Be my guest, have you own definiton of "Lore", but please be sure to tell us before posting!

Im getting tired by the continual bickering over the lore... I am beginning to think its all hogwash and like Falk not bother with it all.

There you have it Getm. Falk and Egmont have just made good Phantom stories. Seperate these has no point for other things like discussing very certain elements. I did not come up with Falk Lore, and I don't like it. We have Phantom stories and Phantom facts, these facts have been established from stories made by Falk & Egmont. And no one else!

Opinion on this varies, and there is no right or wrong when it comes to this. My analogy made with Arthur Conan Doyle is as much "fact" as anything else. It comes down to one's opinion and perspective. That is all.

I don't think ACD did much Phantom! My point is that Phantom stories are made by Falk (KFS) and Egmont(and former names). Everything else produced is just "look a like" and barely that.

But we all know that so no need to discuss that agaian, is there??

That's why it's called drawing an analogy

I know! My bad, you are right, and the anaglogy is very good!

I did tell you though? I quoted some definitions of lore on the first page of this thread. It's not my personal definition, it's my understanding of the dictionary definition.

But like I said, we're using different definitions, and hence have different understandings of what constitutes a change. Ultimately though, both Falk and Egmont have made excellent stories, which we can agree upon

Well, that I agree upon. No more bad from.

however, as the dictionary say:


In my opinin you have to selctive about what you put into "Lore" when it comes to Falk. Not every small detail can be called that, it has to be of some importance. IMO, the mention of the ring in one panel, and the same about some wives is not lore as we should understand it.

Ivan

From this discussion, I understand that if KFS or Egmont created props in the Phantom's universe, these can be classified as 'lore' by default, i.e. collective knowledge or wisdom, especially of a traditional nature. If Charlton, Fratelli Spada, King, Gold Key, Marvel, DC, Moonstone or Dynamite create(d) something new, they were / are idiots and deserved to be kicked in the pants. Simple.

pcs

You will of course be badded for the "idiot" accusation, but else you are right. They are not idiots, just not making Phantom.

[quote]pcsarkar Posted: Tue Jan 25, 2011 10:39 pm Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From this discussion, I understand that if KFS or Egmont created props in the Phantom's universe, these can be classified as 'lore' by default, i.e. collective knowledge or wisdom, especially of a traditional nature. If Charlton, Fratelli Spada, King, Gold Key, Marvel, DC, Moonstone or Dynamite create(d) something new, they were / are idiots and deserved to be kicked in the pants. Simple.


[/quote]
I don't understand.

By this do you mean only KFS and Egmont can create new Phantom lore and that everbody else's version is nothing??

LOL.. I have a habit of making ironical statements. I did not mean that only Egmont or KFS can create lore. I firmly believe that only Falk could create lore, and the rest can either follow or perish. But some Phans feel that only KFS and Emont can create lore. Other publishers can't even create Phantom stories, what to create lore. And thats what I pointed out in a sarcastic statement in my earlier post.

pcs

Of course we all saw through your sarcasm, but this time it happens to be the right thing. Good spotted PCS.

What is it you don´t understand PW68??

I think there is the ONE lore created by Falk (but never managed by him) and then every other publisher adds to their own lore which is 'based' off the Falk lore which is owned by KFS. However from what I have heard, if you pay a certain amount for the license, you get to disregard the lore and make it up yourself...