How many versions of SuperMan are there
BLACKMYSTECH RANGER
Time to be evil!!
Let's Rock!!!
Kitty Pryde/ShadowCat is HOT!!!
Badness is cool!!!
Scott Eiler
wrote:
> How many are there?
Probably exactly as many as there are DC universes. The last official
answer to that was "52".
grinningdemon
Which would mean there are 54 counting All Star and Ultra Man from the
anti-matter universe...but there are at least a few of the 52 that
don't have their own Superman.
Marty
What about Captain Marvel? He's a version of Superman... :)
Wayne S Garmil
Ultra Man is the Superman of Earth-3. So that only leaves 53. And if
All Star is a separate Superman, so quite likely so is any other
Elseworlds version of Superman (is The Nail one of the 52? What about
Dark Knight Returns?)
Wayne
--
_ __ _ __ | I see the girls walk by dressed in
' ) / // / / ) / | their summer clothes; I have to turn
/ / / o // __/ / __. __ __/ | my head until my darkness goes...
(_(_/ <_</_(_/ (__/ (_/|_/ (_(_/_ | -Rolling Stones, "Paint It Black"
grinningdemon
S Garmil) wrote:
>In article <q53ii5tjm1qabjruf...@4ax.com>,
>grinningdemon <grinni...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
>>On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 06:58:29 -0800 (PST), Scott Eiler
>><sei...@eilertech.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Dec 16, 7:11 am, SUPREMERAN...@webtv.net (BLACKMYSTECH RANGER)
>>>wrote:
>>>> How many are there?
>>>
>>>Probably exactly as many as there are DC universes. The last official
>>>answer to that was "52".
>>
>>Which would mean there are 54 counting All Star and Ultra Man from the
>>anti-matter universe...but there are at least a few of the 52 that
>>don't have their own Superman.
>
>Ultra Man is the Superman of Earth-3. So that only leaves 53. And if
>All Star is a separate Superman, so quite likely so is any other
>Elseworlds version of Superman (is The Nail one of the 52? What about
>Dark Knight Returns?)
Actually, there are two Ultra Mans...one on E-3 and the other in the
anti-matter universe.
Elseworlds is a valid point though...I suppose, if we count All Star,
we should count them too...some of them are part of the 52 but not
even close to all of them...there are two many Superman elseworlds to
count...and Superman appears in a lot of Elseworlds focusing on other
characters too.
whoswhoz
42
Mary Woolnoth
BLACKMYSTECH RANGER wrote:
> How many are there?
>
There are 7.5 per hour, dropping to 6.28 per hour at weekends and bank
holidays.
> Time to be evil!!
You first. I'm not in the mood for raping and eating new-born babies
today. I've still got indigestion from the last lot!
> Let's Rock!!!
Back-and-forth or side-to-side?
> Kitty Pryde/ShadowCat is HOT!!!
I told her to get air conditioning installed, but she wouldn't listen
to me.
> Badness is cool!!!
You're a very good person.
Billy Bissette
news:k19ii5psjjcrm55dm...@4ax.com:
From what I recall, the 52 worlds aren't the original Elseworlds, but
are rather just amazingly similar.
Do the original Elseworlds exist anymore? Presumably they aren't
part of the "official" DC universe.
grinningdemon
Right...but they were never supposed to be in the first
place...personally, I'd just assume not have a clearly-defined
multiverse again...I really don't see the need...they have been doing
alternate reality stories and crossovers all along without having a
formal multiverse...it places unnecessary limits and will probably
lead to a real mess down the line.
BLACKMYSTECH RANGER
Re: How many versions of SuperMan are there
Group: rec.arts.comics.dc.universe Date: Wed, Dec 16, 2009, 11:45pm
From: grinni...@austin.rr.com (grinningdemon)
That why I feel the need to bring the whole Multiverse and The
Kingdom/KingdomCome and HyperTime/ Zero Hr back, a formal Multiverse is
needed and necessary!
grinningdemon
I don't think it is...and you do realize that hyper-time isn't really
a formal multiverse, don't you? It was basically just DC's name for
not having one.
OM
<mary.w...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>You're a very good person.
...And you're an idiot for replying to the retard instead of
killfiling him.
[shakes head in utter dismay]
OM
--
]=====================================[
] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [
] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [
] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [
]=====================================[
Scott Eiler
wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 00:47:18 -0600, SUPREMERAN...@webtv.net
> (BLACKMYSTECH RANGER) wrote:
>
> >That why I feel the need to bring the whole Multiverse and The
> >Kingdom/KingdomCome and HyperTime/ Zero Hr back, a formal Multiverse is
> >needed and necessary!
>
> I don't think it is...and you do realize that hyper-time isn't really
> a formal multiverse, don't you? It was basically just DC's name for
> not having one.
If it looks like multiple universes, you might as well formally call
it a multiverse.
Daibhid Ceanaideach
I know what grinningdemon means, though. A "formal" multiverse works like
this: "This is Earth-1. Earth-2 is over *there*, and differs in the
following respects..." That's what the old multiverse was, it's what the
current multiverse is, it's what the Marvel multiverse is.
With Hypertime, it was more like: "This is an Earth. There may be another
Earth over there, or maybe it's this one at a different point. It's
different in some ways but what these ways are will probably have changed
since the last time anyone looked. Or maybe it's a completely different
Earth that's moved into the space. Or maybe it's *this* Earth that's
changed..."
--
Dave
People say nothing rhymes with orange, but it doesn't.
grinningdemon
<daibhidc...@aol.com> wrote:
Right...it's not structured in any way so it's really no different
than not having any kind of true multiverse at all...they've done
alternate reality stories all along and hypertime is just a term of
convenience to support what they were already doing.
Scott Eiler
> On 17 Dec 2009 17:12:08 GMT, Daibhid Ceanaideach
Yeah. That will last until someone feels like writing "Booster Gold
in Hypertime" or something. Then the time travellers will all set
their wayback machines for Hypertime and start explaining its rules
enough to turn it into a multiverse.
Tony Vickers
IMHO, I don't see why Hypertime can't exist in the current setup. I kind
of see it as a branching of an individual universe based on different
outcomes or choices made for various events in that world's history.
Those alternate realities aren't accessible thru the "normal" means
currently in use to travel the multiverse. Each universe has its own set
of branches.
OM
<acvicker...@juno.com> wrote:
>IMHO, I don't see why Hypertime can't exist in the current setup.
...Because DC has declared it doesn't exist so they don't have to pay
Mark Waid any royalties, that's why.
Mary Woolnoth
OM wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 13:36:14 -0800 (PST), Mary Woolnoth
> <mary.w...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> >You're a very good person.
>
> ...And you're an idiot for replying to the retard instead of
> killfiling him.
>
Check the headers if you don't want to make yourself look like a
retard. I'm posting from Google Groups which doesn't do killfiles.
In fact, I'm in the habit of regularly using Google to search Usenet
for the latest postings with things like "evil*kitty" in them, and I
keep finding the Ranger's childish superhero stuff instead of posts
about actual evil cats.
It was a bit annoying at first, but I'm starting to enjoy his posts
now. Being a grown adult, I don't know enough about superheroes to
understand half his questions, but he seems to have a genuine sense of
excitement and enthusiasm for the subject that it's impossible not to
share too.
Who knows, one day I might even look at one of these silly superhero
stories, just to get a better idea of what he's talking about.
> [shakes head in utter dismay]
>
Now If I were going to killfile anyone, it would be a miserable,
grumpy git like you! Give me the Ranger's innocent enthusiasm instead
every time!
Daibhid Ceanaideach
I can believe a writer may feel like writing "Booster Gold in Hypertime".
I'm not sure why someone who wanted to do that would rewrite it so it
wasn't Hypertime any more. If they want to write "Booster Gold in the
multiverse", they already *have* a multiverse.
OM
<mary.w...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>Check the headers if you don't want to make yourself look like a
>retard.
...I'm not paranoid like you, so I don't *need* to scan headers for
every single fucking post.
>I'm posting from Google Groups which doesn't do killfiles.
...That's *your* fault, not mine. Get a real usenet provider and a
proper reader, and you'll be able to use killfiles.
>In fact, I'm in the habit of regularly using Google to search Usenet
>for the latest postings with things like "evil*kitty" in them, and I
>keep finding the Ranger's childish superhero stuff instead of posts
>about actual evil cats.
...More proof the retard needs to be banned from usenet, and not just
killfiled.
>It was a bit annoying at first, but I'm starting to enjoy his posts
>now.
...Most people who claim they enjoy watching trolls are actually
wanking off to people getting upset at them. Which makes you just as
bad as a troll.
>Being a grown adult, I don't know enough about superheroes to
>understand half his questions, but he seems to have a genuine sense of
>excitement and enthusiasm for the subject that it's impossible not to
>share too.
...No, it simply means you're not qualified to judge whether or not
he's a troll who needs to be killfiled, and you should heed the advice
of those more experienced with dealing with scum like this.
>Who knows, one day I might even look at one of these silly superhero
>stories, just to get a better idea of what he's talking about.
...Which raises the question: if you're not into those "silly
superhero stories", then what the fuck are you doing on a DC group?
>> [shakes head in utter dismay]
[again]
>Now If I were going to killfile anyone, it would be a miserable,
>grumpy git like you! Give me the Ranger's innocent enthusiasm instead
>every time!
...Yeah, well, you're probably his skank of a mother, which is why
you're here defending him like a total bimbo.
<PLONK>
There. Now the two of you can baby each other in Killfile Hell.
Mary Woolnoth
OM wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 23:42:21 -0800 (PST), Mary Woolnoth
> <mary.w...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> >Check the headers if you don't want to make yourself look like a
> >retard.
>
> ...I'm not paranoid like you, so I don't *need* to scan headers for
> every single fucking post.
>
> >I'm posting from Google Groups which doesn't do killfiles.
>
> ...That's *your* fault, not mine. Get a real usenet provider and a
> proper reader, and you'll be able to use killfiles.
>
> >In fact, I'm in the habit of regularly using Google to search Usenet
> >for the latest postings with things like "evil*kitty" in them, and I
> >keep finding the Ranger's childish superhero stuff instead of posts
> >about actual evil cats.
>
> ...More proof the retard needs to be banned from usenet, and not just
> killfiled.
>
Why? How many people are regularly in the habit of regularly
searching all Usenet for a single phrase that pops up in the Ranger's
sig? I'm probably the only one, and if I'm not annoyed by it, why ban
him on my behalf?
> >It was a bit annoying at first, but I'm starting to enjoy his posts
> >now.
>
> ...Most people who claim they enjoy watching trolls are actually
> wanking off to people getting upset at them. Which makes you just as
> bad as a troll.
Oh my, you do have issues don't you.
>
> >Being a grown adult, I don't know enough about superheroes to
> >understand half his questions, but he seems to have a genuine sense of
> >excitement and enthusiasm for the subject that it's impossible not to
> >share too.
>
> ...No, it simply means you're not qualified to judge whether or not
> he's a troll who needs to be killfiled, and you should heed the advice
> of those more experienced with dealing with scum like this.
Whether or not you "need" to killfile him, depends on what you "need"
out of Usenet. Since my needs are clearly different from yours,
there's no point in my heeding your advice, is there?
>
> >Who knows, one day I might even look at one of these silly superhero
> >stories, just to get a better idea of what he's talking about.
>
> ...Which raises the question: if you're not into those "silly
> superhero stories", then what the fuck are you doing on a DC group?
Didn't you read what I said earlier? I'm not "on a DC group" or on
*any* single group. I was searching across *all* groups for a specific
phrase, and this one keeps turning up.
True, I have returned to this group now, out of courtesy and
consideration, to respond to any replies to my post. But I needn't
have bothered since courtesy and consideration aren't things that you
seem to be familiar with, are they?
>
> >> [shakes head in utter dismay]
>
> [again]
>
> >Now If I were going to killfile anyone, it would be a miserable,
> >grumpy git like you! Give me the Ranger's innocent enthusiasm instead
> >every time!
>
> ...Yeah, well, you're probably his skank of a mother, which is why
> you're here defending him like a total bimbo.
>
> <PLONK>
>
> There. Now the two of you can baby each other in Killfile Hell.
>
If there are any people in this group who do value old-fashioned
values like politeness and courtesy, please could you respond to this
so that he sees my answers to his questions? Thank you.
grinningdemon
<mary.w...@googlemail.com> wrote:
Not a problem...he likes to killfile people over silly little things
and Ranger, in particular, seems to bother him for some reason...funny
thing is he probably responds to Ranger's threads more than anyone
else...I'll probably be joining you in "Killfile Hell" for this
response...oh well.
All that said, I would think someone who is apparently searching for
"evil kitties" on usenet shouldn't be quite so quick to dismiss things
as silly.
Scott Eiler
Killfile Hell must be like Arkham Asylum, judging from how often the
inmates escape from it.
Joe Sewell
>
> OM wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 23:42:21 -0800 (PST), Mary Woolnoth
>> <mary.w...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> [shakes head in utter dismay]
>>
>> [again]
>>
>>> Now If I were going to killfile anyone, it would be a miserable,
>>> grumpy git like you! Give me the Ranger's innocent enthusiasm instead
>>> every time!
>>
>> ...Yeah, well, you're probably his skank of a mother, which is why
>> you're here defending him like a total bimbo.
>>
>> <PLONK>
>>
>> There. Now the two of you can baby each other in Killfile Hell.
>>
>
> If there are any people in this group who do value old-fashioned
> values like politeness and courtesy, please could you respond to this
> so that he sees my answers to his questions? Thank you.
Try to ignore him. He thinks being a jackass actually serves some higher
purpose or something. He also thinks being PLONKed is an insult. In my
old .sig, I noted that I had been "proudly <PLONK>ed by OM since"
whatever date it was; sadly, that got lost a couple of upgrades ago.
I would've included everything, by the way, but, as I said, he doesn't
see my notes, and I don't see his.