Superman Returns

[K-Mark]

I just saw it last night. Without spoiling anything, what did you think?

I liked the actors and the special effects, but after the first 45 minutes, I was bored. It started out great, but then the script lost me. Not enough action, too much sap. The length didn't help, either.

Anyone else see it?

[Toni1953]

Yeah, I liked it actually. I thought the plot was better than the last two Superman movies, although Christopher Reeve will always be Superman for me.

I think the length killed it. a lot of people are just waiting for the DVD Special edition.

[K-Mark]

I think Reeve was better, too, but this guy was a close second. In some scenes he almost looked like Reeve.

[Toni1953]

I think Reeve was better, too, but this guy was a close second. In some scenes he almost looked like Reeve.


Yeah, scary, huh? He came a VERY close second.
Better than Dean Cain.

[Snitchcat]

Brandon Routh -- that's the guy's name.

I agree: in some scenes, he almost looks like Reeve. (But I still prefer the Reeve version of Superman.)

IMO, the length was... not too bad. Let's just say my writing isn't far from my thoughts, never mind where I happen to be. Heh.

[Toni1953]

(But I still prefer the Reeve version of Superman.)




I think Reeve will always be Superman - in more ways than one.

[Pomegranate]

The special effects were good. The story was weak and the pacing should have been snappier. Superman was pretty. I loved Kevin Spacey and Parker Posey's performances.

I went to see it at Grauman's Chinese Theater in Hollywood. GORGEOUS theater! That was the best part. My Mom and I were on vacation in LA and wanted to see the theater, otherwise I would have waited for video.

[AceTachyon]

I enjoyed it. I thought Kate Bosworth seemed a bit lacking as Lois but overall, I thought the movie thankfully disavowed any knowledge of Superman III and IV. In my book, its Superman, Superman II, then Superman Returns.

And Spacey did a fantastic turn as Luthor. I loved the combat boots.

[Toni1953]

I think Bryan Singer plans on making the next one more thrill-packed. At least that's what he seemed to imply at Comic-Con.

BTW, did anyone pick up the graphic novel version of Superman
Returns? There are some differences from the novel and the movie, I won't go into them and spoil it for those of you who want to get it, but it is different.

[AceTachyon]

I heard there was a sequence where Supes goes to Krypton that was shot but removed from the final cut of the film. Is that in the graphic novel?

[Toni1953]

Yes, the trip to Krypton opens the novel.

there's also a sequence with Martha Kent and her boyfriend (!?)
And some dialog with Lex Luthor when he traps Superman at the end that is markedly different from the final film version.

[writeperch]

Overall I liked SR quite a bit, though there were certainly disappointing bits. But I also felt that way about Spidey and Batman Begins, which are both quite good but could have been better. Oh, and X-men ... but always tend to forget about X-men the movies, so they must be lacking something as well. Hmmm, maybe Singer just can't hit a homerun for my tastes? But the next Singer Supes movie better be a lot more action and real engaging drama.

[Rabe]

I think Mel Gibson should take notes for his next Christ themed movie...

After all, this was one was really the modern telling of the Christ story with special effects.

Unfortunately, the very first scene of the movie (the opening text) lost me and then the rest of the gaping plot holes were frequent enough to make sure I couldn't get recaptured into the movie.

Of course the completely illogical, plot gored ending made sure that I would never enjoy the film.

Rabe...

[K-Mark]

I noticed a lot of similarities to the story of Christ, too. Last son, superhuman, three days of death, body missing from hospital/tomb, the stab in the ribs, the falling down, etc. I think there was even a scene where they carried Superman like they did in Cool Hand Luke.

As for the ending, without spoiling, I thought it was a little far-fetched, too. I saw a lot of plot holes.

[gwendy85]

I grew up watching Reeves as Superman and he will always be Superman for me. But Brandon Routh *squeals* is just gorgeous! He can never be Reeves, but I agree he comes SUPER close!
As for the movie, the Special Effects were SUPER but the story has something missing. More action and perhaps more dangerous enemies and less sap. Kevin Spacey delivers a stellar performance and I enjoy his image as a funny villain!

[Rabe]

I noticed a lot of similarities to the story of Christ, too. Last son, superhuman, three days of death, body missing from hospital/tomb, the stab in the ribs, the falling down, etc.

Yeah, the period of 'missing', the 'did he or did he not have a family', blah blah blah.

The interesting thing, I had a conversation about two weeks with one of the friends I saw the movie with how the Superman story was basically the retelling of the Christ legend (and, in a similar vein, Moses as the creators were Jewish). He argued against it even though his knowledge of Superman comes only from the movies and the general knowledge that everyone knows.

Halfway through "Returns" he turns to me in the theatre and says "I give up."

There was even the classic 'crucifixation' pose towards the end.

Kind of interesting, though, that a gay jewish man would direct a modern day sci-fi telling of the New Testament.

Rabe...

[JoNightshade]

Popularity of the first? I thought that thing crashed and burned. Every review I heard was negative.

Oh. Well, I thought it was brilliant, and I tend to ignore everyone else. :)

In any case, looks like this was just a scare. Whew. :)

[Axler]

Popularity of the first? I thought that thing crashed and burned. Every review I heard was negative.

Superman Returns made a substantial profit. Most of the negative reviews fell into two camps--

Fanboys bitching that Superman didn't punch anybody and self-styled pundits of haute culture who sneered at any film based on comics.

Personally, I loved Superman Returns and I think Brandon Routh turned in an excellent and nuanced performance.

With the possible exception of Batman Begins and Hellboy, I think it's the best super-hero film made up until this point.

I don't know why people post utter bulls**t about movies on fan-forums and why others accept the lies unquestioningly.

Are they pathological liars or compelled to just fabricate stuff in the hopes of either coming off as an expert or hoping to have a hand in diminishing a film's overall performance?

Last spring, an anonymous somebody claiming to be a studio insider posted an almost completely false advance review of FF2: The Rise of the Silver Surfer.

Nobody knows who posted it, nobody knows why, but people actually took it seriously for several weeks until a studio person with an actual name stepped forward and refuted the review, point by point.

Here's the criteria...if somebody posts an item, like the aforementioned nonsense about Brandon Routh by a person who (a) doesn't have a last name or a real name and (b) the item can't be verified, then it's probably been fabricated with an agenda.

[Perks]

Superman Returns was the greatest cinematic travesty in years. There's a hundred and six ways to demonstrate this, but Brandon Routh is a perfect example of how frigging far they missed they point.

The Superman costume is arguably the dumbest wardrobe ensemble ever. Blue tights with red undies worn on the outside? And kneehigh boots?! The reason Salkind's 1978 Superman was (for all it offered) nearly a flawless film, was that it knew when to laugh at itself and that Christopher Reeve was so charming, to the last mitochondria, that you never even saw the suit.

For the charismatically anemic Routh, they tried to change the costume: un-Crayola the colors, make the cape from oxblood leather. They just didn't get it.

Personally, I hope the whole project goes up in flames and the cinders get ground into paste by a rare Los Angeles rain.

[Jcomp]

Superman Returns was the greatest cinematic travesty in years.

Really? I thought it could've been better, but uh... you should maybe watch more movies....

[Perks]

Really? I thought it could've been better, but uh... you should maybe watch more movies....If there's a lot worse out there, then I think perhaps not.

It wasn't in its technical execution, which was okay. It was in its spirit and its palid homage to a movie that didn't need a follow up. Classic Hollywood shortsightedness.

Besides, we're all allowed our pet peeves, aren't we?

[Axler]

Besides, we're all allowed our pet peeves, aren't we?

As long as they're based on real information and not fueled by a sense of self-righteous superiority as yours seem to be.

[Perks]

Lol! It's not my superiority. I didn't make the good one. Touchy, touchy.

[Axler]

Touchy, touchy.

Er...Maybe you should scroll back up.

I'm not the one ranting about an actor in a Superman suit.

[Perks]

Perhaps I do not belong in a serious discussion about comic books and cartoons. Pardon.

[Bravo]

thank god.

this guy looks like such a sissy in real life. i even read this account where he threw a fit because kate bosworth's makeup looked better than his during a photoshoot.

not kidding.

get rid of this dweeb.

tom welling's got the look, but can't act so i'm not sure if he can replace him.

but they can definitely use an upgrade.

[Bravo]

For the charismatically anemic Routh, they tried to change the costume:


yes exactly.

charismatically anemic.

the guy has no look, no build, no chemistry with kate, why on earth did they cast him?

i actually did like the movie though.

but i saw it in 3D so maybe i'm biased.

eta:

http://www.dailystab.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/brandon-routh-superman.jpg


:ROFL: :ROFL::ROFL::ROFL::ROFL::ROFL:

[Axler]

If it was a serious discussion about comic books and cartoons (I missed the cartoon part), then raging about the Superman suit which first appeared nearly 70 years ago and set the standard for all super-hero characters that followed really doesn't fit the criteria of "serious".

C'mon...all super-hero costumes are inherently dumb.

As for the account of Brandon Routh throwing a fit about makeup...that's another one of those essentially anonymous fabrications that could never be verified.

Sort of like the reports of whiny Daniel Craig being so obnoxiously drunk (or clumsy) on the set of Casino Royale that one of the uber-macho stunt men knocked his teeth out.

Both bulls**t.

[Perks]

http://www.didtheydie.com/morgue/images/christopher_reeve.jpg Yeah. :)

[Perks]

...no chemistry with kate,


Don't even get me started on Kate Bosworth as Lois Lane, Bravo. Oi. Oi. Oi.

Maybe 3-D would have distracted me from the suffering. I'll keep it in mind if I ever watch it again. Or I may just spend the afternoon extinguishing lit matches on my bottom lip.

[Axler]

http://www.dialbforblog.com/archives/307/atom_man5.jpg

http://www.cinecon.com/bigstory/brandonrouthint_435.jpg

Your point being..?

[Perks]

Oh nothing.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41882000/jpg/_41882110_super4.jpg

[Perks]

Lol! I actually saw old George Reeves' original suit at the American History Museum in DC. It's so strange. It's basically greyish-blue thermal underwear. And he was little-ish.

[Axler]

Well, actually that's Kirk Alyn, the first cinematic Superman. Having met him a time or two, I can attest he was a pretty big guy...even though at the time I met him his behavior was closer to that of Floyd Lawson than that of the Last Son of Krypton.

http://www.tvparty.com/bgifs9/floyd.jpg

His suit and George Reeves's were colored gray-blue, white and brown because those colors photographed more strongly in black and white than red, yellow and blue.

[Perks]

His suit and George Reeves's were colored gray-blue, white and brown because those colors photographed more strongly in black and white than red, yellow and blue.I thought George was looking a little sprightly in that pic! Lol! No doubt there were good reasons for all they did, effects-wise. It was just interesting to see. IMDB says that Reeves was six feet tall, but a headless costume belies it. Guess we all look a bit more impressive with our heads attached. Anyway, I'm no expert in Superman's celluloid history. I only know what I like.

[Axler]

I reckon I'm as close to a Superman expert (film, TV, paper, whathaveyou) as you're likely to find on Absolute Write.

George Reeves was indeed six feet tall. The pre-Spandex knit outift he wore stretched. The one in the museum you saw is probably 50 plus years old.

Over the years, there's been some significant shrinkage.

http://www.glasshousepresents.com/gbsuit.jpg

[Bravo]

Over the years, there's been some significant shrinkage.



said brandon.

[jst5150]

Just some thoughts:

This sequel is something in the area of 10-15 years in the making. My understand it "starts over" the multimillion dollar franchise vacated by Mr. Reeve. That said, it follows nothing and has nothing to lead into.

As to the movie itself, it disappointed. Mostly, I went to see it as a movie goer and be entertained. Instead, it focused to much on trying to recreate Christopher Reeve and the soap opera aspect of Clark/Lois and their lovechild. It had action, but felt like the producers were mashing "Smallville" together with "The Weather Man" (with Nicolas Cage; yes, that "The Weather Man.") In any case, aside from Superman saving the burning airplane, not a lot of action. Superman needs a lot of action. The new Batman franchise is proving that over and over again (with younger, new audiences in mind as the new 18-34 year old demo searched for with lots O' spening cash)

I'd also add that the greater movie going public has little to no ties to the comic. However, Superman is iconic. Since he's been done over and over again, his archetype has carried over from generation to generation. So, everyone "gets" him -- x-ray vision, strength, Krypton and so on. That the movie was faithful to the comics is irrelevant -- the comics-buying audience might composes 1 percent of the revenues at the ticket window.

Admittedly, there was an effort to make this Superman more faithful to the comic version and Kevin Smith talked about this at length in his "An Evening With ..." DVD, Vol. 1. However, again, how faithful can you make it and have it still have enormous crossover? In any case, the discussion I am suggesting is a 'Movies and TV' forum discussion about being faithful to tomes versus what movies do -- and those are two separate and different things.

As to Routh, he was told to act as much like Mr. Reeve as possible, I'm sure, to capitalize on that pathos. As to the costume, it's iconic. The 'S' is on my steering wheel and a figure of Superman is on my dashboard. I don't read Superman. However, strangely, there are no Moon Knight, Daredevil, Grendel or Cerebus automotive-pimping products. Odd that.

Whether or not Routh comes back is at the center of the discussion. It is admist amidst a swell of rumours and, as I mentioned above, Hollywood is profound with rumour mongering. It bolsters ticket pricing and helps actors get bigger salaries. This happens in professional sports and other negotiations, too. So maybe we shouldn't get too pinpoint with our smart bombs on this issue. :)

So, smiles everyone! Smiles!

[Axler]

As someone with more than a passing hands-on experience with adapting characters and concepts from other media and after reading the truly horrific Superman Returns treatment from the Tim Burton camp, the Singer version was definitely the best way to go.

As was said, the movie going public is far more familiar with the Christopher Reeve Superman films than anything else, so it made perfect sense for Routh to strongly echo his portrayal, definitley suggesting Superman Returns was part of the same franchise.

My criteria about any film adapted from other mediums is whether the core characters and concepts ring true to my own vision of them.

They most definitley did with Superman Returns.

I'm certain there were purists pooping their pants when Jeremy Brett replaced Basil Rathbone as Sherlock Holmes in the minds of the public, just like there were people who threw Gollum-like fits when Roger Moore replaced Sean Connery as James Bond.

There's a similar dynamic at work here.

Also...the Nolan angle for Batman was not new... that approach was the original one until Tim Burton got his pale, soft hands on the original screenplay and performed a drive-by Burtoning on it.

[Perks]

My criteria about any film adapted from other mediums is whether the core characters and concepts ring true to my own vision of them.

That's probably most everybody's criteria.

[Axler]

Obviously not, especially when it comes to movies derived from comic book characters.

The self-styled purists are so busy picking gnat-s**t out of pepper, they're unable to see the work in its entirety.

I'm old enough to remember the initial critical reaction to Superman the Movie...many of the same complaints and attacks were lodged against it as Superman Returns, including that Christopher Reeve was too young and too wimpy and that his cape looked all wrong.

Christopher Reeve wasn't fully accepted as the "new" Superman until Superman II.

[Bravo]

As someone with more than a passing hands-on experience with adapting characters and concepts from other media and after reading the truly horrific Superman Returns treatment from the Tim Burton camp, the Singer version was definitely the best way to go.

if you keep saying it, someday itll come true.



I'm old enough to remember the initial critical reaction to Superman the Movie...many of the same complaints and attacks were lodged against it as Superman Returns, including that Christopher Reeve was too young and too wimpy and that his cape looked all wrong.

look there's no way on earth any rational person can take a look at the both the image of brandon routh in a suit and of christopher reeve and continue arguing that this guy was a good replacement.

it's a valiant effort but you just cant defend a guy who looks like he jumped out of a birthday cake and is ready to strip for a crowd at a boystown parade.

[Axler]

That's strictly your subjective perspective...maybe if you keep saying it, someday it will come true.

I suppose I put more value in the opinions of people who have a history with Superman, creative-wise than someone who has problems operating a shift key.

I don't recall any of them expressing an attitude similar to yours.

Matter of fact, I just now got off the phone with Jim Mooney who drew Superman (and Supergirl and Legion of Super-Heroes) through the 1960s.

He loved Superman Returns.

[ddgryphon]

Popularity of the first? I thought that thing crashed and burned. Every review I heard was negative.


Yes, it was a veiled rehash of the first movie in terms of basic plot. Luthor wasn't a genius (though well played by Spacey) so much as an opportunist and there was nothing the least bit memorable about the movie apart from Spacey's portrayal of Luthor.

It was a great opportunity to rebuild the franchise while dropping the leftover weaker elements of the first series (like Batman Begins--now that's how to rebuild a franchise). Instead they pretended the last three movies didn't happen (nothing wrong with that) and decided that Superman had to deal with being a dad separated from his child (which turned the last remaining son of Krypton--that christ-like figure of a god among us--into a creepy super-stalker).

I wasn't planning on seeing the sequel anymore than I planned on seeing Superman VI.

I've got an idea, let the Smallville people have a crack at the movie. For the most part, they've told the best Superman stories of late.

[Perks]

That's strictly your subjective perspective...maybe if you keep saying it, someday it will come true.


Good christ, I'm seriously hoping that there's nothing that isn't subjective about Superman.

Superman Returns subtracted the wit and humor from the tale. That could be argued as more to the spirit of the comic. (Humorless comics being perhaps the living, breathing oxymoron it sounds.) For some, that take worked. For me, the only things good about that film were the opening credits and the bullet bouncing off Superman's eyeball. That was seriously cool. The rest was excruciating.

But it was almost convincing that the guy who drew Supergirl thought it was aces.

[Axler]

Jerry Ordway thought it was aces, too.

As did Marv Wolfman.

[FinbarReilly]

I actually thought that Superman Returns was a waste of film. It had some incredible, breath-taking scenes, and some decent supporting characters, but seriously fumbled the ball. Lex was too opportunistic, Lois too wishy-washy, and Superman too angsty. Having Superman go off for five years, and come back as a pushover was just too much, as was the idea of Superman having a bastard child. For that matter, it was missing a lot of the humor in the books, and the chemistry between Lois and Supes was just not there.

Visually, it was an incredible movie, but it just lacked something solid. There just were too many scenes where the point was too show off something rather than tell a decent story...

FR

[Perks]

Jerry Ordway thought it was aces, too.

As did Marv Wolfman.I think, somehow, you're missing the point. You can't empirically prove that a film is good, no matter how many witnesses you call and no matter their superhero credentials. Johnny Cochran, god rest his soul, couldn't make such a case.

If Superman Returns tickles you in your body of study, fantastic. That's a good thing. Lots of people worked very, very hard to get that reaction.

It's also perfectly acceptable, and no show of ignorance, to feel quite the opposite.

[Takvah]

*Shrugs*

My issue with 'Superman Returns' is I suppose different from some posted here. First the storyline, why basically remake the first movie again? What Gene Hackman was going to do in 'Superman', Spacey does on a grander scale in 'Returns'. Then you have the matter of Luthor and Superman having such LIMITED interactions. I think they say a total of three lines to one another.

Now, we get to Lois Lane. WHAT THE HELL WERE THEY THINKING? They turned her into a character more likely to be found in 'Kramer vs. Kramer' than in a SUPERMAN flick. Bosworth (sp?) looks like she just graduated high school, yet she's a highly regarded reporter... yeah. Woe, for the hand-ringing angst! Ugh. Granted in the 70s feminism was front and center... but I'm sorry, I just thought all of the "romantic conflict" looked so... highschool.

Parker Posey... usually love her... especially in movies like 'Best in Show', etc... HATED HER HERE. I so absolutely hate her in this movie that I can't even enumerate the reasons why.

By the way, I thought the costume was much improved. Why do people always complain about the costumes? Maybe Singer should have made sure that Superman uttered a line similar to the one in the first X-Men movie, where they referenced Wolverine's "yellow spandex" costume from the comics.

Anyway, my $.02

[Axler]

It's also perfectly acceptable, and no show of ignorance, to feel quite the opposite.

As long as you understand that a strictly subjective impression of anything without a grounding in either the basic subject matter or the process is just another way of saying, "I don't know art but I know what I like."

There's nothing wrong with that, I suppose, but I lend more credence to opinions that are a little more informed.

[Perks]

Why do people always complain about the costumes?
Just a clarification - I wasn't complaining about the costume, really. All superhero costumes are, basically by definition, ridiculous. It's just that when doing a live-action representation of a superhero, a better actor makes the medicine go down easier.

The only reason I brought up the costume at all was that Singer's Superman costume seemed to try to clear its throat and look more respectable. It can't. It's tighty-reddies over a blaring blue leotard. You kinda just have to shrug and go with it. I thought changing it from preschool colors to a more dramatic palette made Brandon Routh's lack of appeal even sillier.

And I agree - if Singer had changed the costume entirely like he did with X-Men, there could have been a moment of acknowledgement that would have been funny. I don't know, maybe you can only do that joke once.

<snip> First the storyline, why basically remake the first movie again?I think this is the crux of the problem with this film for a lot of its detractors. It's exactly why it gets compared to the '78 Salkind movie and most often comes up feeble. (Except in the CG effects department, of course.) Offense at the comparison might make more sense if they hadn't attempted to remake and continue a storyline that had already been done really, really well.

As for the new gang ignoring Superman III and beyond, well, god bless them. If anything ever deserved to be ignored...

[Perks]

As long as you understand that a strictly subjective impression of anything without a grounding in either the basic subject matter or the process is just another way of saying, "I don't know art but I know what I like."

There's nothing wrong with that, I suppose, but I lend more credence to opinions that are a little more informed.Nope. If I was saying that the 1978 version was a more faithful adaptation, your advanced comic studies would render you a point. As it is, I'm only saying that it was a superior film. That sort of opinion is never weighted by academic achievement.

[Axler]

I don't necessarily consider Superman The Movie the superior film to Superman Returns on a number of counts, even disregarding its relative departure or closeness to the mythos established in the comics.

For example...the ridiculous deux ex machina of Superman flying around the world so fast he reversed the Earth's rotation and somehow turned back time.

Uh...how would that manuever have a temporal effect and not just rip continents asunder and uproot entire countries? Luthor's nuke-engineered earthquake would have been a barely discernable tremor in comparision.

There are many more things I could list that I found ridiculous and even stupid about Superman The Movie...but I loved it nevertheless.

The issues I had did not detract substantially from the work as a whole.

I had issues with Superman Returns, as well...but they did not detract substantially from the work as a whole.

[Perks]

I know. It's so sad. I am only ever at a loss for words for Superman: The Movie when confronted with the backwards spinning planet reversing time. I am compelled to love it above all others anyway.

As for you liking both? I completely understand. I mean I don't understand at all, I mean how could you, but of course you might if you'd suffered a head injury, but I know nothing of your medical history, but it's perfectly fine by me...

(And if you're not smiling, then I am truly lost for words to play with)

[Axler]

Well, it could be that I can make value judgements based on broader critera other than costumes and whether a movie is exactly the same as the one I loved 25 years before even though it has a completely new cast and production crew involved with it.

I didn't like Casino Royale as much as Dr. No.

I think that says more about me than the work itself.

A similar dynamic is at work with your hostility toward Superman Returns.

[Shadow_Ferret]

I'm old school, to me George Reeves IS and always will be Superman and everyone else is a poser. I could not stand Christopher Reeve.

This guy, well, I've only seen a few bits and pieces of this movie, but I like the special effects. The bullet bouncing off his eye was way cool. But as someone else mentioned, the actor is rather uncharismatic.

[Perks]

Well, it could be that I can make value judgements based on broader critera other than costumes and whether a movie is exactly the same as the one I loved 25 years before even though it has a completely new cast and production crew involved with it.

Oh, for god's sake. I can assure you I have as many criteria as you do. Nevermind, Axler. I'm sure you're right. It's a terrific film. Routh's studly as the Man Of Steel and you're obviously enormously correct on all points.

[Axler]

Now you're gettin' it.

[Takvah]

I thought the CGI in Superman Returns was at times awful. The scenes with a cartoon Routh flying around were really tough to take. It reminded me of the awful CGI in the final Matrix movie. I understand that there are limitations to the tech... I just thought that some of the closeup CGI in Returns was really rough.

[jst5150]

Folks, a request as the mod of this board.

Regardless of our status as "experts" in the field, more importantly is how that expertise is delivered to all 19,300 members of AW. We welcome each you to this part of AW, a small part, indeed, but an important one to those who frequent it, including me. In that respect, the golden rule must be followed: treat your fellow writers with respect. If you have some anecdote, tidbit, insider goo, or otherwise valuable information that should be placed on these forums, try to come at delivering that information as shared partners, peers and fellow community members. Regardless of your stature or theirs, everyone who looks upon the information you are sharing should have the opportunity to absorb it without feeling demeaned.

In coming around to writing this note, I scalpeled the better part of one thread and tossed it onto this one, thinking, really, it would die (Step 1). It did not. And I've advised if there's a one-to-one discussion of merits that it be taken to a PM level (Step 2). Now, this is Step 3 (having followed this thread between writing two features and a citation in a plaque; now lunch is ending ...). With this step, I'll reiterate the AW Golden Rule: treat your fellow writers with respect. Unlike the Take it Outside boards or the political forums, the expectation here is that overtly condescending and rude tones will be left at the door. I've seen enough of it here and carried over from the first thread.

It is my hope that as we continue to discuss Comic Books, Graphic Novels and Associated Genre Material that EVERYONE'S discussion points will be approached with merit, and will be answered as such. And as a moderator, I'll do everything I'm capable to ensure that happens.

And with that, this thread is closed.