Jump to content

Talk:Brian Michael Bendis

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Alias Canon

[edit]

This insinuates that Alias isnt 616 cannon 'untill' Pulse came along, this is not true like the Hood another Max book it is canon.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.141.134.11 (talk • contribs)

You're absolutely right, and it has been removed. Thanks for pointing it out. For anyone wondering, Alias was always in canon with the rest of the Marvel universe, to the point where scenes from Bendis's Daredevil run would cross over to Alias, and Jessica Jones would make appearances in Daredevil. All "The Pulse" did was take away the word "fuck".--CyberGhostface (talk) 04:26, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nit-picky

[edit]

This might be nit-picky, but I believe Joe Quesada was editor of Marvel Knights when he brought BMB to Marvel. He became EIC soon after.

Correct. I'll fix this. rst20xx 13:11, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The links for 'Jinx' in this page resolve to the wrong character.

Daredevil movie cameo

[edit]

The info that his name, along with Frank Miller's and David Mack's, is listed in Daredevil the movie appears under both the Trivia heading and the Cameo appearances heading. I don't think this needs to be mentioned twice; any thoughts on which heading should keep it? Newt 13:22, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TCJ

[edit]

Does anyone have the Comics Journal interview he did? I'd like to add something here about how he accidentally wrote the same scene of a person talking to someone in a coma into four different comics after his wife was in a coma for a day. Unfortunately, I do not have said magazine. Any help? --Chris Griswold 18:56, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted recent edits

[edit]

Every single one of 63.138.149.130's edits was putting a negative bias on Bendis's article. I reverted them.--CyberGhostface 14:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I actually think the whole article still comes across as very anti-Bendis. It seems very keen to report all the reasons he is disliked in great detail, whilst only very briefly and grudgingly admitting that he sells in vast quantities, is highly critically acclaimed (especially his run on Daredevil which gets very scant recognition here) and has won a lot of awards. I'm not expert enough to do it, but I hope someone soon will correct the Bendis-is-an-asshole bias that the page is currently displaying. Hatchet-jobs aren't very encyclopaedic... --Cardinal Wurzel 21:10, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Jesus Christ...this article is a mess. They might as well say Bendis is the second coming of Satan. The whole thing is massively uncited pov. I removed most of it.--CyberGhostface 02:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrote my rewrite of the article to make it less negative; that said, the previous version (prior to my changes) was too pro-Bendis in terms of utterly ignoring the fact that Bendis is NOT as loved as everyone says that he is and that in spite of his sales that his recent output since coming to Marvel has gained negative reviews from many fans. Especially since he took over Avengers, which has served as a watershed moment in which even Bendis's top supporters have come out to state that the emperer has no clothes on. Bendis is the new Rob Liefeld in terms of him selling books that are of extremely poor qualitywise.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.145.85.31 (talk • contribs)

Found this in the history. Why did you remove it? Also, if you honestly believe the drivel that you wrote was balanced, then I'd shudder to believe what you'd consider to be actually biased.--CyberGhostface 17:24, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anal?

[edit]

The controversial sex scene in the first issue of Alias was primarily controversial because it was anal sex. This aticle has been edited to remove references to "anal" sex. Why? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.251.101.34 (talk) 18:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Inaccurate POV?

[edit]

That's accurate; he's taken a lot of flak about that. And I'm trying to make this more NPOV, it's too pro-Bendis as it is right now. Thanos6 18:38, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Except that two of those characters aren't dead anymore, and one was planned by Bendis ahead of time to bring back.--CyberGhostface 19:07, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But he wasn't the one who revived Vision, Scott Lang is still in the next world, and at the time (and still today) the deaths were/are perceived as insulting. Thanos6 19:16, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you're going to add it then you should at least mention how Bendis had Hawkeye planned out from the beginning.--CyberGhostface 19:29, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I will if you can give me a source; this is honestly the first I'd heard of it. Thanos6 19:38, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Bendis said when HoM came out he had planned for Hawkeye to come back. --CyberGhostface 20:05, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I need an actual, documented source. Thanos6 00:03, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion

[edit]

The 'writer profile' section needs to go, it's all POV. Lots42 14:27, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It needs citation, but it's all very true. The second paragraph is very true, though the first could be re-worded. 24.208.200.151 19:52, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The second paragraph is completely POV. It might as well read "Characters that Bendis has killed." If someone can dig up an actual source and not just a big thread on a forum, it should get deleted. For what it's worth, I've never heard of any criticism for him killing The Owl/ Notthegoatseguy 13:00, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the offending information according to WP:Biography of Living Persons. I've put this page on Watch if anyone wants to further discuss this here, or on my User Talk page. Notthegoatseguy 00:05, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Bendisultimatecameo.jpg

[edit]

Image:Bendisultimatecameo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism section

[edit]

I have reinstated the criticism section that was previously deleted on 10:04, 14 December 2008 by user Wylie68. No reason had been given for this deletion despite accurate references being given. However, for the sake of encyclopedic etiquette I have removed weasel words and dubious phrasing to make the section more compliant with the NPOV rule. I'll take this opportunity to add to the conversation by saying that as mentioned above, BMB is a successful writer but also attracts a lot of negative attention with his writing, especially with his mainstream Marvel work. There are several theories out there that attempt to explain this negative feedback; nonetheless, both praise and criticism should be portrayed in as neutral a manner as possible. Fetternity (talk) 14:53, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quite. I'm not entirely sure what the "point of view" that allegedly is enough to warrant the sections total exclusion actually is. Could User:CyberGhostface clarify, perhaps..? I tried to write a neutral, factual - mostly sourced to Bendis' own interviews - piece essentially saying: people weren't enamored of the idea of Ultimate Spider-man - but it sold exceptionally well; people generally complain about decompression (and Bendis' work is a prime example of the practice), but he is praised as much as complained about for the realistic dialog; the death of Hawkeye provoked his biggest wave of criticism. It's very important to include the comment that his work is seen as "too wordy" (voiced by Oeming, echoed by many) so that Bendis can shoot it down in his own words as an attempt at "value for money" - while acknowledging that he has difficulty fitting everything in.
Is it supposedly too anti-Bendis - criticism and complaints; or supposedly too pro-Bendis - quoted responses/sales/praise to counter the criticism..? Could be argued either way, which hopefully makes it at least moderately balanced... ntnon (talk) 23:57, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I admit that I was hasty in removing it and that I should have looked at it more, and I have reinstated it back with a "criticism-section" tag. I just think it would be better to make a general "critical reception" section instead of just a section dedicated to mostly the controversy surrounding his career. I've never been a fan of "Criticism" sections/articles, as they tend to be biased and in the end just become a place for people to add negative stuff about the subject. I will say that after looking at this one a second time, it's a lot more neutral than most so I have to commend you on that.--CyberGhostface (talk) 00:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree - calling it "criticism" is going to lack neutrality by its very nature, the only way to make it neutral is in a kind of "yes but" way. Pitching it as a "reception" allows for more balanced coverage - granted this might be more negative than positive but we have given it the best opportunity to properly reflect the full range of opinions. You still have to be careful that you avoid fan opinion which tends to be overly loud in critical corners but, as ntnon says, there are properly sourced opinions on his work that can give us a rounded view of his work. (Emperor (talk) 02:28, 5 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]
I have again reinstated the section due to unwarranted deletion by anonymous IP user 71.237.253.235. The tag remains; I agree with it. I'm sure we can spin this otherwise while remaining NPOV, however I wouldn't immediately call a Criticism section biased; as long as it's factual and documented, the only thing that could betray bias would be the writing style or certain choice words. Let's work on it. Fetternity (talk) 14:22, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Criticism section is currently the target of something just short of an edit war perpetrated by user IP 71.237.253.235 who reverts the page to a version without Criticism. The issue is that User 71.237.253.235 does not participate at any level in the discussion we're currently having regarding the ongoing re-working of this section while leaving it there. We're meant to be neutral editors and arbitrarily deleting this section reeks of bias. 71.237.253.235, if you have a problem with criticism of BMB at any level, please speak up and back up your point of view. Otherwise, as per WP:CON, this section stays. Fetternity (talk) 00:58, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored it again and changed the sections title (for the reasons stated above). I am also considering moving the awards section into it and looking at sales - Secret Invasion being one of the biggest sellers of last year, for example. (Emperor (talk) 16:38, 15 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I have to say, the criticism/reception section does seem unduly weighted towards negative criticism. Bendis has received large amounts of critical praise for his writing style and writing in general. If we're going to include negative stuff, the positive stuff needs to be there as well. -Chunky Rice (talk) 23:46, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. I have restored the section but as it stands it is a tug-of-war between those who don't seem to like his work and those who want to remove the section - that means a lot of back and forth and not much balance. I have removed a paragraph partly referenced to a forum and part to the same AICN review that had already been mentioned. It is easy enough to find a negative review for any creator, no matter how universally acclaimed they are so really relying on one review tells us nothing. There are a lot of reviews and even articles looking at his work and there are sales figures and awards tat could be thrown into the mix. So there is potential for a well-rounded section but as it stands it seems like a magnet for axe grinding. If it can't be imporved soon then I'd suggest we need to remove this and only add something back in if we someone can create a decent version (in their sandbox or on here) that gets a consensus. (Emperor (talk) 02:17, 18 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Seriously, it needs to be up there. So many retcons on so many pages all because of this tool. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.91.2.124 (talk) 13:00, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quotes

[edit]

This article is awfully full of quotes from Bendis. Why are there so many quotes? Are they really necessary? Also what the heck is with sticking brackets in the middle of a word??? Am I missing something? Also, it appears the criticism section was removed again. I am not reinserting it as I don't think this article can be saved. What a mess.Faethon Ghost (talk) 14:56, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The brackets are there because in a direct quote, if you change something, you put brackets around it. Also, one of your removals broke a reference, so I put it back. -Chunky Rice (talk) 17:25, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request: personal life.

[edit]

{{Edit semi-protected}}

Please change the following under 'Personal Life': "They have a daughter." to "They have two children." Comment to this effect can be found in this interview.

JasonBaur (talk) 02:28, 8 February 2011 (UTC)JasonBaur[reply]

Already done Looks like someone already fixed this. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:40, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They have three children - two of whom are adopted. The article only references that the two adopted children. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.22.99.198 (talk) 15:12, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:IRS and WP:CS. Nightscream (talk) 18:18, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From an announcement by Brian Bendis on the adoption of his 'third' daughter.

http://twitter.com/#!/BRIANMBENDIS/status/76732098681122817 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.81.158.188 (talk) 13:26, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In this article it references that Olivia (Bendis' first daughter) has an adopted sister - this is before the second adoption of the third daughter.

http://timeoutchicagokids.com/arts-entertainment/arts-crafts-storytelling/39937/superheroic-sisters — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.81.158.188 (talk) 13:29, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article already mentions that. Nightscream (talk) 17:31, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if my change request wasn't clear. Let me try this again. Please change "They have two daughters, whom they adopted" to "They have three daughters, two of whom are adopted" See citations above - otherwise it reads as if they ONLY have two daughters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.81.158.188 (talk) 13:36, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Will there be a reply to this?

Please change "They have two daughters, whom they adopted" to "They have three daughters, two of whom are adopted" See citations above - otherwise it reads as if they ONLY have two daughters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.81.158.188 (talk) 05:22, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've started a discussion at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard asking them if Twitter updates are permitted under WP:Identifying Reliable Sources. Let's see what they have to say. Nightscream (talk) 08:39, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you - as you can see from other sources he has two adopted daughters. The third - the eldest Olivia is mentioned here in this article. This is before the adoption of the second baby. Does that help? http://timeoutchicagokids.com/arts-entertainment/arts-crafts-storytelling/39937/superheroic-sisters — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.81.158.188 (talk) 04:59, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again pointing to the above articles - it should be clear that he has in fact 3 daughters - 2 of which are adopted. Will this be fixed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.81.158.188 (talk) 05:48, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First, please sign your talk page messages. You can do this by typing four tildes at the end of them, which will also automatically time-stamp them.
As for Bendis' daughters, the above link only mentions two daughters, as do the other three sources cited in the passage in question. How do you know he has three, and why is this such an important matter for you? Do you have a personal connection to Bendis? Nightscream (talk) 06:27, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Each article mentions 2 daughters but different daughters in each article. The one article mentions Olivia and her adopted sister. He later adopts another daughter (bringing the total of children to three) - while the Twitter announcement has been denounced as a not a news source - the second article references his two adopted daughters which along with Olivia make three. As for the importance: 1) I think it important to be accurate 2) I think it is important that when Olivia one day visits this page she sees that she exists (and not just her adopted sisters) 3) I am amazed and respectful of the difficulties it getting something that I know to be a fact to be proven by the established standards 4) My personal connection to Bendis would be as irrelevant to this discussion as his original Tweets - but suffice it to say I know it as a fact - one which I am trying to prove by the established guidelines. Lastly, I don't mean to offend anyone here - I am just trying to add to the accuracy of this page and I hope you respect the efforts. If the information provided here proves not to be enough could the line be changed to "two of their daughters are adopted..." leaving at least an opening for his third child without a definitive count of his children. Thank You 69.81.158.188 (talk) 06:29, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually - let me make it easier. This article from 2009 references his 2 daughters. http://www.bookslut.com/features/2009_02_014023.php This article from 2011 references his 2 adopted daughters the youngest of which is 4 1/2 months old. http://www.usatoday.com/life/comics/2011-08-02-new-spider-man-inside_n.htm The 4 1/2 month old did was not yet born in 2009 - hence three children. 69.81.158.188 (talk) 06:42, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 19:02, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Erstwhile?

[edit]

Really? This isn't Simple English Wikipedia, but there's no point in using a dated word when there's a perfectly adequate modern word which means the same thing: "former." 83.183.141.239 13:35, January 3, 2012

New discussions go at the bottom, not the top. Also, please remember to sign your talk page posts. You can do this by typing four tildes (~~~~) at the end of them, which will also time-stamp them.
Ah, the irony of this signature reminder. Grandpallama (talk) 14:59, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Brian Michael Bendis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:10, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Brian Michael Bendis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:28, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Brian Michael Bendis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:54, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why the "cuck" crap?

[edit]

Where does the info on Bendis having been cheated on with a black man info come from? The article used as "proof" says nothing on that and the title has nothing on wife "blacked" (is that a verb?) and the other image used seems more something a racist trolls did to mock Bendis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.63.176.150 (talk) 11:55, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Brian_Michael_Bendis&oldid=1252200004"