MARVEL ANNOUNCES GHOST RIDER: DIRECTOR'S CUT [Archive]

MattBrady

09-21-2005, 09:23 PM

<a href="http://www.newsarama.com/marvelnew/ghostrider/GHORID000DC1col.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.newsarama.com/marvelnew/ghostrider/GHORID000DC1col_t.jpg" width="175" height="260" border="0" align="right"></a><i>Press Release</i>

<blockquote>Ghost Rider’s return to the world of comics is an unqualified success as Ghost Rider #1 has sold out at Diamond. After years out of the spotlight, Garth Ennis and Clayton Crain’s new twisted re-envisioning of Ghost Rider has scores of fans eager to sell their own soul for a copy.

Luckily, Marvel is releasing Ghost Rider #1 Director’s Cut filled with exclusive DVD-style extras so you don’t have to make a deal with the devil to get your hands on the return of the Spirit of Vengeance.

Fan and critical reaction has been astounding to Ghost Rider, with a slew of reviews pouring in to praise Ennis and Crain’s tale of demons, angels, and a certain flame-headed motorcyclist.

Hilary Goldstein of IGN.com says, “Ennis is the perfect man to take on Ghost Rider. Awesome art…and solid writing make this a must.”

Heidi Meeley of 4ColorReview.com says, “The story is brilliant and the art takes things to a whole new level. I can’t wait to see what Ennis and Crain have in store for Johnny Blaze.”

Ghost Rider #1 Director’s Cut will feature tons of new content including Garth Ennis’s original proposal, published and unpublished covers by Clayton Crain, and a behind-the-scenes look into how Ghost Rider went from script to thumbnail to final art.

Ghost Rider #1 flew off of the shelves so be sure to get your copy of Ghost Rider #1 Director’s Cut before it’s worth the price of your immortal soul.

GHOST RIDER #1 DIRECTOR’S CUT (AUG051901)
Written by GARTH ENNIS
Pencils & Cover by CLAYTON CRAIN
48 PGS./ PARENTAL ADVISORY ...$3.99
FOC – 9/22, On Sale – 10/12/2005</blockquote>

Strontium Dog

09-21-2005, 09:28 PM

Probably going to get this since it's Garth Ennis. Grrr, I missed out on the Astonishing X-Men one.

New Alfonso

09-21-2005, 10:58 PM

Originally posted by MattBrady
Ghost Rider’s return to the world of comics is an unqualified success as Ghost Rider #1 has sold out at Diamond.

Isn't it only a good thing if it's a qualified success?

Luckily, Marvel is releasing Ghost Rider #1 Director’s Cut filled with exclusive DVD-style extras

Comicsaren'tmoviescomicsaren'tmoviescomi csaren'tmovies.

It's sad when a medium tries to compare itself with more popular mediums in the hopes of generating more interest.

elnino

09-21-2005, 11:28 PM

Originally posted by New Alfonso
Isn't it only a good thing if it's a [B]qualified success?

maybe it's meant to be unequalled success?

Comicsaren'tmoviescomicsaren'tmoviescomi csaren'tmovies.

It's sad when a medium tries to compare itself with more popular mediums in the hopes of generating more interest.

relating this to other media is for the business side of things, i guess.

i'll probably wait for the trade.

EmeraldGuy32

09-22-2005, 02:05 AM

I'll get it cuz the covers sweet and the book is AWESOME!

Strike

09-22-2005, 02:16 AM

Originally posted by elnino
i'll probably wait for the trade.

Don't you mean you'll wait for the DVD collection? :p

elnino

09-22-2005, 06:06 AM

Originally posted by Strike
Don't you mean you'll wait for the DVD collection? :p

nice one, strike! ;)

what you said, hehe.

Johnny Smith

09-22-2005, 08:47 AM

Originally posted by New Alfonso
Isn't it only a good thing if it's a [B]qualified success?

Comicsaren'tmoviescomicsaren'tmoviescomi csaren'tmovies.

It's sad when a medium tries to compare itself with more popular mediums in the hopes of generating more interest.

Marvel calls this a director's cut, but who is the director here? Joe Q? The editor? Garth Ennis?

:confused:

Sean Walsh

09-22-2005, 09:05 AM

Originally posted by New Alfonso
Comicsaren'tmoviescomicsaren'tmoviescomi csaren'tmovies.

It's sad when a medium tries to compare itself with more popular mediums in the hopes of generating more interest.

You have to wonder how many people will be shocked there's no DVD included with this comic when it comes out...

More than a few, I'd gather.

Sean Walsh

09-22-2005, 09:06 AM

Originally posted by Johnny Smith
Marvel calls this a director's cut, but who is the director here? Joe Q? The editor? Garth Ennis? :confused:

Ari Avad.

But then when he finds out it's a comic, he'll scoff and resume overseeing production of the Cloak & Dagger movie...

Mr Wesley

09-22-2005, 09:23 AM

Originally posted by Sean Walsh
But then when he finds out it's a comic, he'll scoff and resume overseeing production of the Cloak & Dagger movie... Hey, don't you be messing with my Cloak & Dagger. They are the #1 homeless teenage junkie bi-racial crime fighting couple!

Andy E. Nystrom

09-22-2005, 10:13 AM

Originally posted by MattBrady
<blockquote>Luckily, Marvel is releasing Ghost Rider #1 Director’s Cut filled with exclusive DVD-style extras so you don’t have to make a deal with the devil to get your hands on the return of the Spirit of Vengeance.</blockquote>

So does this mean that every page will have a plastic overlay so that commentary by Ennis can be placed over the original dialogue if the reader so chooses? :)

--Andy E. Nystrom

Comic-Reader

09-22-2005, 10:19 AM

Originally posted by New Alfonso
Isn't it only a good thing if it's a qualified success?

Actually, no. "Unqualified" is similar to "unmitigated." In other words, it's a success no ifs, ands or buts.

Devster

09-22-2005, 10:33 AM

Originally posted by Comic-Reader
Actually, no. "Unqualified" is similar to "unmitigated." In other words, it's a success no ifs, ands or buts.
"unmitigated" means unaverted; as a result of an unmitigated risk, a problem could arise. An unmitigated disaster would be one for which the effect was not reduced. So I guess one could have an "Unmitigated Success", where actions that would have reduced the success of the title were not taken. :D

Doesn't quite look that way for unqualifed on Dictionary.com
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Unqualified

What's weird is the thesaurus side of the same page
http://thesaurus.reference.com/search?q=Unqualified
does list a number of positive synonyms; including "unmitigated". But I wonder how much of that is usage based rather than meaning based. :confused: cursed language. :rolleyes:

guitargod694

09-22-2005, 11:34 AM

unqualified success means that it was a success without using any qualifiers. Like "a success, for a ghost rider book" or, "a success compared to the new universe". Those are qualified successes, but "a success" is an unqualified statement. Does that make sense? I'm concerned I may not be explaining this right.

New Alfonso

09-22-2005, 11:38 AM

Originally posted by Sean Walsh
You have to wonder how many people will be shocked there's no DVD included with this comic when it comes out...

More than a few, I'd gather.

If they pack an AOL promo cd in each issue, maybe people will half believe it.

Heh, then we'd have reason to call Marvel "Aol Comics" :D

Gear

09-22-2005, 12:16 PM

Good god people....... I mean jesus.... talk about hair-splitting.

I, for one, like these 'director cut' books even though I'm the only one ( it seems ) to understand that a comic book doesn't actually have a director. As for DVD style extras... god, I can't even finish this post. What's the use...the pettiness of a few of you will continue unabated....or is that abated.... no matter what.
Learn to enjoy comics people. I'll be enjoying this.

-Jeff

Devster

09-22-2005, 01:07 PM

Originally posted by guitargod694
unqualified success means that it was a success without using any qualifiers. Like "a success, for a ghost rider book" or, "a success compared to the new universe". Those are qualified successes, but "a success" is an unqualified statement. Does that make sense? I'm concerned I may not be explaining this right. Ah, gotcha. Not sure I'm any better at it - "fitting the qualifications" vs "having the qualities of". So no modifiers.

I tend to strike words like that anyways when I review work documents; less is more - unlike the PR world, when more is more.

adamcasey

09-22-2005, 02:28 PM

Originally posted by Johnny Smith
Marvel calls this a director's cut, but who is the director here? Joe Q? The editor? Garth Ennis?

:confused:

Exactly. The 'director's cut' aspect is a complete misnomer.

And 'DVD style extras' is misleading. There haven't been any 'alternate scenes' in any of the director's cuts I've seen, mainly because once a page is drawn, it's drawn.

NeoXorn

09-22-2005, 08:17 PM

Nice Cover. :)

NeoXorn

09-22-2005, 08:25 PM

Originally posted by Johnny Smith
Marvel calls this a director's cut, but who is the director here? Joe Q? The editor? Garth Ennis?

:confused:

Good Question. Why it is called "director's cut" when we don't see any changes in the way the story is told or alternate panels? Just a not so new cover and some bonus materials doesn't make it a "Director's cut". And mainly who is the "director"? :D

New Alfonso

09-22-2005, 09:58 PM

Originally posted by NeoXorn
Good Question. Why it is called "director's cut" when we don't see any changes in the way the story is told or alternate panels? Just a not so new cover and some bonus materials doesn't make it a "Director's cut". And mainly who is the "director"? :D

Stop asking sensible questions! I hear you can be banned for that.

Gear

09-22-2005, 10:17 PM

Originally posted by New Alfonso
Stop asking sensible questions! I hear you can be banned for that.

I think you meant to use the word 'inane' as in inane questions.
Nothing sensible about these ramblings when everyone knows that comics aren't DVDs. DVD sytle extras probably should be reworded as DVD-like extras, but to most of the populous - WE GET THE PICTURE. Now for those who have to quibble about every jot and tittle of a press release, just move on.

When I hear Director's Cut w/ DVD-style extras, I'm pretty sure I going to get some commentary on the creative process behind the comic, maybe some charcter designs, and my fav - the author's script. Maybe even alternate covers, but I could do without those myself.

-Jeff

New Alfonso

09-23-2005, 08:46 PM

Originally posted by Gear
I think you meant to use the word 'inane' as in inane questions.
Nothing sensible about these ramblings when everyone knows that comics aren't DVDs. DVD sytle extras probably should be reworded as DVD-like extras, but to most of the populous - WE GET THE PICTURE. Now for those who have to quibble about every jot and tittle of a press release, just move on.

When I hear Director's Cut w/ DVD-style extras, I'm pretty sure I going to get some commentary on the creative process behind the comic, maybe some charcter designs, and my fav - the author's script. Maybe even alternate covers, but I could do without those myself.

-Jeff

Yeah, we get the picture, but why does there have to be a picture to get? Why are these guys so embarrassed of the comics medium that they repeatedly make comparisons to movies - director's cut, DVD extras, block buster movie story, widescreen storytelling.

Seriously, to ignore these references is to the ignore the mentality of these creators, and to ignore the fact they're missing the potential the comics medium offers.

Johnny Smith

09-23-2005, 10:11 PM

Gear

09-24-2005, 12:26 AM

Originally posted by New Alfonso
Yeah, we get the picture, but why does there have to be a picture to get? Why are these guys so embarrassed of the comics medium that they repeatedly make comparisons to movies - director's cut, DVD extras, block buster movie story, widescreen storytelling.

Seriously, to ignore these references is to the ignore the mentality of these creators, and to ignore the fact they're missing the potential the comics medium offers.

No you don't get the picture, and the reason you need to get a handle on the picture is so that you can cut out the inane comments.

As for your second comment, I do believe some creators do write comics w/ the intent of widescreen comics and some draw exactly like that.

-Jeff

ME5

09-24-2005, 11:27 AM

Hello.

To Gear: You are spitting in the wind, bub. Everybody knows that Marvel is simply using a form of marketing to get people to buy a reprint with some exras added when they sell these Director's Cut books. It does not take Eisteininan intelligence to understand that the use of "DVD style extras" is a statement to demonstrate that there will be added extras to the new printing. However, you are talking to an individual who likes to come to Newsarama and start "flame wars" because he is "witty" with his attacks on Marvel. You are really just feeding a troll, here. I have done it a number of times, too, so I appreciate your attempt at teaching him a little, but it is a hopeless task (ask Brady, he has engaged this wonderfully brilliant individual, and made him look foolish and ignorant, far too often). Good luck, though, I do like watching your sensible arguments being meant with childish repetition...:)

To NeoXorn: You might want to call the term "Director's Cut" a misnomer, but the reality is that it is a marketing term being used to demonstrate that this printing will have extras not present in the original. There is obviously no DVD involved, which is where the statement "DVD style extras" comes from, but there is extra material placed in the new printing in order to increase the price and convince people that they should spend the extra money on a reprint. It is advertising at its best/worst (depending on your point of view) designed to get money from consumers. I do believe that Marvel and DC ARE still trying to get people to buy their products...;)

New Alfonso

09-25-2005, 04:37 AM

Originally posted by Gear
I do believe some creators do write comics w/ the intent of widescreen comics and some draw exactly like that.
-Jeff

What's a "widescreen comic"? I didn't know comics had screens!

Prime

09-25-2005, 10:11 AM

Originally posted by New Alfonso
What's a "widescreen comic"? I didn't know comics had screens! Semantics aside, it means very wide panels, like that of movies, but you probably already knew that. Who knew bashing Marvel could be so much fun?

Also there was a New X-men annual a few years ago by Grant Morrison, and Lenil Yu that was presented in a very wide format, similar to the aspect ratio of movies.

adamcasey

09-25-2005, 10:41 PM

Originally posted by Prime
Semantics aside, it means very wide panels, like that of movies, but you probably already knew that. Who knew bashing Marvel could be so much fun?

It's a bit of a misnomer, I believe, to say 'very wide panels' as it can only be as wide as the comic book, so what does that mean? A two page spread? Multiple splash pages? Or page lay out of three 2.35:1 ratioed panels?

I believe the only 'widescreen comic' is that issue of Nick Fury that had the fold out action sequence.

New Alfonso

09-26-2005, 02:26 AM

Originally posted by adamcasey
It's a bit of a misnomer, I believe, to say 'very wide panels' as it can only be as wide as the comic book, so what does that mean? A two page spread? Multiple splash pages? Or page lay out of three 2.35:1 ratioed panels?

I believe the only 'widescreen comic' is that issue of Nick Fury that had the fold out action sequence.

Not to mention the awesome Adam Kubert illustrated Wolverine #90 with fold-out pages. Although those were, I guess "high screen" rather than "wide screen" since the layout was vertical.

adamcasey

09-26-2005, 09:43 AM

Originally posted by New Alfonso
Not to mention the awesome Adam Kubert illustrated Wolverine #90 with fold-out pages. Although those were, I guess "high screen" rather than "wide screen" since the layout was vertical.

Actually, a friend of mine worked in an independent video store specializing in foreign films and he found this Chinese film that was matted vertically in 'tall screen', even cutting off the subtitles. It'd be a great format for Godzilla movies or Sequoyah documentaries.

ME5

09-26-2005, 10:31 AM

Hello.

Sigh...semantics, semantics, semantics. Yeesh! "Wide Screen" is not a misnomer in this case as it is simply refering to a different way that the comic is laid out;it is being used as a descriptor that lets people know that there is a different layout to the comic than is normal. Here, let me help you to understand what the descriptor is trying to point out: Usually you hold a comic in such a manner as to open it right to left, read it left to right, and the panels are mainly cut in such a way as to be read left to right with smaller squares predominant. In a "wide screen" comic, like the X-Men annual, the comic is opened bottom to top, the panels go completely across the page, and it is read top to bottom. Holy cow, guys, this is not brain surgery, here, it is simple use of language;it is a comparative use of one media to another, and is in no way a misnomer. Do you guys really have nothing better to bash Marvel about than linguistics?? Lol, I love it... Man, I hope none of your friends ever say "This car can ROCK your world" because you might think it a misuse of language as it can be interpreted to mean he is having sex with it! Yeeeshhh!!!!

Lol...Be well...:)

New Alfonso

09-26-2005, 10:39 AM

Originally posted by ME5
Hello.

Sigh...semantics, semantics, semantics. Yeesh! "Wide Screen" is not a misnomer in this case as it is simply refering to a different way that the comic is laid out;it is being used as a descriptor that lets people know that there is a different layout to the comic than is normal. Here, let me help you to understand what the descriptor is trying to point out: Usually you hold a comic in such a manner as to open it right to left, read it left to right, and the panels are mainly cut in such a way as to be read left to right with smaller squares predominant. In a "wide screen" comic, like the X-Men annual, the comic is opened bottom to top, the panels go completely across the page, and it is read top to bottom. Holy cow, guys, this is not brain surgery, here, it is simple use of language;it is a comparative use of one media to another, and is in no way a misnomer. Do you guys really have nothing better to bash Marvel about than linguistics?? Lol, I love it... Man, I hope none of your friends ever say "This car can ROCK your world" because you might think it a misuse of language as it can be interpreted to mean he is having sex with it! Yeeeshhh!!!!

Lol...Be well...:)

And if you bothered reading any of the above posts, you would be well past the semantics part and caught up with the discussion.

adamcasey

09-26-2005, 10:45 AM

Originally posted by New Alfonso
And if you bothered reading any of the above posts, you would be well past the semantics part and caught up with the discussion.

And beyond that, going with Liefeld and other's interpretation of 'widescreen comics', that tends to mainly imply 'fight comix'.

M.Spiridakis

09-26-2005, 12:37 PM

Originally posted by MattBrady
Ghost Rider’s return to the world of comics is an unqualified success as Ghost Rider #1 has sold out at Diamond. After years out of the spotlight, Garth Ennis and Clayton Crain’s new twisted re-envisioning of Ghost Rider has scores of fans eager to sell their own soul for a copy.

Don't forget a fire extinguisher.

immortus

09-26-2005, 01:06 PM

hey! it's marvel! and they're doing things! better bash it!

ME5

09-26-2005, 01:44 PM

Hello.

To New Alfonso: You actually wrote this???

And if you bothered reading any of the above posts, you would be well past the semantics part and caught up with the discussion.

Hey, brainiac, if you didn't notice, adamcasey stated:

It's a bit of a misnomer, I believe, to say 'very wide panels' as it can only be as wide as the comic book, so what does that mean?

This was stated 3 posts before I responded, and you replied to it 2 posts before mine. That is what I was responding to, so it is obvious to any intelligent being that the issue had NOT been resolved, and I am "caught up with the discussion". Try not to strain yourself with real discussions, and stick to your lame witticisms, you might not feel so dumb afterwards. Better yet, read what I wrote and actually reply to THAT, instead of resorting to another "witty" attempt to discredit a rational argument that holds quite a bit of validity. Good luck on that score.

To adamcasey: I hope YOU, at least, understand what I posted since you appear to be more intelligent than your "partner" on this particular topic. If any of what I said is not clear, please let me know and I will happily clarify. Just keep it nice and rational, and avoid "witty" attempts to discredit intelligent posts and we will be fine...:)

Be well...:)

Userama

09-26-2005, 01:56 PM

Passed on this. Can not stand Clayton Crane's goofy 3D computer art, and Ennis sucks at super-heroes. And the angels and demons at war schtick reminds me of Spawn. And, why is Johnny Blaze Ghost Rider again? Did the 90's series just never happen? I liked that 1991 Ghost Rider was different from 1970
s Ghost Rider, and it would be great if Ennis could be inventive and progressive with the character instead of nostalgic and regressive, because 2005 Ghost Rider shouldn't be the same old schtick. Nostalgia sucks.

adamcasey

09-26-2005, 02:10 PM

Originally posted by ME5
To adamcasey: I hope YOU, at least, understand what I posted since you appear to be more intelligent than your "partner" on this particular topic. If any of what I said is not clear, please let me know and I will happily clarify. Just keep it nice and rational, and avoid "witty" attempts to discredit intelligent posts and we will be fine...:)

I haven't seen the Ultimate X-Men annual you're referring to but near as you explain it, it's essentially akin to several centerfolds.

While that would be about as wide you could get on one page (though wider would be a two page spread or the afforementioned Nick Fury fold out), that's typically not what people mean when they say 'widescreen comics'. Near as I can understand it, it tended to start with The Authority and has since gone on to be applied to the Ultimates and various Young Gun's style. I personally think it's a term that implies little page layout beyond three panels roughly 2:35:1 sized panels with cinematic styled compositions with intricate detail and occasionally motion affects such as an object that is motion being blurred digitally. That might be a bit too narrow of a definition (as DC: The New Frontier was in the 3 panel layout with cinematic compositions, but doesn't have that same feel of movie storyboards as someone would expect when hearing 'widescreen comics'.)

Coming from Rob Liefeld, who claims to be one of the intial founders of the style, it's heavy on action especially shown in splash pages and favors double page spreads.

I personally think it is a misnomer to label it 'widescreen' when 'widescreen' is a term that, when it came out, meant wider than the normal 1:33:1 "square" sized movie screens at the time. As it is, there's nothing necessarily wider than the average comic book save for that fold out I mentioned (and didn't Jim Lee do something similar in WildC.A.T.S?).

It'd be more apt to say 'cinematic styled comics' or, if you want to use it in a negative light, 'storyboard comics'.

ME5

09-26-2005, 04:23 PM

Hello.

To adamcasey: Thank you for the reply.

1--The comic I was referring to was an Uncanny X-Men annual (I believe) and an X-treme X-Men annual. There is no Ultimate X-Men annual that is "widescreen".

2--"Widescreen" refers to the using of the longer aspect of the comic for side to side panels, as opposed to using the shorter side. In a standard comic, artists usually start at the outside left edge and work towards the inside, stapled page. This leads to narrower, but longer, pages. In a widescreen comic, you flip the comic on its side so that it opens bottom-to-top, and is read top-to-bottom. When you use this format, the longer side of the comic is used, allowing panels to be longer from side-to-side and narrower from top-to-bottom than normal. For example, in an 8x11 inch comic, artists usually use the 8 inch side to boarder their panels, leaving the longer 11 inches to allow for taller panels. "Widescreen" means that the artist uses the 11 inch side to start, gets longer panels that are narrower. So, in the case of "Widescreen", it is simply stating that the panels will be longer and narrower, as opposed to shorter and thicker. This is why a standard comic can follow a 6 panel layout, and a "widescreen" comic follows a 3 panel layout, using generalities.

3--Yes, truly "Widescreen" comics would mean using the 8x11 format AND crossing over the staples to cover what are now considered 2 pages, and making them into 1, 16 inch page. This is currently known as a 2 page spread. Making it into a single page would be the BEST way to make a comic truly "Widescreen". However, flipping the comic on its side, and using the 11 inch vs 8 inch side to start your top-to-bottom technique, still allows you to call it a "Widescreen" effect since it is a wider than normal page layout. So, I submit to you that, while there is a way to make a comic MORE like "Widescreen" than has been done by Marvel in the past, it does not invalidate the fact that, compared to the standard comic page, the 11x8 version IS "Widescreen" when compared to the 8x11 version.
Damn, that gave me a headache! Lol.

Thank you, adamcasey, I appreciate the reply and the thought that went into it...:)

To New Alfonso: I hope you took notes from adamcasey on how to properly argue your point. Now, try reading what he and I said, and see what you can state that furthers this conversation in an intellectual, rational manner. If you have nothing but inane "witticisms", find some other thread to get embarrased on.

adamcasey

09-26-2005, 06:07 PM

Originally posted by ME5
2--"Widescreen" refers to the using of the longer aspect of the comic for side to side panels, as opposed to using the shorter side. In a standard comic, artists usually start at the outside left edge and work towards the inside, stapled page.

I'm pretty sure the term 'widescreen' tends to imply normal left-to-right reading of comics but with a focus on cinematic action sequences and pacing and attention to detail.

Since getting back into comics (2003) I have never heard the term 'widescreen' to apply to reading the book 'sideways'.

From http://www.robliefeld.net/journal.htm:

"Okay so finally, after five years of all this "widescreen comics" mumbo jumbo that has become so fluent in the comic book vernacular, I had to speak. With all apologies to Warren Ellis whom I remain an avid fan of, I can't bear to read the further discussion of widescreen, fight comix and game logic without giving all of those terms their proper due.

...

Widescreen was a term developed to take credit away from Image comics. Ditto for fight comix and game logic.

...

Youngblood, CyberForce, Savage Dragon and Spawn were swimming in widescreen graphics. Fight comix was what we were all about, game logic never looked so good.

...

But apparently when Warren Ellis writes double truck spreads for Bryan Hitch to illustrate it has to be coined 'widescreen". Authority read like a great Image comic, better dialogue, slightly improved plots, but without Bryan Hitch and later Frank Quietly drawing dynamic, detailed depictions of super hero action, it achieves none of it's popularity."

Liefeld claims to have created (along with the other original Image artists) the stylings that, as best I understand, many have viewed as the 'widescreen' element of comics.

ME5

09-26-2005, 06:21 PM

Hello.

To adamcasey: Well, Marvel did use the term "Marvelscope" on their 2001 annuals that they did in the sideways format. I have seen those annuals referenced as "Widescreen" comics in the past. I am not fluent in Mr. Liefield's determination of what is regarded as "Widescreen", so I may well have to bow to you on this one. However, if I recall correctly, Marvel's "Marvelscope" books were considered a "Widescreen" format for comics. This may well be a case where we are both correct, but simply arguing apples and oranges...lol. I DO know that the Marvelscope books were the first comics I had heard the term "Widescreen" associated with. I have not read Mr. Liefield's comments before, but find it interesting that he seems to think there is anything innovative in his anatomically inept, panel changing, blank background, artwork. That, however, is a totally different topic of discussion...:)

Thank you for showing me something I had not heard of before, and I hope I managed to do the same.

Be well...:)

To New Alfonso: Notice that it is possible to make an error in some manner, acknowledge it intelligently and politely, and still have a good result to an argument. I hope you are still taking notes.

New Alfonso

09-26-2005, 08:21 PM

Originally posted by ME5
To New Alfonso: Notice that it is possible to make an error in some manner, acknowledge it intelligently and politely, and still have a good result to an argument. I hope you are still taking notes.

Unlike some people, I don't stalk them to every single thread and take notes on everything they write. There's a word for your behavior pal: OBSESSED. No, I won't wear the handcuffs.

MattBrady

09-26-2005, 08:26 PM

Originally posted by New Alfonso
Unlike some people, I don't stalk them to every single thread and take notes on everything they write. There's a word for your behavior pal: OBSESSED. You hold people to a standard that you yourself don't follow. I know there's a word for that as well.

ME5, Wadey, I know there's a whole lot of good for the goose being good for the gander going on here, but c'mon, huh? Pointing out that Ra's/Alfonso/Hdefined/new name coming soon expects people to adhere to a line of debate that he himself doesn't isn't anything new.

Let's all cool jets.

MattB

ME5

09-26-2005, 10:26 PM

Hello.

To Matt Brady: Come on, Matt, first he screws up on the Director's cut thing, then HE stupidly attacks ME about something he is totally wrong about. You expected me to let him off lightly??? Lol. Ok, ok, I will leave your pet troll alone, for now. Keep in mind, though, that when he rears his ugly head again, I will do the same if he acts as stupidly as he did here. My comments about the misnomer were directed to adamcasey, and he and I have managed to work things out in a very nice and polite manner. Plus we both seem to have learned something. If your pet troll had any sense, he would stop pretending to be a victim, and try to learn from the great discussion that adamcasey and I just had. I love how I am the obssessed one, though...that was comedic ...:)

Heck, based on a recent interaction between you and your pet, I would have thought you would enjoy him making himself look stupid. Live and learn...live and learn.

Be well...:)

immortus

09-27-2005, 12:31 AM

Originally posted by Userama
Passed on this. Can not stand Clayton Crane's goofy 3D computer art, and Ennis sucks at super-heroes. And the angels and demons at war schtick reminds me of Spawn. And, why is Johnny Blaze Ghost Rider again? Did the 90's series just never happen? I liked that 1991 Ghost Rider was different from 1970
s Ghost Rider, and it would be great if Ennis could be inventive and progressive with the character instead of nostalgic and regressive, because 2005 Ghost Rider shouldn't be the same old schtick. Nostalgia sucks.

yeah, i'm sure ennis has nostalgia for a hero he's barely ever read.

blaze is in the comics again cause of the movie. if there weren't a movie out, i doubt there'd be a ghost rider comic out in the first place.

New Alfonso

09-27-2005, 05:20 AM

Originally posted by ME5
Hello.

To Matt Brady: Come on, Matt, first he screws up on the Director's cut thing, then HE stupidly attacks ME about something he is totally wrong about. You expected me to let him off lightly??? Lol. Ok, ok, I will leave your pet troll alone, for now. Keep in mind, though, that when he rears his ugly head again, I will do the same if he acts as stupidly as he did here. My comments about the misnomer were directed to adamcasey, and he and I have managed to work things out in a very nice and polite manner. Plus we both seem to have learned something. If your pet troll had any sense, he would stop pretending to be a victim, and try to learn from the great discussion that adamcasey and I just had. I love how I am the obssessed one, though...that was comedic ...:)

Heck, based on a recent interaction between you and your pet, I would have thought you would enjoy him making himself look stupid. Live and learn...live and learn.

Be well...:)

Let me off lightly?

Hey buddy, ever heard of a PM? Try it sometime and spare everyone else the crap.

ME5

09-27-2005, 09:04 AM

Hello.

To New Alfonso: LOL...ROTFLOL!!!!! Oh, man, that is SO rich! If you took your own advice Newsarama would be well rid of one of the worst trolls in history!

Ok...ok...sorry, I had to say that. Let me try it this way before the all deleting hand of Brady slams down...;) If you were to come onto a thread and post something that contributed to the topic in a positive manner, you would not get "attacked" by Brady or any "obssessed" posters. I have actually seen you post in a rational manner that is worthwhile. Stick to that. Avoid the "witty" comments aimed at Marvel or posters you disagree with and you will be fine. Avoid the hypocrisy you must know exists in your foolish anti-Marvel rants designed to get people up in arms against you, and you won't risk looking stupid in public (so to speak) WHEN those self same people DO rise up to defend their favoured company or selves. Stick to rational discourse. That does not mean avoid criticizing Marvel where they are wrong, it means stop petty attacks that could be equally aimed at DC;it means stop jumping all over Newsarama trying to "act up" for whatever reason you have;it means post in a fair, rational manner. Do that, and I promise you won't be "attacked" by Brady OR "obssessed" posters.

Good Luck, and be well...:)

To Matt Brady: I am trying to be nice, here! Give me some leeway...or not, you are the moderator, afterall...:p :D

Be well...:)