| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
rgj
Hardcore
Joined: 29 Jul 2004
Posts: 1580
Location: The Rio Grande Valley of Texas
|
 Posted: Sun Jul 02, 2006 9:15 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
Wait a minute, wait a minute. I thought the Purple Man's powers of influnece only worked when he was actually around (eyesight) the people he was influencing. Was this changed??
As for Becky taking Milla to the prison, hey, a woman in love isn't going to be stopped. Milla could have somehow made the trip without Becky's aid. Bad judgement by the characters? Yes. Blunder by Bru? No.
| CBL wrote: | From the cover right to the very last panel, this is the single greatest ongoing issue of Daredevil I have EVER read since the relaunch.
Seriously. |
I'll go one step further. This could very well be the best arc since the relaunch. I know people mostly either hated or loved Bendis. I liked his stuff, but I was critical of him when he made blunders. And, because of this I'm not biased either way regarding Bendis. In fact, this is the first arc I've ever read by Bru. So, I'm not biased regarding Bru, either. And, it is my objective opinion that this arc is better than anything Bendis did. Of course, we still have to finish the arc. He could still lose me. But, I really doubt it.
As for Matt giving Punisher the shotgun. Look, Matt has compromised himself and teamed up with Punisher before. This is not new. At least Matt knows that Frank won't kill an "innocent" person. He knows that wouldn't be true by teaming up with Bullseye.
rgj |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Stephan
Humanity's Fathom
Joined: 30 Sep 2004
Posts: 303
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 02, 2006 9:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The FBI Director's conduct, in particular, suggests Killgrave's involvement. Prior to DD Vol. #2 #77, Davis had never voiced any hostility whatsoever toward DD. Why the sudden animosity? What does it stem from? And there is one other matter that points to Killgrave's possible involvement: Matt's unanticipated decision to surrender to the authorities. Why did Matt opt to capitulate rather than flee? Perhaps the time has come to address this critical issue... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rgj
Hardcore
Joined: 29 Jul 2004
Posts: 1580
Location: The Rio Grande Valley of Texas
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 02, 2006 10:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
As I said . . .
| rgj wrote: | | Wait a minute, wait a minute. I thought the Purple Man's powers of influnece only worked when he was actually around (eyesight) the people he was influencing. Was this changed?? |
rgj
p.s. Hey want "one silly villain?" How abourt Ringmaster? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Overlord
Paradiso
Joined: 22 Aug 2004
Posts: 1095
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 03, 2006 3:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| rgj wrote: | Wait a minute, wait a minute. I thought the Purple Man's powers of influnece only worked when he was actually around (eyesight) the people he was influencing. Was this changed??
rgj |
Recently Zemo poured chemicals based on PM's pheromones into the water supply of Manhattan, this allowed Killgrave to contoll everyone who drank the water, regardless of whether of they were in his presence. So he could control others from great distances, but this would be tricky and I doubt Killgrave to do it without help. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Overlord
Paradiso
Joined: 22 Aug 2004
Posts: 1095
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 03, 2006 3:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
| rgj wrote: | As I said . . .
| rgj wrote: | | Wait a minute, wait a minute. I thought the Purple Man's powers of influnece only worked when he was actually around (eyesight) the people he was influencing. Was this changed?? |
rgj
p.s. Hey want "one silly villain?" How abourt Ringmaster? |
You have to admit, Stephan has point, a lot of DD characters have acting really weird recently. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Stephan
Humanity's Fathom
Joined: 30 Sep 2004
Posts: 303
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 03, 2006 12:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Indeed. In addition to Director Davis' odd behavior, there is the question of Elektra's recent claims. Elektra insisted that she had helped The Kingpin assemble the Murdock Papers -information Fisk later conceded did not exist. Either Fisk deceived Elektra (highly improbable) or Elektra was prevaricating. Why did Elektra allege that the Murdock Papers existed when they did not? Unless - Elektra, too, is being influenced by a third party. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Murdock Bell
Flying Blind
Joined: 26 Mar 2005
Posts: 87
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 03, 2006 1:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Stephan wrote: | | Why did the FBI Director abruptly (and inexplicably) become a DD antagonist? |
On Millarworld, and in the old Daredevil thread, the same debate was taking place on the brink of Brubaker's run.
Brubaker actually started responding, and clarified some things. He stated that the FBI Director at the end of Bendis's run was not supposed to be the same character we saw at the FBI offices during the beginning of Bendis's run, who was a much nicer and more sympathetic person.
Apparantly, Maleev drew them a bit too similarly, which is where all the confusion about contrasting behavior comes from. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Stephan
Humanity's Fathom
Joined: 30 Sep 2004
Posts: 303
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 03, 2006 1:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Hello, Murdock Bell. I was not aware that Brubaker had made such assertions. So, we are to believe that a new FBI Director assumed the mantle of leadership, even though there was no mention whatsoever of this development taking place? A new Director who is almost indistinguishable from his predecessor? An new Director whose conversations with Angela suggested that the two enjoyed a longstanding relationship? Uh-oh. Sounds like that Bendis Continuity surfacing again. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Murdock Bell
Flying Blind
Joined: 26 Mar 2005
Posts: 87
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 03, 2006 1:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Stephan wrote: | | Hello, Murdock Bell. I was not aware that Brubaker had made such assertions. So, we are to believe that a new FBI Director assumed the mantle of leadership-- |
Except if you go back and read the issues from the beginning of the run, that character (the Director's visual doppelganger, if you will) is never said to be the director, but only someone in charge of the Silke case.
In fact, that very character claims he's going to meet with the (actual) director after the meeting about Murdock's identity.*
Like Brubaker said, they were two different characters. This is all what amounts to an art mistake.
*Quote of his from issue 32: "I'll review your work and the director and I will plan our next objective." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Stephan
Humanity's Fathom
Joined: 30 Sep 2004
Posts: 303
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 03, 2006 2:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The same individual who was REFERRED TO AS THE DIRECTOR BY ANGELA IN DD VOL. #II #65, FINAL PAGE (check it out)? Remember who you're addressing, Bell. I can quote every DD issue verbatim. No, it was NOT merely an art blunder. Either there has been an unseen villan manipulating DD for quite some time, or it is yet ANOTHER continuity error on Marvel's part. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Murdock Bell
Flying Blind
Joined: 26 Mar 2005
Posts: 87
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 03, 2006 2:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Stephan wrote: | | The same individual who was [i]REFERRED TO AS THE DIRECTOR BY ANGELA IN DD VOL. #II #65, FINAL PAGE |
*That* person *is* the FBI director, and by then the FBI was already taking antagonistic steps against Murdock (hence the constant FBI surveillance, waiting to).
*That* person never displayed any behavior that contrasts with an agenda against Matt, given he was introduced as the director after the FBI was already taking action against Murdock.
He has nothing to do with the earlier character who was unfortanately drawn the same, who directly identitfied himself as someone other than the director, and who explicitly wanted NOT to pursue Murdock.
That's where the confusion set in (the contrast in expressed motives), and that's what Brubaker was clarifying.
Why you'd cite the director's appearance dozens of issues later, and somehow use that to prove he's the same character from the beginning of the run (despite the dialogue explicitly stating otherwise)...I don't know. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Stephan
Humanity's Fathom
Joined: 30 Sep 2004
Posts: 303
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 03, 2006 2:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| "Mr. Director, I was just..." Agent Del Toro's words in DD Vol. #II #65 (the precise wording just occurred to me). Art mistake my @#! Sorry. Marvel apologists bring out the worst in me. Incidentally, you did not touch on Elektra's peculiar behavior, bell. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Murdock Bell
Flying Blind
Joined: 26 Mar 2005
Posts: 87
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 03, 2006 3:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Stephan wrote: | | "Mr. Director, I was just..." Agent Del Toro's words in DD Vol. #II #65 (the precise wording just occurred to me). |
What the heck does the dialogue in #65 (introducing a new character) have to do with the dialogue in #32?
The whole point is that the director drawn in issue 65 (and onward) was accidentally drawn identically to the character in issue 32, who said the director was a different person and DIDN't want to pursue Daredevil.
Take a few deep breaths and actually read what's written, man.
Seriously. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Murdock Bell
Flying Blind
Joined: 26 Mar 2005
Posts: 87
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 03, 2006 3:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Here's the page from issue 32 in question (click to enlarge):
On the bottom right hand panel, he specifically says he's someone different from the director (who appears in issue 65), who he will apparantly meet with later.
Since the only inconsistancy in the director's later behavior came from the mistaken notion that he was THIS character (who didn't want Murdock pursued), there is no inconsistancy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Stephan
Humanity's Fathom
Joined: 30 Sep 2004
Posts: 303
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 03, 2006 3:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| And Elektra's behavior, bell - ? Another art mistake, perhaps? No rationalization, bell? And the FBI character who appears in #65 is indistinguishable from the character who appears in #32, obviously. Same appearance, same disposition, same attire, same office setting. Why was no clarification provided earlier? Incidentally, in #65 the Director (or whoever he is) claimed that Matthew Murdock represented Alexander Bont, which (we discovered mere issues later) he did not. Marvel scribes (particularly Bendis) have little, if any, appreciation for the importance of continuity (or the intelligence of their readers), bell. Writers (who are handsomely paid for their services) owe the readers far more than they deliver. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
