>.Sounds like both Tieri and Ennis should have been fired from the books they were writing, or the editors should have been. <<

Hmm . . i wonder if we'll get a "Ten Reasons you shouldn't be Editing Superheroes" - tho' i'm sure all 20 reasons we've gotten so far are applicable to editors,  i wonder if there are any editor specific guides.

Now I just want to hear/read Chuck's confession.

I didn't learn anything from Mr. Webb.  He surrendered too quickly!

CJA

..........

Don't presume I am a Chuck hater. I have a full run of Airboy amongst many other things written by Chuck over the last 20 years.

Gregory Dickens wrote: I have to admit I now suspect any writer who moves over from movies or TV. I had an open mind originally, but Smith's Daredevil and JMS' Spider-Man have soured me.

For me, a writer coming from movies or tv is no different than any other writer.  If I'm familiar with their work and don't like it (as with Smith & JMS), I pass.  If I'm not, and the book sounds interesting, I give it a shot.  Sometimes I like it.  Sometimes, not so much.  Same thing happens if it's a "strictly" comics writer.

Robert Last wrote: I'd say Kevin Smith's Daredevil story is a perfect example of Mr Byrnes rule about screenwriters needing to learn to write comic books... It just read like a movie treatment to me.

In the case of Smith, wouldn't it also be beneficial for the screenwriter to learn how to write?  At all? 

I am working on a Golden Age Airboy story.

I have never failed to be anything less than entertained by anything that John Byrne has worked on. He's a guy who knows the medium and his craft backwards, forwards and upside down. He's never a showboat but he is a prickly pear. But I think there's too few of them in the world anyhow. I rarely disagree with what he has to say even though I sometimes cringe at his bluntness. But I appreciate that bluntness all the same. Of course, I prefer a president who scares me over one who tells me what I want to hear.

I'm a big admirer of his FF run. Loved his Namor. Enjoyed the heck out of OMAC. Like I said, I can't think of a project of his that I didn't have fun reading. And that's a mouthful in today's comic book climate.

I would routinely ask for John on various jobs when I was doing Batman. I knew he was too busy but loved getting my editor to call him for the Big Letdown.

About civilian identities, did anyone read Powerless? (I didn't)

http://image.milehighcomics.com/istore/images/fullsize/63174 308989.1.GIF

QUOTE: What makes a hero? Is it his actions, or is it the results of those actions? POWERLESS explores what it means to be a hero in very human terms. By re-imagining Marvel's most popular characters without superhuman powers, this series will strip down to the core heroes we have all come to know and love. These characters - including Peter Parker, Matt Murdock and Logan - were fated to be heroes. Just because Peter Parker wasn't bitten by a radioactive spider doesn't mean he didn't do battle with a madman named Norman Osborn. Matt Murdock? Blinded, yes - but with no heightened senses. However, he did become a legal champion of the poor in Hell's Kitchen, and he did cross paths with Wilson Fisk, the Kingpin. And Logan is, of course, the enigmatic - and amnesiac - drifter on the run from his past.

Oh, exciting!

About Punisher vs Wolverine, I've only read the first issue once back when it was new, but I thought it "simply" was a parody on how Wolverine very often has been depicted the last couple of decades. Followed by some lame immature reply by Tieri.

I liked Smith's Daredevil story. it was interesting and I thouyght the basic plot was solid.  There were two death's which shouldn't have happened perhaps but one was easily undone, until others failed to undo it and made it canon.

Powerless was pretty good as an alternate reality story.

Prickly pear. I got your prickly pear right here. . .