The SENTRY Lie - Why it matters
OMAR
By Eric OMAR Altice
I am completely disgusted by the way we were lied to. Here's why Paul
Jenkins, Joe Quesada, and Mike Doran (to name a few) made me sick when
they laughed off the question of morality and responsibility. See if
you can follow the following line of reasoning without discounting it
because you like one of the liars or think that I am a troll:
They capitalized on Stan Lee's amazing popularity wave at just the right
time to sell extra copies. Sure, INHUMANS was a hoot, but it only
attracted fanboys like myself. Stan Lee, on the other hand, is
receiving national media attention due to his deal with DC Comics and
stanlee.net. Yes, THE SEVENTH PORTAL is completely worthless (have you
tried sitting through even one episode yet), but for some reason it's
attracting a lot of attention.
In short, Stan Lee is hot.
So how many extra copies where ordered through Diamond before the truth
came out? I pre-ordered mine in the time between the initial press
release and Rich's Rumblings. How many shop owners ordered copies on
the strength of Stan Lee's name? We'll never know.
Why didn't Marvel claim that Alan Moore originally came up with the idea
of SPIDER-GIRL PRESENTS: THE BUZZ? They could have cut Al a check and
if anyone found out the truth they could issue a response of "Come on,
it's just a comic book". That's a pretty strange attitude for someone
who makes their living from comics to take, but that's what happened
when the truth behind the SENTRY lie came out.
Also, is it a legit defense to say, "What, you believed that we were all
made to mysteriously forget SENTRY ever existed? That should have been
your tipoff right there."? No, I thought that part was a joke. That
doesn't mean that I stopped believing that this was a forgotten Stan Lee
character.
In short, I think that apologies from Marvel as well as the various
creators and journalists involved should be issued. Now.
Flame away, morons. Or does anyone out there agree with me?
OMAR
Eric Altice
--
Where the hell is DAREDEVIL?
OMAR
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
gdie...@dbc-llp.com
and no one really cares. In the grand scheme of things, your being kind
of anal.
But then again, I never believed it from the beginning so I'm not
feeling betrayed in the whole matter. It looks like a good book
regardless, and whether Stan is involved or not, that's all that will
end up mattering in the long run.
Later,
KMFAD
In article <8kl3jj$sh0$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
SonofWashu
any creative control over. Do we complain? Why should we? Stan Lee is pretty
much the same as saying 'Marvel Comics' which is really, truly weird. Did you
complain this much when the Blair Witch Project pulled their documentary bull?
Do you hate Citizen Kane because Orson said he (paraphrased) "wasn't commenting
on anyone or anything in specific" (love that, BTW)? Creators lie, it's what
they're paid for - it's called fiction, man, and if you can't tell what's
fiction just because they say it's true... how many author's have said in
interviews their fantastical and mythical characters were real people? Tolkien
pulled this one, Fraud, Burroughs, and countless others. According to every
issue of Spider-Man, Pete Parker is a real guy living in New York City, so do
you believe it? Or, do you whine that it isn't true when the comic said it
was?
Dave Potter
interested in anything resembling an actual dialogue on the subject
>See if
>you can follow the following line of reasoning without discounting it
>because you like one of the liars or think that I am a troll:
>Flame away, morons.
If you believe that anyone who disagrees with you is already wrong and a moron,
then you are not looking for discussion. You are, in fact, trolling.
Read Comics and Become Cool
www.savantmag.com
MARTOV
from an earlier film called "The Last Broadcast", w/o anyone
caring.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com.
Up to 100 minutes free!
http://www.keen.com
MARTOV
story to the Tower Commission, right??
Paul O'Brien
<troj...@aol.comNOSPAM> writes
>The complete hostility of your post's tone leads me to believe that you are not
>interested in anything resembling an actual dialogue on the subject
Of course he isn't. He's a well known troll on the DC group. Ignore
him.
Paul O'Brien
THE X-AXIS REVIEWS - http://www.esoterica.demon.co.uk
Flowers: the practical alternative to capitalism, apparently.
pan...@stats.com
OK. So somebody fill me in. It's sounding like Sentry was not an unused
character from the 60s. Is that correct?
Is there an article somewhere online that I can read to fill me in?
Sounds interesting to say the least.
Thanks,
Carlos Panizo
jeff ghearing
beginning that it was marketing hype. And I don't have a
problem with it! Paul Jenkins would get my $2.99 no matter what
at this point.
-Jeff
Grimbiskit
Boy is he ever! I'm not gay or nuthin'...but that man makes me so wet!
RRRRrrrrrrarrrrr!
e
Thompsons
>character from the 60s. Is that correct?
>
>Is there an article somewhere online that I can read to fill me in?
>Sounds interesting to say the least.
>
>
>Thanks,
>
>Carlos Panizo
Help me too, guys. I don't even know what the Sentry lie is. What have I
missed?
Matthew
(self-professed lurker)
Peter Likidis
Basically the lie is that Sentry was NOT created back in the 60's and
for some reason this is the marketing campaign created for it...
pan...@stats.com
Where did you hear this though? Is there an article somewhere written
about this?
gdie...@dbc-llp.com
Later,
KMFAD
In article <00ed1365...@usw-ex0104-025.remarq.com>,
MARTOV <davemac6...@gateway.net.invalid> wrote:
> Of course you're referring to when Reagan told that little fairy
> story to the Tower Commission, right??
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
> Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com.
> Up to 100 minutes free!
> http://www.keen.com
>
>
JOEY DA Q
Paul and Jae first told me about the character I thought they were pulling my
leg. Later, the more I thought about it, I got angry and frustrated at having
somehow forgotten the Sentry. It's okay, OMAR, I completely understand and can
relate to your anger. My word of advice is sit back and relax, it will pass.
JQ
Rich Johnston
>>So how many extra copies where ordered through Diamond before the truth
>came out? I pre-ordered mine in the time between the initial press
>release and Rich's Rumblings. How many shop owners ordered copies on
>the strength of Stan Lee's name? We'll never know.
Since Ramblings first printed the story nine months before the comic was
solicited...
Rich Johnston twis...@hotmail.com
The Gutter Press at http://www.npo.com/pulse
Ramblings 2000 at http://come.to/ramblings & http://www.twistandshoutcomics.com
Rich's Rumblings at http://www.silverbulletcomicbooks.com
Selling lots of comics at http://www.geocities.com/evenwood/sale.html
Rich Johnston
>
>Where did you hear this though? Is there an article somewhere written
>about this?
Check the Ramblings Archives at http://www.twistandshoutcomics.com and Rich's
pan...@stats.com
Rich Johnston <twis...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> In article <8km8u2$nef$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, pan...@stats.com says...
> >
> >Where did you hear this though? Is there an article somewhere written
> >about this?
>
> Check the Ramblings Archives at http://www.twistandshoutcomics.com
and Rich's
> Rumblings at http://www.silverbulletcomicbooks.com
>
Well, try as I might, I still can find no definitive articel stating
that Sentry was not truly created in the 1960's.
So far as I can tell, it's just speculation that the backstory behind
Sentry isn't completely on the up and up.
Anyone have any proof that this is a hoax?
Carlos Panizo
OMAR
Paul O'Brien <pa...@esoterica.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <20000713160234...@ng-mb1.aol.com>, Dave Potter
> <troj...@aol.comNOSPAM> writes
> >The complete hostility of your post's tone leads me to believe that
you are not
> >interested in anything resembling an actual dialogue on the subject
>
> Of course he isn't. He's a well known troll on the DC group. Ignore
> him.
>
> Paul O'Brien
A troll posts something he doesn't believe in order to generate a
response. I'm interest in a reponse (apology, actually) but do I really
qualify as a "troll"?
And why would you even have bothered to intercede here, anyway? Does in
really give you chills to see someone question the ethics of your
precious "pros"?
--
Where the hell is DAREDEVIL?
OMAR
OMAR
troj...@aol.comNOSPAM (Dave Potter) wrote:
> The complete hostility of your post's tone leads me to believe that
you are not
> interested in anything resembling an actual dialogue on the subject
>
I've learned what to expect. But there must be SOMEONE out there who
agrees that this sets a disturbing and dangerous precedent.
OMAR
That's it exactly. You're really good at reading and comprehending what
the words mean, aren't you?
I can tell.
OMAR
Glad to see you think selling goods under false pretenses is funny,
liar. Hey, instead of admitting that Jay "second string" Faeber came up
with this New Warriors revamp, Marvel should have claimed that he was
working from Fabian Nicieza's old notes. They would have sold more
copies, and it would have been funny too, right?
OMAR
Rich Johnston <twis...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> In article <8kl3jj$sh0$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, OMAR says...
> >>So how many extra copies where ordered through Diamond before the
truth
> >came out? I pre-ordered mine in the time between the initial press
> >release and Rich's Rumblings. How many shop owners ordered copies on
> >the strength of Stan Lee's name? We'll never know.
>
> Since Ramblings first printed the story nine months before the comic
was
> solicited...
>
> The Gutter Press at http://www.npo.com/pulse
> Ramblings 2000 at http://come.to/ramblings &
http://www.twistandshoutcomics.com
That's technically true, but I (like many others, apparently) weren't
tipped off until your SENTRY EXPOSED AT RUMBLINGS post.
JOEY DA Q
From: OMAR ericoma...@my-deja.com
Date: Fri, Jul 14, 2000 2:56 PM
Message-id: <8knnof$qgk$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>
In article <20000714093442...@ng-mb1.aol.com>,
joe...@aol.com (JOEY DA Q) wrote:
> I can understand OMAR's frustrations, even if he is a well known
troll. When
> Paul and Jae first told me about the character I thought they were
pulling my
> leg. Later, the more I thought about it, I got angry and frustrated
at having
> somehow forgotten the Sentry. It's okay, OMAR, I completely
understand and can
> relate to your anger. My word of advice is sit back and relax, it
will pass.
>
> JQ
>
Glad to see you think selling goods under false pretenses is funny,
liar. >>
I know you're upset, OMAR, but it's okay. Don't shoot the messenger.
JQ
Terrence Tyrka
MARTOV <davemac6...@gateway.net.invalid> wrote in message
news:00b97a32...@usw-ex0104-025.remarq.com...
> I DID complain when "Blair Witch..." stole their whole schtick
> from an earlier film called "The Last Broadcast", w/o anyone
> caring.
>
>
Wow, I'm not the only one who caught that!! That went far beyong being a
homage. Blair Witch was a blatant rip-off and I was shocked not to have
heard about any legal repercussions.
Btw, for the record, I agree with OMAR. Yes, comics are fiction. But there
is always a distinction between the writing in the comics and press
releases. It wasn't the end of the world, but it was a cheap ploy by
Marvel. And considering the current state of the comics industry, a very
ill-timed one.
turk
Terrence Tyrka
OMAR <ericoma...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8knnof$qgk$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <20000714093442...@ng-mb1.aol.com>,
> Glad to see you think selling goods under false pretenses is funny,
> liar. Hey, instead of admitting that Jay "second string" Faeber came up
> with this New Warriors revamp, Marvel should have claimed that he was
> working from Fabian Nicieza's old notes. They would have sold more
> copies, and it would have been funny too, right?
> --
> Where the hell is DAREDEVIL?
>
> OMAR
Okay, I'll have to say I agree with you on this one. But, really, you are
getting a little high strung about it. Don't pull the sword out before the
battle even starts. You're just asking for trouble. As far as the troll
thing, hell, that's easily the most overused term on the newsgroups and
everyone has their own definition. Personally, your initial posting on the
issue seemed well-thought out and factual (although your ending challenges
and name-callings were a bit much). In my opinion trolls are people who
just post short little inflamitory insults, where you were just putting
forth an opinion. But then again who the hell am I to judge
troll/not-troll?
Back to the topic at hand, I think it was irresponsible of Marvel at best,
and fraud at worst. Sure, comics are fiction, but we expect our fiction in
the comics themselves not in the press releases. This was not a comic book
situation. Real life creators (and some not real, but presented as such)
were named and factual history was certainly implied. Therefore, it was a
deliberate attempt to mislead, and Marvel's admission came well after the
comic was solicited for sale. How can people even make a case that this lie
didn't lead to better orders? Yes, many fans would order this on the
strength of the Jenkins/Lee team alone, but it's ludicrous to suggest that
calling this a 'long-lost' Stan Lee creation (of a Marvel Superman, no less)
didn't garner higher sales figures. And even with their admission of the
farce, they sure didn't go to the same great lengths to clear the story up
as they did to promote the initial lie. Admittedly, the comics industry
needs all the help it can get to boost sales, but that's exactly why this is
a bad thing. With the current state of the comics industry the last thing
it needs to do is risk pissing off fans. In the long run, this could hurt
more than help.
turk
Bill Nolan
<ericoma...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> In article <20000713160234...@ng-mb1.aol.com>,
> troj...@aol.comNOSPAM (Dave Potter) wrote:
> > The complete hostility of your post's tone leads me to believe that
> you are not
> > interested in anything resembling an actual dialogue on the subject
> >
>
> I've learned what to expect. But there must be SOMEONE out there who
> agrees that this sets a disturbing and dangerous precedent.
>
Actually, I agree with OMAR on this one. As a former journalist
and current newspaperman, I was a little disturbed by the way this
story/falsehood was repeated by most of the comic press. That the
book was solicited the way it was seems fraudulent and unecessary.
Just putting a phrase like "Imagine if there was a character Stan
Lee created before the FF" in there would have made it less
deceptive and been just as fun (if not more fun) for readers.
I'm still thinking of buying it, tho'...
Maybe they can make issue 2 a 100-Page Monster reprinting
Silver Age Sentry material... They can have a bunch of
current writers and artists put together some stuff and
sign either dead or fired artists' and writers' names to the
stuff (or better yet, made up names like "Artie Rosen").
- Bill
MARTOV
Greenfield can get all pissy about the faux ad campaign for Sen.
Kelly. Oh, damnit, I've gone and mentioned the X-Men movie. I'm
going to go stand in the corner now...
Dave Potter
>and curr
OMAR's point was completely undermined with me by the hostility and baiting
tone he struck in his piece. He calls people who disagree with him morons, but
invites them to engage in a dialogue with him anyway. If he's already made up
his mind that I'm right and he's wrong, what point is there to it?
>As a former journalist
>and current newspaperman, I was a little disturbed by the way this
>story/falsehood was repeated by most of the comic press.
And yet, the articles I've seen all include a quote that is to the effect that
something happened that erased Sentry not only from the Marvel Universe, but
our memories as well. That single quote tips me to the fact that they are
doing some interesting meta fiction work here. I mean, if they are telling the
untold story of the first Marvel hero, a story that has been lost because
something happened to erase it from our memories, how can it be real???
Mindwipes DON'T HAPPEN in real life :-)
Plus, even though SENTRY wasn't announced until a few months ago, the MK folks
had been plugging it as an upcoming nine issue project from Jenkins/Lee.
WIZARD at one point referred to it as the Alzheimer's Project, including a
bunch of quotes from puzzled MK staffers who "couldn't remember" what it was
about. They were just laying the groundwork for a very imaginative and
effective marketing campaign that has a detectable amount of tongue-in-cheek
qualities inherent in it.
I have a feeling once the ninth Sentry story is told (5 issue limited series
plus 4 one shots along the way), we'll see how the whole thing ties together.
We'll see how Sentry removed himself from the Marvel Universe, and presumably
"our heads" as well. It's very probably that we will be the only ones with
"knowledge" of what happened and the Marvel Universe will be kept "in the
dark". I for one am very excited, felt I was given more than enough
information to ascertain "the truth" and do not feel lied to at all.
What disturbs me a helluva lot more than these perceived SENTRY issues is how
TV news shows now all plug the network entertainment lineups, like Survivor and
Big Brother on CBS. I mean, the hostess of BIG BROTHER is part of the CBS News
division! She ought to be fired from the news division immediately, she has
lost all credibility and does her profession a major disservice.
Paul Jenks
Paul
Mogen Dave
>I'd like to apologize to OMAR. I can't remember why.
Don't worry. That's not actually Omar, but rather an incredibly lifelike
simulation. (The "Eric Altice" thing is a nice touch.)
Pol Krinn
did. back around DC's Zero Hour thing, they introduced Triumph (sp?) a founding
member of the JLA who was forgotten only to be brought back. As intriging an
idea as it was, DC didn't really do anything with it and the character was all
but forgotten again until Morrison used him again a while back. I hope Jenkins
and Lee pull this off better.
Grimace69
Marvel at all, but the so called "legitamate" news services (Wizard and the
like) which helped propagate this lie.
Wood
jeff ghearing
>They capitalized on Stan Lee's amazing popularity wave at just
the right
>time to sell extra copies. Sure, INHUMANS was a hoot, but it
only
>attracted fanboys like myself.
And that is why Sentry needs to get MORE exposure. I guess
we could live in a fanboy univerese where only WE were written
to. It's a damn shame someone might pick up this magnum crapus
by Paul Jenkins because Stan supposedly gave birth to this book
before the FF.
I'm sure those who buy this book because "Stan" is somehow
associated with it, won't be terribly disappointed with it after
finding out "the truth". I can guarantee we won't be stuck with
Ravage 2099's.
-Jeff
BTW, Magnum Crapus was in jest. Paul may not have created the
foundation of the Marvel U, but he is doing a bang-up job
playing in Stan and Artie Rosen's (snicker) sandbox.
Stan Lee, on the other hand, is
>receiving national media attention due to his deal with DC
Comics and
>stanlee.net. Yes, THE SEVENTH PORTAL is completely worthless
(have you
>tried sitting through even one episode yet), but for some
reason it's
>attracting a lot of attention.
>
>In short, Stan Lee is hot.
>
>So how many extra copies where ordered through Diamond before
the truth
>came out? I pre-ordered mine in the time between the initial
press
>release and Rich's Rumblings. How many shop owners ordered
copies on
>the strength of Stan Lee's name? We'll never know.
>
>Why didn't Marvel claim that Alan Moore originally came up with
the idea
>of SPIDER-GIRL PRESENTS: THE BUZZ? They could have cut Al a
check and
>if anyone found out the truth they could issue a response
of "Come on,
>it's just a comic book". That's a pretty strange attitude for
someone
>who makes their living from comics to take, but that's what
happened
>when the truth behind the SENTRY lie came out.
>
>Also, is it a legit defense to say, "What, you believed that we
were all
>made to mysteriously forget SENTRY ever existed? That should
have been
>your tipoff right there."? No, I thought that part was a
joke. That
>doesn't mean that I stopped believing that this was a forgotten
Stan Lee
>character.
>
>In short, I think that apologies from Marvel as well as the
various
>creators and journalists involved should be issued. Now.
>
>Flame away, morons. Or does anyone out there agree with me?
>
>OMAR
>Eric Altice
>
>
>--
>Where the hell is DAREDEVIL?
>
>OMAR
>
>
>Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
>Before you buy.
>
>
-----------------------------------------------------------
Peter Likidis
pan...@stats.com wrote:
> Where did you hear this though? Is there an article somewhere written
> about this?
Well other than Rich's constant bitchings about it. There is no artist
called Artie Rosen...
Dave God King Littler
says...
> In article <20000713160234...@ng-mb1.aol.com>,
> troj...@aol.comNOSPAM (Dave Potter) wrote:
> > The complete hostility of your post's tone leads me to believe that
> you are not
> > interested in anything resembling an actual dialogue on the subject
> >
>
> I've learned what to expect. But there must be SOMEONE out there who
> agrees that this sets a disturbing and dangerous precedent.
I don't know how much this will mean to anybody, but I do agree to you.
Wizard apparantly lied to us in order to make this Marvel title more
exciting seeming than it would be on it's own strength. While technically
a really good add could accomplish the same goal, the fact remains that
when you look at an add in a legitimate magazine, you know that's what
you're looking at. When you look at a news story in said legitimate
magazine, you expect it to exist solely to relate accurate information to
the reader. You shouldn't have to wonder if you're being lied to or not.
That's not what you read news for. We have to be able to trust our news
sources, or there's no reason to listen to them. If this message isn't
made clear, though, then publications like Wizard will be free to believe
they can lie to us, decieve us, and jerk us around however it pleases in
order to sell other peoples' books. This leaves SUCH a sour taste in myu
mouth.
In truth, I'm a bit hurt that Wizard would do something like this to the
fans... but in the nights leading up to hearing about this, I'd begun to
wonder how it was that a new series based upon this character was coming
out so quickly after it's first having been "discovered". The wheels
don't turn that quickly. Ever.
Ah, well...
--
Don't take yourself too seriously.
-Dave
SonofWashu
>Marvel at all, but the so called "legitamate" news services (Wizard and the
>like) which helped propagate this lie.
Y'mean the same Wizard that runs 'April Fools' issues, or puts corny restraints
in their legal fine-print (one contest insisted they had the right to egg yer
house if you cheated)? C'mon, everything in Wizard should be taken with a
pillar of salt.
Todd Kogutt
Pol Krinn wrote:
MArvel will pull it off because obviously it has support from the Higher Ups.
Don't know the approval process of the MK line, but Quesada is obviosuly behind it,
and I assume Harris and Claremont are as well.
The Triumph story was sabotaged by editorial interference, much like most JL*
stories were those days.
---SCAVENGER
Todd Kogutt
Terrence Tyrka wrote:
> > I DID complain when "Blair Witch..." stole their whole schtick
> > from an earlier film called "The Last Broadcast", w/o anyone
> > caring.
> >
> Wow, I'm not the only one who caught that!! That went far beyong being a
> homage. Blair Witch was a blatant rip-off and I was shocked not to have
> heard about any legal repercussions.
Well the Blair Witch guys said that they had never heard of The Last Broadcast
until well after they had finished and sold the film. It's possible they
could've been lying, but lets be honest, it's not like Blair Witch or Broadcast
are terribly original ideas (in execution, perhaps, in orgin of ideas? no)...And
the Broadcast guys milked their "Blair Witch ripped us off" rif to get plenty of
exposure and video sales, so I wouldn't worry about them.
>
> Btw, for the record, I agree with OMAR. Yes, comics are fiction. But there
> is always a distinction between the writing in the comics and press
> releases. It wasn't the end of the world, but it was a cheap ploy by
> Marvel. And considering the current state of the comics industry, a very
> ill-timed one.
Apparantly many people actually need John Cleese to walk up to them and say wink
wink nudge nudge, say no more.
---SCAVENGER actually doesn't remember if that was Cleese's character...in fact
I don't think it was...oh well.