"Four parter".

Mini series is simply any series with a set number of issues under ten. Ten issues and up with a set ending number is referred to as a maxi-series. Both are the two kinds of limited series.

Alright, i get it.

Went to the comic shop for the first time in awhile. Read Ultimate Wolverine vs. Hulk #5. All I got was confused from skipping issues and She-Hulk having sex with Hulk.

Tried looking for Blackest Night #0 but couldn't find it.

That's Ultimate Marvel foolishness for you. Wanda and Pietro are all over eachother, and Wolverine bagged their mom.
As for Blackest Night, someone not make it in time for Free Comic Book Day?

Wait, what? Wanda and Pietro all over each other?

...this is the kinda stuff that makes me hate ultimate.

quote Mister MacPhisto

Surfer amoral and lacking an ethical compass of any kind? Are you kidding me? Have you even read any of his stories? That's like saying that Bruce Banner doesn't have.... problems.

Silver Surfer was more like a noble and confused wanderer who made a deal to save his family, and as such was destined to serve a cause he didn't believe in. Mar-Vell was a noble warrior whose love and cause were clear, and yet turned his back on his people when required to bring injustice upon an innocent race.

quote Mister MacPhisto

Kudos for being aware of Ted Knight's medical history, but who said I was speaking of him?

Told you i wasn't completely ignorant.

quote Mister MacPhisto

And you're still wrong. One, DC had as many if not more that were the furthest thing from supermen than Marvel (Wildcat, Dr. Midnite, Atom, Green Arrow, Tarantula, Star Spangled Kid, Sandman, Vigilante, Adam Strange, Batman, Black Canary, Hawkman, Congo Bill, Johnny Peril, King Faraday, Manhunter, Crimson Avenger, Tommy Tomorrow...) . Two, don't confuse DC's rigidity with following the CCA with some sort of inferiority to Marvel.

quote Xaxas

Also my age being half that (at least) of yours could also lead to me not being able to know everything about a given character.

Didn't realize you were 14 and 1/2 years of age or younger. Could simply be different levels of interest, curiosity, and enthusiasm are what's involved.

Well The reason I do not know nor read up on past events is not due to a lack of interest, but a lack of funds. I do not have nearly enough money to feed a comic book, video game, and movie habit all at the same time. I also have only recently gotten into comics in the past year, due to A finally having a local comic book shop and B my own car.

Also I only said half your age as a guess I figured with your being a teacher and the volume with which you read that you would be older. I myself am 18 and close to 19, now while my age will not excuse ignorance it would (I hope) explain it. I also do know though that DC's adherence to the code has nothing to do with their characters, but the writers, and that they were the first to break the code with an issue of Green Lantern, Green Arrow in the 70's I believe.

The GL/GA drug stories were code approved. The Spidey drug stories weren't. Marvel was even more stagnant than DC in allowing the code to dictate everything they did until they decided to get back into superheroes as a direct result of DC's Silver Age era superhero sales.

The code had control on everything to do with characters, stories, art, series titles... all of it.

Just looked it up and you are right (surprise there) about the GL/GA.

But wouldn't it stand to reason that if the writers were unwilling to push the code aside that they were in fact the reason the characters did not develop? If they did not write things that would conflict with the code the artists and what have you would not have the prudence to do so either?

You're overlooking something. There really wasn't a need for character growth or continuity even. Heck, such things were actually a liability as newsstand distribution meant uncertainty if the next issue would be available along with the need to stockpile stories for production reasons. Factor in that a near complete audience turnover of approximately three years was kept in mind, and things like character growth and continuity translates into a guranteed loss of sales. Full issue stories were unheard of for a variety of reasons. The closest there was to such a thing was in All-Star Comics which featured the JSA, and even those really weren't but instead more of a clever use of the production process to give the illusion of such.

It's not about writers not being willing to push the code. You're putting too much credit to them. Everything was controlled as strict as could be by editorial. How could it not be? This was when interaction between artists and writers on a story was the exception to the rule. Editorial dictated everything and had to make sure the code was followed so everyone would still have a job.

I guess, I suppose its harder for me to see in period eyes, if that makes any sense. I just don't generally see the weight of the editor now, although I know it must exist. But to what extent now?

Mac knowing that you like Conan what would be a good collected work to read for someone who has only seen the really bad films?

quote Xaxas

I guess, I suppose its harder for me to see in period eyes, if that makes any sense. I just don't generally see the weight of the editor now, although I know it must exist. But to what extent now?

I don't know about direct editorial, but the conflict between creative and corporate is definitely still there. Otherwise how do you explain all the creatives who went independent (Image comics for example) plus the famous example of Alan Moore swearing he'd never work for DC again in his life. I think they've definitely become more flexible on content, but they're probably even more focused on sales now, nothing seems to get a chance to grow and get word of mouth naturally. ={

Which causes stagnation and a drop in sales, their very existence the cause for their existence. Without editors willing to stick to their guns and take risks in the here and now, the comic book medium will fall out of the lime light again.

Maybe, it's hard to say. One thing is certain though, Marvel and DC are doing leaps and bounds better than they were in the 90's, economically speaking.

Yeah but not story wise. I mean they constantly (as so far as I know) don't really stick to their guns when in comes to the major crossovers. I mean they killed Aunt May at the end of Civil War and then because of fan outcry they recanted that, and just about everything else in Spiderman's character from the past 20 years. Just to bring Aunt May back. I would have rather him live with his actions and face the consequences then choose to undo it in some contrived Deus Ex Machinica character coming in and offering a way out.

Now I don't know about DC and what they have done with Batman, but isn't this upcoming crossover called "Batman:reborn" or something? But that could just be them continuing with the battle for the cowl story with the winner (if not already decided) taking their first major steps onto the main stage. Which would be good , but if not then they commit artistic suicide by not sticking to their guns.