So who was he in the end? Ultra?

So who was he in the end? Ultra?

Other urls found in this thread:

ign.com/articles/2015/10/21/grant-morrison-on-finishing-multiversity-and-whats-next-at-dc
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

Don't let Sup Forums tell you otherwise. It's Miracleman.

Don't listen to this tard, OP. He's lying to yu.

FUCK YOU

>yu

Oh no

He's here.

ABANDON THE THREAD SAVE YOURSELVES

>implying yu can escape

>52s as soon as Gentry show up
Yeah, fuck this.

Other way around, OP. Ultra Comics looks like the Empty Hand because it was always his weapon.

The only way the Empty Hand could invade a world were beings like him only exist as fictional characters was to create a comic book so cynical that it makes anyone who reads it lose all hope and give up on finding any kind of deeper meaning in life.

People compare Ultra to Warlock, but you saying that makes it seem like Ultra's a mirror of Warlock. Empty Hand creates what people think of as his past self in Ultra where Warlock strives to stave off his eventual turn into Magus. One's foundation is in the hope of a better future whereas the other... I dunno.
I'm gonna marinate with this.

No one has a 52 at the end of their post though.

Nah, it's represents the perversion of ideals in order to distract and profit.

>a comic book so cynical that it makes anyone who reads it lose all hope and give up on finding any kind of deeper meaning in life

We'll see what happens.

Bump the thread

Slave

It's you not reading comics, that's the Ultimate destruction for a comic, not being read, the empty hand is yours

How dare yu tell me what to do?

>comic book so cynical that it makes anyone who reads it lose all hope and give up on finding any kind of deeper meaning in life.
Clarissa?

>Other way around, OP. Ultra Comics looks like the Empty Hand because it was always his weapon.

Oh, yeah, that would explain why he talks about Multiverse-2, while a corrupted Ultra shouldn't be coming from there.

Morrison isn't David Lynch, he actually tells everyone what his work means in random interviews so you don't need to guess:
>Morrison: Always I've thought, and particularly now in the era of event-driven comics where characters are subjected to these absolutely life-ruining events in every story arc, I wanted to sum up what all these stories are. It's where the characters get to the end and they appear to have beaten the bad guy, and then an even bigger bad guy shows up and says, "I'll get you later." The real big bad guy at the end - he looks like the Ultra Comics character, but he's also the reader. The empty hand of the reader when he puts the comic down and everything ends. But like the bad guy, he can also come back in full force and say, "You'll meet me again."
>I like my books to have multiple meanings. There's multiple ways of reading it. The big bad at the end represents all the big bads in every story. We just beat that villain, now here comes the Anti-Monitor. We just beat the Anti-Monitor, now here comes something that's bigger than big. That was my thinking - the ultimate bigger than big, the ultimate universe destroyer. It's the reader, who chooses to either participate or not.
ign.com/articles/2015/10/21/grant-morrison-on-finishing-multiversity-and-whats-next-at-dc
So the connection with Ultra Comics is that Empty Hand and Ultra Comics are two different aspects of the reader as either the one who makes the story come alive or the one who ultimately lets the story die.
Empty Hand is the Platonic Form of the concept of the greater hidden villain behind the main story villain, and in thinking through what having a character who's the logical conclusion to the idea of greater hidden villains would be like Grant Morrision ended up realizing this would need to be the reader leaving the story behind since that's the ultimate true end of any story.

Empty Hand is a Mandrakk-like corruption of a duplicate made by Dr. Manhattan as he explored each Earth of the Multiverse. That's why Manhattan stole time/love from the DCU, to make himself stronger.

>the ultimate universe destroyer.
Fucking morrison

Here's an interpretation for ya's.
Ultra-Comics is a corporate-produced Warlock. Warlock is a naturally developed character, going from Kirby & Lee, to Thomas & Friedrich, to Starlin, and so on. Ultra is a one-off manufactured hero. Warlock is a testament to how comics can flow and evolve and how a character can maintain a hero status despite a doomed future. Ultra-Comics corrupts this idea, and is doomed from the outset. Warlock is what happens when people who read comics work in comics. Ultra is what happens when people who don’t read comics make comics.
Also, Warlock and Empty Hand are both the reader. Pic related is the last page before the reveal of Warlock's cocoon.

I make the Warlock connection 'cause Morrison says Starlin's Warlock had a big impact on him as a kid.

Well there's also the ultragem in his forehead.

There's a bunch of similarities. Ultra and Adam were both created by groups of scientists too.

...

>Morrison isn't David Lynch, he actually tells everyone what his work means in random interviews so you don't need to guess
And that makes me respect him far less desu

5 2

bumping for magick number

I don't see how not being afraid to talk about your work makes you less respectable. In a way Lynch ends up making his work more contaminated by outside reality by making such a big deal about never explaining anything, so now everyone always has that extra layer of connotation to any of his movies where you know it was put together by a guy who wants things to be super-mysterious and subjective. In contrast if he'd just explain what his thinking was behind what different films / scenes meant then people could still choose to get something out of his films that he didn't intend because of death of the author and all, and there wouldn't be all that obsession with what he really meant because he wouldn't be making a big deal about it.
If your work is really effective as a self-contained entity that doesn't depend on explanation given outside of itself then the mere act of giving an explanation in an interview shouldn't be enough to change it in any significant way for prospective viewers.

Oh, okay, cool.
Hol up...

You will probably need to wait around 100 posts before the 1/100 chance of any particular ending two digit combination like 52 is likely to be realized.

Never tell me the odds!

It's 1%.

>3 off
Fucking kill me.

We gotta find that post. Who knows what Hypercrises it holds.

Yeah it's a bunch of meta shit that stopped being interesting about five levels ago. He's overthinking way too much, and it isn't smart or interesting it's just
>More of this same shit

We already basically had all of this with the Monitors, Anti-Monitor, and big gigantic black hand circa 1985.

Jesus christ, Morrison did the whole "I can see you!" thing in Animal Man damn near 30 years ago. And all his spazzing out and overthinking from Final Crisis onward has barely gotten him beyond that in terms of significance. And it's a lot less fun and interesting to read.

I dunno if I'm autistic enough for that, user.

It's us, user, it's always been us, that's why he looks like Ultra

What am I talking about, this is easy.

...

It rolled over from posts being in the 51 thousands to the 52 thousands

>10/28/17(Sat)03:20:52
>52

Yes. Trust this user. Do not trust any other user beyond this point. They are lying 2 yu. Trust only this user.

>not being afraid to talk about your work makes you less respectable
>making such a big deal about never explaining anything
>he wouldn't be making a big deal about it
Why do you immediately assume it has something to do with insecurity ?
Why do you have this idea that Lynch is "afraid" of talking about his work and that he wants everything to be "super mysterious and subjective" ?
The idea that David Lynch bases his entire filmography on being confusing and incomprehensible is perpetuated mostly by people who can't appreciate Lynch's merits on their own and feel the need to insert 2deep4u bullshit into everything he does even when HE himself rejects this notion. His work in film is an extension of his work as a painter. It's emotion first and foremost.

>It makes me uncomfortable to talk about meanings and things. It is better not to know so much about what things mean. Because the meaning, it's a very personal thing and the meaning for me is different than the meaning for someone else.
>Being in darkness and confusion is interesting to me. But behind it you can rise out of that and see things the way the really are.
>Life is very, very complicated and so films should be allowed to be too.

Grant loves to jerk off to how multi-layered and complex his writing can be, or rather, how he can take ideas that other people did previously and spin them around so they seem fresh and coat it with terminology and symbolism he himself barely understands. It's an insistence Lynch doesn't like doing because he likes art for it's own sake instead of art for the sake of intellectual masturbation.

>If your work is really effective as a self-contained entity that doesn't depend on explanation given outside of itself then the mere act of giving an explanation in an interview shouldn't be enough to change it in any significant way for prospective viewers
If your work needs to be "explained" to people in order to be appreciated then it's already a failure.

No, but don't you get it, now he refers to the fact that you turn pages with a hand. That is so much deeper and more developed, really interesting amd novel commentary and not rehashing the exact same thing. Maybe later he'll do something even more groundbreaking like referring to each individual finger used to touch the page, and we can all circlejerk about how we use those exact same fingers. Truly the work of the medium's only surviving genius.

You seem like a Lynch fan who actually has a decent understanding of his output, unlike a lot of "2deep4u" mouthbreathers out there. What're your thoughts on some of the dangling plot threads of Twin Peaks: The Return? There were some parts that really frustrated me, and I feel like it's still too soon for any in-depth analyses. I'm not gonna talk about Judy; in fact, we're not gonna talk about Judy at all, we're gonna keep her out of it!

>Why do you have this idea that Lynch is "afraid" of talking about his work
He tells you he is when he talks about how he needs to "protect the film" or keep information from viewers to preserve some sort of magic "experience" that can apparently only exist if he makes sure not to pollute your mind with explanations for what's happening.
>If your work needs to be "explained" to people in order to be appreciated then it's already a failure.
The fact someone explains things has no bearing on whether or not an explanation was needed for the thing to be appreciated. Not sure why you would leap from "he gave an explanation" to "an explanation was required for the work to be appreciated." That's like arguing ice cream isn't good because someone put whipped cream on it and that means it tastes bad without whipped cream.

You're just too good Sup Forums

...

>"protect the film" or keep information from viewers to preserve some sort of magic "experience" that can apparently only exist if he makes sure not to pollute your mind with explanations for what's happening.
Again, why do you get the impression that this has anything to do with insecurity in regards to his own work ?
I'm posting quotes from the man himself specifically to clarify why he does what he does because apparently you don't have a clue.
>A film is its own thing and in an ideal world I think a film should be discovered knowing nothing and nothing should be added to it and nothing should be subtracted from it.
>I love child things because there's so much mystery when you're a child. We think we understand the rules when we become adults but what we really experienced is a narrowing of the imagination.
>I like the saying "The world is as you are." And I think films are as you are. That's why, although the frames of a film are always the same, every screening is different. The difference is sometimes subtle but it's there. It depends on the audience. There is a circle that goes from the audience to the film and back. Each person is looking and thinking and feeling and coming up with his or her own sense of things.

It's an encouragement for viewers to think for themselves and extract their own ideas about the work because, much like a painting, the meaning should never be set in stone. If it cannot stand on it's own merits, it's a failure. It's one of the most artistic principles in history.

>The fact someone explains things has no bearing on whether or not an explanation was needed for the thing to be appreciated
Then why give one in the first place if it's not necessary unless you want to hammer in how deep you want it to be, instead of letting people naturally extrapolate conclusions and appreciate and talk about it ?

Which ones in particular ?
I'd love to talk about it but maybe not here since it's not Sup Forums related.

>I'd love to talk about it but maybe not here since it's not Sup Forums related.
It was really just a lame joke to set up my jeffriesposting. there's always /tpg/
>HELL GOD BABY DAMN NO

>force bump thread to 52 posts
>hurr 52 hypercrisis!!XD

What comes after a hypercrisis?

Ultracrisis?

Hypercrisis is sort of an ongoing thing, there's a chart that explains it but it all works on a number of different levels.

What

...

It still is surreal and ambiguous enough to have multiple interpretations, and functions flawlessly as a superhero story. You can harp on Morrison for going back to the same well if you want, but to use that as an excuse to dismiss his work is disingenuous at best, and reveals a lack of understanding about what makes for a compelling comic.

>in the end
YOU THINK MORRISON IS FINISHED?

DID HE DIE?

I kinda want to know about the lives of the people in the cities on the back of those squiddy dudes in the back.

>Empty Hand represents the reader destroying the comic book's reality that exists in their imagination when they simply stop reading it
>your Hand is literally Empty when you put down a comic book

that would be deep if anyone actually read physical print media anymore

>So who was he in the end? Ultra?
Alan Moore.

Giganigga Crisis, only two consecutive sets of triple doubles can save the comics industry and this thread.

I may not know what a compelling comic is, but I do know what it isn't.
>thought bubbles have fallen out of style in favor of caption boxes
>so I'll have the character say he'll use caption boxes instead of thought bubbles
>I wonder if I can get the model number for the printer used to make the pages? >but shit, do I make that the villain or another hero? both fused together? yeah, the way printer ink fuses together to make a new color!
>goddamn I am such a fucking genius

Well, not yet at least...

He's a dark multiverse version of DR. Manhattan. The actual Dr. Manhattan knows already and has been making alterations to the time stream in preparation for the inevitable confrontation. Turns out DM is trying to do good.

...

>doesn't buy floppies
Hang your fucking head in shame.

>your Hand is literally Empty when you put down a comic book
This is what passes for genius, is it? Stating something that is completely obvious in a convoluted manner and this just blows your mind, eh?

Think that user was being sarcastic, m'dude.

Using the same themes=/=the same story.

Ay yo, what do I win?

That's Intellectron from Ultra Comics. The actual captions read: "Turn the page. Do it. Slave."

You mean "what doesn't". And focusing on the smallest of details doesn't suddenly erase the bulk of the rest of it.