And more, I am sure. . .

Why doesn't (hero) just kill (villain) and get it over with?

Or, conversely, why doesn't the villain just kill the hero without first going into lengthy exposition?

Because it would make for a short, depressing, one-issue mini-series.

Every time I've believed a comic book company when they've said that issue X is a good jumping on point I have found it to be a lie and a half.

Usually it ties up all of these threads from previous issues that I never read and then gives me a new set up story: Punisher is now a private eye! See how he becomes one! See him getting his license! See him renting an office! See him setting up his computer! See the pathos as he can't figure out how to work an electric pencil sharpener because all he has known for years are guns! Whee.

That's not a good story, put him in the middle of danger to open the issue as he regrets taking that case from that girl who looked way too much like his dead daughter for her own good. So many questions raised that I am forced to race through the rest of the issue to figure out what's going on. Hit me hard, hit me again and never let me rest until the end of the issue. Start in the middle of the story.

How come the latest issue of (whatever) is so late? <g>

When you have no way of telling if a comic features graphic lobotomies / limbs being torn off/ decapitations / all the women's top clothing being ripped off in titillating manner while being beat up/ or possibly all of those, unless you browse through all of it. Cause you know, responsible parents need to be this 1984 nazi police that reads every single book for their kids from page 1 to 500. The publisher can't simply tell them in advance! *gasps for air from rant* Cause it's EVERYBODY ELSE'S FAULT other than like the people who made it...

When you're sure you'll get to see that in a comic that has a children's cartoon based on it= +100 weirdo points.

Agreed. The question "Is this mainstream superhero comic appropriate for children?" never fails to depress me. As far as I am concerned, any parent should be able to pick up any comic book starring Superman, Batman, Spider-Man, or the X-Men and feel reasonably comfortable handing it to a normally-adjusted child under 10. (Especially sensitive or immature kids might be exceptions, and the parents should know that.)

While I have no problems with mature themes in superhero comics, I absolutely think that the icons should be off-limits for those kinds of the stories.

How should I play (Guest Star) in this appearance?

I have found myself having to ask this more times than I can count. "Who is Batman this month?" "What are you doing with the Hulk right now?" It's supposed to be the stories that provide the constantly changing points of interest, not the characters. The characters should be on model, all the time!

***************

That is DEFINITELY the major difference between comics of yesterday and comics of today.  As a kid I could count on our favorite heroes being the same...only the stories changed.

There is a sense of STABILITY there that any kid can identify with amid the chaotic stories of villains.

But somewhere along the lines, story writing for superheroes went the way of novels where the protaganist undergoes some sort of transformation.  Its great for graphic novels or major story arcs but we see so many arcs and and an equal amount of retcons that the clear picture of our hero is now muddy and gray.

The need for continuity also breaks the model.  When combining continuity with major transformations in character things obviously get messy.

So we are faced with a dilemma. 
1) Do we want to read meaningful stories that effect a change about our heroes?
2) Do we want our heroes to be iconic and never change?

It is possible to fulfill both these criteria but I think for 90% of the writers this is difficult to do.  

With certain characters, I've started to accept the fact that of our favorite heroes as archetypes.  Batman is one example.  He has been written by so many writers for comics, books, strips, television, movies, toys, several cartoons, etc.  BUT we all recognize him as Batman because he transcended his hero status and became an archetype.  I am equally comfortable with the 1960's campy Adam West Batman as I am with the Batman who is a dark realistic urban street vigilante.  In the end, it is ALL Batman.  Each rendition captures a essence of the Batman archetype.

I can't say the same for Spider-man, yet...and many of the newer heroes.  Sometimes I wish for stories like old but I also understand stories told today.  I just hope that writers don't effect major changes that go against the grain of the hero they are writing for the sake of the gimmick.

Wolverine losing his Adamantium lacing felt gimmicky.  That would be like Batman not having detective like intelligence....it's such an integral part of their character.  Even the campy Batman was a detective.  Not to rant without reading but I feel turning the Hulk red is another one of those gimmicks.  Can't they tell the same story with Hulk being green? 

Sorry for ranting.  This is a first for me...mainly I wanted to surface the nature of comicbook superhero storytelling.  Thanks for reading!

QUOTE: Agreed. The question "Is this mainstream superhero comic appropriate for children?" never fails to depress me.

I'd even extend that outside of the super hero genre. There's simply no "mainstream" in comics anymore. You like gore anytime, anywhere or you're not a comics fan it seems. After a hard week's work, nothing beats going to the comics shop to buy comics that all feature craniums being crushed open, that and REALLLLLYYYY BIG TITS!! Don't give me any substance to read or anything you know.