Recently reviewed by me at CBR: Ultimates 3 #4, about which I write the following sentences: "It's customary for superhero comics to have slugfests and action scenes, and it's to be expected in the climactic portions of the story arcs. But this tempo -- fight after fight after fight -- has been the standard since the first pages of the first issue. And it's not exhilarating. Or fun. It's just the comic book equivalent of someone yelling in your face for ten minutes every two or three months"Read the entire review HERE.
16 comments:
Okay, they wont let me comment on the Splash Page so I'll do it here:
What in gods name are you talking about? Could you please attempt to offer any example or evidence for any of the claims you make? For example:
"...these complaints represent a frustrating level of ignorance about basic storytelling methods."
Such... as? Which storytelling methods? If they're so basic, by all means, enlighten us who are clearly too stupid to appreciate Final Crisis.
You're making Chad look bad; he goes out of his way to provide examples to support his points so that the reader knows what his opinion is. Your argument boils down to "if you don't like FC you're a reeeetard, roflol".
Oh, and, way to create a Straw Man out of the CBR comments page. Must be nice to only cherry-pick a couple of the stupidest comments and only defend against those. Next time I'm arguing about social reform I'm going to be sure to have a debate against a first grader, I bet I'll look intelligent then.
Either begin to support any of your claims or else allow comments so that people can actually discuss these books. Who knows, maybe you'll come across an argument more valid than "they should name each other more!"
Yeah, I don't know why Sequart won't allow comments. It's a technical glitch and not an editorial one, trust me.
I don't see what you're complaining about, though. I do give examples of the storytelling methods--the whole Turpin thing--right after I say what people seem to not understand. And how am I creating a Straw Man out of people I quote word-for-word? Sure, not everyone had those complaints, which is why I said that these were just "some examples."
When did I say, "if you don't like FC you're a reeeetard, roflol"? I don't think you read what I actually wrote or understood what I actually implied.
Care to be more specific about your FC complaints and your complaints about my actual comments in the Splash Page piece?
"The whole Turpin thing" is merely you pointing out that someone couldn't figure out who inhabited his body. This has absolutely nothing to do with storytelling methods, this has to do with that particular reader failing to pay attention. If you disagree, what "method" is in play here?
You're not creating a straw man out of that particular poster (again, bravo for taking down that insightful position -- see my first grader comment, earlier), you have created a straw man to stand in for those who complained (or should I say whined, to borrow your snobbish term?) about FC on the CBR forum. It is an absolute misrepresentation of the criticisms to reduce them to the inane garbage that you have reproduced here. A cursory scan of those same forums reveals many more valid and insightful points which you have conveniently overlooked.
You posited an idiotic position against your own to make your own appear more valid. Straw man.
As for my complaints about what you wrote: you barely wrote anything. Go and re-read your sections of the post and assess the points you made regarding FC.
It was "excellent... terse, powerful, sinister."
"Morrisonian."
Vague enough? Your other comments are either criticisms of SI or you're talking about Infinite Earths.
See why I was asking for more concrete examples of what you're talking about? Chad manages to point to what he's talking about and usually draw parallels. You toss some abstract ideas out and then make massive, insulting assumptions about "that kind of over-reactive fanboy bias that pops up all the time on the internet." This is what I was referencing when I made the joke about your argument boiling down to "if you don't like FC you're a retard." You have offered us nothing but buzz words and then immediately assume that anyone who disagrees is part of some unwashed mass that isn't on your level.
Sequart should hold itself of a slightly higher standard than the usual hobby-blog -- if not, why bother with that whole rallying statement on the homepage?
I disagree. But what are your complaints against Final Crisis and why are you getting upset about what I have to say?
I also reviewed FC for the CBR website, so if you want to see what I had to say, then you can check my review there. Perhaps I should have linked to that review, but the point of our column this week wasn't so much to review the new issue as to comment upon the vocal criticism against the series.
"Sequart should hold itself of a slightly higher standard than the usual hobby-blog -- if not, why bother with that whole rallying statement on the homepage?"
That's why I'm taking issue with what you have to say. You can't post incendiary things on a public forum and then be shocked that someone called you on it.
Or are people not actually supposed to read the Splash Page? If that's the case, keep doing what you're doing -- those last few readers will stop coming back, too.
Yes, you commented on the vocal criticism about the series in an insulting way while relying on a red herring fallacy.
So I commented upon your comment. Disable comments if you'd rather live in a bubble.
I'm still waiting for you to actually make a valid point about either my comments in the Splash Page or Final Crisis itself.
Feel free to explain yourself anytime you want. I'm listening.
I do not need to continue because anyone else who sees this page will actually read what I have written and see the numerous valid comments.
This is very sad and I don't think you deserve a spot on this website. I am the one who is awaiting a valid response. I showed how you set up a red herring fallacy and pointed to exactly what bothered me about your vague comments. These are invalid, somehow?
Which school let you graduate?
(See what I did there? It's called ad hominem. THAT was an invalid comment. See the difference?)
"I'm listening."
No, Tim. You really aren't.
Let me clarify: I'm listening--or reading--in anticipation of you making a valid point.
So far, you've accused me of attacking a straw man, which I did not since I quoted comments made on the CBR forum as an example of what people were complaining about. I did not pick them because they were weak arguments, I picked them because they were the first two I came across and they seemed to represent what I had heard from other critics.
And I never said anyone who didn't like FC was a "retard." That's your word, not mine. And it's based on your misreading of what I wrote.
Feel free to disagree with me all you want. But I still have yet to see you make a point that makes sense or provide some kind of criticism of Final Crisis that I can actually respond to instead of just saying the ones I selected from the CBR board are the "stupidest comments."
You seem personally offended by what I wrote in the Splash Page column, and I still don't understand why.
I'm rooting for Adam in this cyber-argument because he's typed more words.
Seth, why did you have to ruin a perfectly good off-topic argument.
Speaking of Ultimates 3: not as good as Final Crisis.
well, now I'm definitely siding with Adam.
So am I.
Post a Comment