amazingly crappy book that vaguely resembles Spiderman
if you stand on your head and squint."
>> >> Except Dick has never wanted to be Batman and Batman never wanted him
>> >> to be Batman either...so that wouldn't make much sense.
>> >Never?
>> Certainly not in recent history...not in several decades.
>
>Except for the period that he was Batman.
He hated being Batman and resented Bruce for years (real time)
afterward both for being forced to take over and for being initially
passed over in favor of Azrael.
>> >I think they'll just undermine Dick.
>> There's really no other way to do it.
>
>Agreed.
>
>
>> I would have been happier if Dick had died in Infinite Crisis as
>> originally planned...and, if Didio got fired over it, all the better.
>
>I'd have prefer the thought not come up. The handling of the last
>mind change was stupid... Dick is knocked out and Batman goes on a
>vengence kick and grabs a gun... Huh?
>
>Even if it was hugely unpopular, I doubt Die Dan Die would have been
>fired for it.
One can dream.
Duggy
> >had massive success with Marvel Zombies.
> >The environment is right for in-universe zombie stories. Doesn't mean
> >there wasn't copying, but there's a logical framework that explains
> >how non-swiping can occur and cause coincidences.
> Zombie isn't actually an accurate description of the characters in
> these two cases...
Zombies isn't an accurate description in many of the recent Zombie and
Zombie-like films case, but I take your point.
> they do have the traditional appearance of zombies
> (particularly in Blackest Night)
Being corpses (or representation of corpses, I guess) would do that.
> but they don't have the traditional
> demeanor of zombies...they have all their memories and act more or
> less normally (aside from being evil and all)...
Which zombies are beginning to do in some films (making the question
how much can they change Zombies and keep them Zombies)
> but, upon reflection,
> the depiction of the black lanterns in Blackest Night actually isn't
> far off from Marvel Zombies.
Which could be copying Marvel but not mainstream universe.
> >True. But it seems pretty clear that he wanted a period of Bruce
> >outside the cowl and didn't want an actual death.
> But it doesn't suggest anything about mentor status.
True. His status when he returns we can argue about when he does.
> >So some similarities can be coincidences and some are swipes.
> >So 4 or 5 similarities can be 2 or 3 coincidences and 2 or 3 swipes?
> Could be...but the sequence and time frame make that less
> likely...certainly not impossible...but less likely.
Less likely isn't always unlikely.
> >Superman: Took a year off, came back, found a "son", had a "sidekick"
> >come back from the dead, went traveling (in space) and was replaced.
> >Batman: Took a year off, came back, found a son, had a sidekick
> >come back from the dead, went traveling (in time) and was replaced.
> He didn't find a biological son (and Batman had already had several
> such surrogate sons)...the "sidekick" was never actually his sidekick
> at all...and had only even died since Jason and Bucky's return (and
> some suspect that was due to legal reasons rather than plot
> choices)...and he wasn't actually replaced as he was still active and
> regularly appearing in the books all that time and Mon-El never called
> himself Superman or wore his costume...you're reaching here.
Exactly. Just as the details become murky when you look at CA &
Batman,
> And I could probably pick them apart as I already have most the ones
> you just listed.
As I did with yours.
> >Coincidences happen. Sequences happen. A sequence of coincidences
> >proves nothing. Coincidences are cherry picked by our subconscience.
> >Details and differences are ignored.
> These plotlines aren't nearly as similar as the ones we've been
> discussing...and, if you think they are, then it makes me wonder if
> you've even read all the Superman stories you're mentioning.
I don't like comics. Never read one.
> The things I decided about you are based on our previous discussions
> so I have good reason.
I prefer a clean slate when I debate someone. Doesn't mean your way
is better or worse.
> >> >Sequence: Sidekick Returns, Character Dies, Sidekick replaces
> >> >Character, Character returns.
> >> You are over simplifying...
> >Broad brushstrokes.
> >Or are they only OK when you do them?
> I never went that broad...I was always more specific than this.
The point is, that's the sequence isn't it? The point is that #2, #3
& #4 sort of have to happen in that sequence.
> >Their return is one event. Jason's was not part of Batman's death
> >storyline, but was unrelated.
> I never said it was related...doesn't mean it wasn't swiped...or that
> Marvel didn't swipe from it.
The point is that "Sidekick Return" & "Death and Return" are two
events. Their sequence is interesting but not informative.
The sequence within "Death & Return" is separate to that.
===
= DUG.
===
grinningdemon
<Paul....@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
>On Jul 12, 3:42 pm, grinningdemon <grinningde...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
>> >Zombie movies are back in vogue. Zombie comics are hip. Marvel has
>> >had massive success with Marvel Zombies.
>> >The environment is right for in-universe zombie stories. Doesn't mean
>> >there wasn't copying, but there's a logical framework that explains
>> >how non-swiping can occur and cause coincidences.
>
>> Zombie isn't actually an accurate description of the characters in
>> these two cases...
>
>Zombies isn't an accurate description in many of the recent Zombie and
>Zombie-like films case, but I take your point.
>
>> they do have the traditional appearance of zombies
>> (particularly in Blackest Night)
>
>Being corpses (or representation of corpses, I guess) would do that.
>
>> but they don't have the traditional
>> demeanor of zombies...they have all their memories and act more or
>> less normally (aside from being evil and all)...
>
>Which zombies are beginning to do in some films (making the question
>how much can they change Zombies and keep them Zombies)
I definitely think they are stretching the genre to its breaking
point...when I think zombie, I generally think of something along the
lines of the Walking Dead version.
>> but, upon reflection,
>> the depiction of the black lanterns in Blackest Night actually isn't
>> far off from Marvel Zombies.
>
>Which could be copying Marvel but not mainstream universe.
True...but, as you have pointed out more than once, we're looking at
this from a real-world perspective rather than in-story so alternate
versions would apply.
>> >True. But it seems pretty clear that he wanted a period of Bruce
>> >outside the cowl and didn't want an actual death.
>> But it doesn't suggest anything about mentor status.
>
>True. His status when he returns we can argue about when he does.
I'm sure we will.
>> >So some similarities can be coincidences and some are swipes.
>> >So 4 or 5 similarities can be 2 or 3 coincidences and 2 or 3 swipes?
>> Could be...but the sequence and time frame make that less
>> likely...certainly not impossible...but less likely.
>
>Less likely isn't always unlikely.
But it often is.
>> >Superman: Took a year off, came back, found a "son", had a "sidekick"
>> >come back from the dead, went traveling (in space) and was replaced.
>> >Batman: Took a year off, came back, found a son, had a sidekick
>> >come back from the dead, went traveling (in time) and was replaced.
>
>> He didn't find a biological son (and Batman had already had several
>> such surrogate sons)...the "sidekick" was never actually his sidekick
>> at all...and had only even died since Jason and Bucky's return (and
>> some suspect that was due to legal reasons rather than plot
>> choices)...and he wasn't actually replaced as he was still active and
>> regularly appearing in the books all that time and Mon-El never called
>> himself Superman or wore his costume...you're reaching here.
>
>Exactly. Just as the details become murky when you look at CA &
>Batman,
I think the details with Cap and Batman fit far more closely than this
comparison.
>> And I could probably pick them apart as I already have most the ones
>> you just listed.
>
>As I did with yours.
Unconvincingly, as far as I'm concerned...whereas you actually agree
with my debunking the Superman comparison.
>> >Coincidences happen. Sequences happen. A sequence of coincidences
>> >proves nothing. Coincidences are cherry picked by our subconscience.
>> >Details and differences are ignored.
>> These plotlines aren't nearly as similar as the ones we've been
>> discussing...and, if you think they are, then it makes me wonder if
>> you've even read all the Superman stories you're mentioning.
>
>I don't like comics. Never read one.
What's a comic? I've never heard the term.
>> The things I decided about you are based on our previous discussions
>> so I have good reason.
>
>I prefer a clean slate when I debate someone. Doesn't mean your way
>is better or worse.
I feel prior history with an opponent can offer insight into their
thought-process and certainly their debate style.
>> >> >Sequence: Sidekick Returns, Character Dies, Sidekick replaces
>> >> >Character, Character returns.
>> >> You are over simplifying...
>> >Broad brushstrokes.
>> >Or are they only OK when you do them?
>> I never went that broad...I was always more specific than this.
>
>The point is, that's the sequence isn't it? The point is that #2, #3
>& #4 sort of have to happen in that sequence.
Yes and no...replacement doesn't actually require a death...as proven
by Dick's first foray with the cape and cowl...or even by your
assumption as to Morrison's original plan for RIP.
>> >Their return is one event. Jason's was not part of Batman's death
>> >storyline, but was unrelated.
>> I never said it was related...doesn't mean it wasn't swiped...or that
>> Marvel didn't swipe from it.
>
>The point is that "Sidekick Return" & "Death and Return" are two
>events. Their sequence is interesting but not informative.
I'd say it's quite informative in comparison to Cap (where the
sequence is most definitely important).
>The sequence within "Death & Return" is separate to that.
In Batman's case, yes, but not in Cap's...and, for the purposes of
this discussion, you can't really seperate the two...even if somehow
all of these major plot points happened with Batman but in ways that
were somehow totally independent of each other (which would be
convoluted but not impossible)...the sequence and timing would still
bring up valid comparisons to Cap.
Duggy
> I don't think "resurrection through time travel" is very broad as it
> applies to Cap and Batman...as I've already said, these are characters
> that don't really lend themselves to time travel stories (unlike
> Booster)...and temporary resurrections through time travel shouldn't
> count at all...it's a gimmick that is used over and over but permanent
> resurrections in this way are surprisingly rare.
It's broad to the extent that you the details are different.
> Yes, but, in each case, a body was left behind...of course the fine
> details differ but, on the surface, the stories are rather similar.
Yes. On the surface.
> True...but it comes down to what you consider broad...as I've said
> repeatedly, death and replacement certainly could, but, coupled with
> genuinely unexpected return of dead sidekick and resurrection through
> time travel, all in the same sequence and relative time period, it
> looks bad.
And that's just the writing.
> Fair enough...the "death" itself wasn't emphasized (seeing as how they
> immediately revealed he was still alive) but, as with Cap, the
> emphasis was on the reaction to the death rather than the event
> itself...in that sense, the similarity holds.
In universe, not in reality.
> Actually, many of these copied story ideas actually improve on the
> original so it all depends on the specific case, I suppose.
True.
> Yes, but, if it's the beginning of the pattern, then the event of the
> resurrection (or even the fake-out) could have been enough to kick it
> off...the two really can't be seperated in this sense.
It seems very likely that both were inspired by the fake out, but
that's not really copying.
> Not to knitpick, but Hush had lots of hints that Jason was still
> alive...right up to the final part of the story.
And Usual Suspect had a lot of hints that Keaton was Kaiser until the
final part of the story. Doesn't mean that that was the plan.
> It's the beginning of the pattern...if my theory is correct, it was
> likely the fake-out in Hush that inspired Bucky's return as well as
> Jason's real return...I don't think it weakens my case.
I does seem likely that it inspired them both. But to say that Marvel
copied Jason's return in Hush when Jason didn't (at the time) return
in Hush seems wrong.
===
= DUG.
===
Duggy
> On Mon, 12 Jul 2010 05:15:34 -0700 (PDT), Duggy
> <Paul.Dug...@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
> >Sequence does to a degree... but then some of the sequence has to
> >happen in that order... the resurrection has to happen after the
> >death, for example.
> True...but, as you agree, it contributes to the theory.
It does, but so does the fact that they're both superheroes.
> It's an opinion...I can't absolutely prove it any more than you can
> disprove it...but, if the pattern continues as I suspect it will, we
> may have to revisit this discussion.
We may.
> >So why, in the case of CA & Batman have they been so obvious? I mean,
> >sure some copying (consciously or not) goes on... but why so much with
> >these two characters?
> That's a question for Marvel and DC...the level of animosity between
> the two companies seems to have been on the rise in recent years
> (hence, the lack of company crossovers these days) so it wouldn't
> surprise me if they were intentionally trying to irritate each
> other...it seems petty but stranger things have happened...or it could
> simply be motivated by the level of publicity surrounding these
> plotlines...trying to take advantage of each other's success...or
> perhaps a combination of both.
If I was DC and I wanted to irritate Marvel I'd use General Glory not
one of my icons in copying on the fly and thus screwing his story.
> You're right, but usually they try to hide it better...with Flamebird,
> it seems rather blatant...almost on the level of the Superman
> archetype characters that have popped up with so many other
> publishers...but, in those cases, the similarity it meant to be
> intentional...I'm not sure what's up here.
There's always the possibility they didn't notice or there is some
point, I don't know.
> That's true...but you can't dismiss any of them as coincidence...
I can dismiss all of the as coincidences, inspired by the same thing
or logic steps in a sequence. You can't dismiss them as coincidences.
> it could be either way...but, if any these really are intentional swipes,
> then there's a good chance they all are.
And if any of them aren't there's a good chance they all aren't?
===
= DUG.
===