Merin's Recent Comments
Comicscape: What is Owed? Continuity for New and Old Readers - May 21, 2008 - 09:17am
Wow. Kurt, this was the first article in awhile I decided I wanted to attempt to read- but, again, Mania seems to be having "growing pains"(I'm trying to be nice here) and renders it unreadable. Maybe I'll check back again in a few weeks and see if anything looks better.
Wow. Kurt, this was the first article in awhile I decided I wanted to attempt to read- but, again, Mania seems to be having "growing pains"(I'm trying to be nice here) and renders it unreadable. Maybe I'll check back again in a few weeks and see if anything looks better.
In the Name of the King - Apr 18, 2008 - 06:55pm
Saving Private Ryan = yawn. War movies don't interest me. Tanks and snipers and . . . . zzzzzzzzzz. Wha - sorry, we were talking about a Spielberg film. Yeah, boring. Action scenes don't necessarily entertain me. Case in point - X3. Transformers. Star Wars prequels. Matrix Sequels. If I don't care about the story, don't care about the characters, and don't know / care about who's fighting - I don't care about the fight. --- Merin was the name of an elf swashbuckler I played in D&D many many years ago. Where I got the name then? I am pretty sure I made it up at the time. Since then I've watched Sorcerer Hunters and there's a Merin in that show, though his name is spelled Marron, and I've sometimes used a pic of him as an avatar. But really its a name I made up for a D&D character back when I was in junior high.
Saving Private Ryan = yawn. War movies don't interest me. Tanks and snipers and . . . . zzzzzzzzzz. Wha - sorry, we were talking about a Spielberg film. Yeah, boring. Action scenes don't necessarily entertain me. Case in point - X3. Transformers. Star Wars prequels. Matrix Sequels. If I don't care about the story, don't care about the characters, and don't know / care about who's fighting - I don't care about the fight. --- Merin was the name of an elf swashbuckler I played in D&D many many years ago. Where I got the name then? I am pretty sure I made it up at the time. Since then I've watched Sorcerer Hunters and there's a Merin in that show, though his name is spelled Marron, and I've sometimes used a pic of him as an avatar. But really its a name I made up for a D&D character back when I was in junior high.
In the Name of the King - Apr 17, 2008 - 04:52pm
Not every movie with fighting needs blood, IMO. Sometimes I want cartoony violence - where no one really stays hurt. Sometimes my simplistic fantasy movie can exist with the heaviness and sheer drag-it-out-boredom that Lord of the Rings seems to love so much. No blood bothers me none. I can watch stuff like Jackie Chan films with tons of fighting and no blood. Or DOA (I love that movie) has a scene where Helena,with swords, fights dozens of warriors with swords. I love that scene, but with all the swords, no blood and no missing limbs. The recent TMNT - they still have bladed weapons, but almost no cutting or piercing injuries in the whole flick. And I really dug it. Devil's Rejects had lots of blood. Didn't make me like it. Neither did all the blood in the Halloween remake or the Chainsaw prequel. I have an imagination - I don't mind the blood, but I also don't need it. --- Saving Private Ryan was boring. But then again, it was Spielberg so I can't expect to like it. --- It's okay, Tim. I agree with you more than not. But on this point I'll politely, but strongly, disagree.
Not every movie with fighting needs blood, IMO. Sometimes I want cartoony violence - where no one really stays hurt. Sometimes my simplistic fantasy movie can exist with the heaviness and sheer drag-it-out-boredom that Lord of the Rings seems to love so much. No blood bothers me none. I can watch stuff like Jackie Chan films with tons of fighting and no blood. Or DOA (I love that movie) has a scene where Helena,with swords, fights dozens of warriors with swords. I love that scene, but with all the swords, no blood and no missing limbs. The recent TMNT - they still have bladed weapons, but almost no cutting or piercing injuries in the whole flick. And I really dug it. Devil's Rejects had lots of blood. Didn't make me like it. Neither did all the blood in the Halloween remake or the Chainsaw prequel. I have an imagination - I don't mind the blood, but I also don't need it. --- Saving Private Ryan was boring. But then again, it was Spielberg so I can't expect to like it. --- It's okay, Tim. I agree with you more than not. But on this point I'll politely, but strongly, disagree.
Bandai Releasing MACROSS in Blu-Ray - Apr 17, 2008 - 09:04am
The Robotech novels were great!- -I'd want the Wachowskis to make the Robotech film. Then, despite not being true to the source material, it'd kick ass.
The Robotech novels were great!- -I'd want the Wachowskis to make the Robotech film. Then, despite not being true to the source material, it'd kick ass.
Comics vs. Manga: Let's Be Friends - Apr 17, 2008 - 09:01am
Good article. There are many more differences. Artistic style, for one - from American to Japanese comics. -The manga book size versus the periodical magazine size is another difference.- -Cost is a big factor.- -I disagree that costumes are ubiquitous to super-hero comics. Their costumes are just super-stylized uniforms, and are often used to help with quick character recognition. No matter the artist, when you see a white guy with black hair in the blue and red suit with cap, boots and a big letter S on his chest you know it's superman. You get a few different artists drawing Lois Lane and most people, without knowing ahead of time, would be hard pressed to identify her without some other clues. Many mange / anime characters wear the same set of clothes all the time for the same reason and at least with a costume or uniform you have a reasonable argument for why. Almost any cartoon will constantly have characters wearing the same clothes (or at the very least colors.)- -All in all, great article.
Good article. There are many more differences. Artistic style, for one - from American to Japanese comics. -The manga book size versus the periodical magazine size is another difference.- -Cost is a big factor.- -I disagree that costumes are ubiquitous to super-hero comics. Their costumes are just super-stylized uniforms, and are often used to help with quick character recognition. No matter the artist, when you see a white guy with black hair in the blue and red suit with cap, boots and a big letter S on his chest you know it's superman. You get a few different artists drawing Lois Lane and most people, without knowing ahead of time, would be hard pressed to identify her without some other clues. Many mange / anime characters wear the same set of clothes all the time for the same reason and at least with a costume or uniform you have a reasonable argument for why. Almost any cartoon will constantly have characters wearing the same clothes (or at the very least colors.)- -All in all, great article.
In the Name of the King - Apr 17, 2008 - 08:54am
Uwe Boll deserves much of the disparaging he receives. House of the Dead, alone, qualifies him for it. That said, he's films have been steadily improving. For all its badness, I somewhat enjoyed Bloodrayne. And I kinda really did like In The Name of the King. Was it great? No. Was it good? Eh ... Did it entertain me? Yes. Liotta was bad, very bad - but I've never NOT thought Liotta was bad in ANYTHING I've ever seen him do, so how's that different? I'm not going to defend the film from people who found it bad. But it entertained me. One thing, Tim - realism with blood? In a fantasy movie, you need realism? You just praised a guy turning into smoke. These kind of comments baffle me, but whatever. How many war films and action films do you see where a grenade explodes and body PARTS, not bodies, go flying? Right, none. Anyway, go ahead and rip on me for enjoying this film. Thing is I try and enjoy every film I take the time to see (yes, I TRIED to enjoy Transformers) instead of wasting time watching something I'm dead set on hating.
Uwe Boll deserves much of the disparaging he receives. House of the Dead, alone, qualifies him for it. That said, he's films have been steadily improving. For all its badness, I somewhat enjoyed Bloodrayne. And I kinda really did like In The Name of the King. Was it great? No. Was it good? Eh ... Did it entertain me? Yes. Liotta was bad, very bad - but I've never NOT thought Liotta was bad in ANYTHING I've ever seen him do, so how's that different? I'm not going to defend the film from people who found it bad. But it entertained me. One thing, Tim - realism with blood? In a fantasy movie, you need realism? You just praised a guy turning into smoke. These kind of comments baffle me, but whatever. How many war films and action films do you see where a grenade explodes and body PARTS, not bodies, go flying? Right, none. Anyway, go ahead and rip on me for enjoying this film. Thing is I try and enjoy every film I take the time to see (yes, I TRIED to enjoy Transformers) instead of wasting time watching something I'm dead set on hating.
McGowan is Still Set for Rodriguez's BARBARELLA? - Apr 14, 2008 - 01:41am
Well, put me in the "drooling over" Jane Fonda column. Barbarella, Barefoot in the Park, Cat Ballou . . . (just waiting for some anti-Fonda Vietnam nonsense to surface about now)
Well, put me in the "drooling over" Jane Fonda column. Barbarella, Barefoot in the Park, Cat Ballou . . . (just waiting for some anti-Fonda Vietnam nonsense to surface about now)
McGowan is Still Set for Rodriguez's BARBARELLA? - Apr 13, 2008 - 11:00am
I never understood the drooling over Megan Fox that I saw happening everywhere. I, personally, attributed it to Transformers fans drooling over the movie and then seeing a young, scantily clad, fit girl in the movie and translating that geek drooling into man drooling (if you follow that tortured explanation) - But what I mean is I look at those two women whenever tons of besotted men bring them up and I go "eh." No, they are not ugly. Yes, if they were my girlfriend or wife I'd be thinking "yep, got myself a beautiful girl here" (this is assuming that, as my s.o., they'd be fun to be with and smart and such) but for whatever reason when I see them I sigh and move on to the next story / picture / web page / whatever. They don't attract me for whatever psychological reason. Notice in all that I avoided saying what I thought of Transformers the movie or Megan's horrible acting - oops, one slipped out. ;)
I never understood the drooling over Megan Fox that I saw happening everywhere. I, personally, attributed it to Transformers fans drooling over the movie and then seeing a young, scantily clad, fit girl in the movie and translating that geek drooling into man drooling (if you follow that tortured explanation) - But what I mean is I look at those two women whenever tons of besotted men bring them up and I go "eh." No, they are not ugly. Yes, if they were my girlfriend or wife I'd be thinking "yep, got myself a beautiful girl here" (this is assuming that, as my s.o., they'd be fun to be with and smart and such) but for whatever reason when I see them I sigh and move on to the next story / picture / web page / whatever. They don't attract me for whatever psychological reason. Notice in all that I avoided saying what I thought of Transformers the movie or Megan's horrible acting - oops, one slipped out. ;)
McGowan is Still Set for Rodriguez's BARBARELLA? - Apr 12, 2008 - 11:51pm
I can see someone saying they personally don't find someone attractive - case in point, I am completely uninterested in Megan Fox or Keeley Hazel . . . but to call people like Rose McGowan or Jessica Alba "ugly" baffles me. Not your type. Maybe Rose's past makes you see her as skanky or something. But physically ugly? That strains all credulity.
I can see someone saying they personally don't find someone attractive - case in point, I am completely uninterested in Megan Fox or Keeley Hazel . . . but to call people like Rose McGowan or Jessica Alba "ugly" baffles me. Not your type. Maybe Rose's past makes you see her as skanky or something. But physically ugly? That strains all credulity.
McGowan is Still Set for Rodriguez's BARBARELLA? - Apr 11, 2008 - 10:52pm
Nothing about this project that I have heard or read so far has turned me off. I love the original - as boring and tame as it really is today. I actually like Rose McGowan. I was going to clarify that with the usual "she's no X" or "she may not be as good as Y" line - but then I remembered how much I hate that. As I heard the Sess say recently, it seems like people think they are cool or great reviewers or something if they just hate on everything all the time. There are few things that get my ire up - and you'll know what they are. I'd much prefer to be excited about projects and like things, though - so here is me liking RR remaking Barbarella, and me liking Rose as the lead.
Nothing about this project that I have heard or read so far has turned me off. I love the original - as boring and tame as it really is today. I actually like Rose McGowan. I was going to clarify that with the usual "she's no X" or "she may not be as good as Y" line - but then I remembered how much I hate that. As I heard the Sess say recently, it seems like people think they are cool or great reviewers or something if they just hate on everything all the time. There are few things that get my ire up - and you'll know what they are. I'd much prefer to be excited about projects and like things, though - so here is me liking RR remaking Barbarella, and me liking Rose as the lead.
Blog Launched for STREET FIGHTER - Apr 11, 2008 - 08:09am
Chun Li was the character I always played. I have no problem with Kreuk. I am hesitant about fighting game movies, but I'm a strange one who really liked Mortal Kombat and LOVED DOA.
Chun Li was the character I always played. I have no problem with Kreuk. I am hesitant about fighting game movies, but I'm a strange one who really liked Mortal Kombat and LOVED DOA.
Secret Invasion: Implications and Musings - Apr 10, 2008 - 08:00am
I shouldn't have to remind anyone who's read me post about Brian Michael Bendis before, but here's the thing to remember about him I think is most important - the man thrives on controversy. I can guarantee he's eating up all the "fanboy ire" with a big spoon. The man had said more than once that "if he hasn't pissed off half his readers then he isn't doing his job." So I will say this - don't expect Secret Invasion to be what it looks like on the surface. He'll find someway to aggravate a sizable portion of readers - it is his stated goal.
I shouldn't have to remind anyone who's read me post about Brian Michael Bendis before, but here's the thing to remember about him I think is most important - the man thrives on controversy. I can guarantee he's eating up all the "fanboy ire" with a big spoon. The man had said more than once that "if he hasn't pissed off half his readers then he isn't doing his job." So I will say this - don't expect Secret Invasion to be what it looks like on the surface. He'll find someway to aggravate a sizable portion of readers - it is his stated goal.
Secret Invasion: Implications and Musings - Apr 09, 2008 - 05:50pm
It's not prejudging if you've watched someone do the same thing several times to pretty much conclude that he will do the same thing again. It becomes an M.O. --- I read Civil War. House of M. World War Hulk. Avengers Disassembled. I know that's not all Bendis, but it's also not all bad. This isn't prejudging where Marvel MAY BE GOING, it's JUDGING WHERE MARVEL HAS GONE AND IS CURRENTLY HEADING. Who would say that a 3 hour movie that was 2 3/4's hours of boredom and the last 15 minutes were some of the most awesome minutes in film ever was, overall, the best film ever? Crap followed by crap followed by insulting crap is all still crap even if you put a tasty cherry on top of the steaming pile. --- I never once told anyone they couldn't like this stuff from Marvel if they do, nor that they are stupid for liking it. Don't take what I say that way - my tastes are neither universal nor absolute truth - they are just mine. I do know that MANY people find all this stuff to be largely crap, but I also know of 3 loyal customers who eagerly await each new issue of Amazing Spider-Man. I'm criticizing Kurt's dismissive approach to those who are complaining, first and foremost, and the products themselves, secondly and really as an afterthought. I'm not attacking anyone's taste or opinion about the books. As opposed, say, to Kurt (apparently) saying that those who complain simply do not have the patience to let a story play out (translation: the reader's fault), and his condensing what may - or may not - be legitimate complaints under the somewhat patronizing title of "fanboy ire" (translation: overly nitpicky geeks who want to complain.) There is a difference. And "boo-hoo" is also very condescending. Try to be a bit more careful if you really aren't trying to make things personal. I dunno what part, really, of saying that I'm not a violent person and then going into the extent of my hyperbole being me telling Bendis that I'm not a fan of his work whilst hoping bad things happen to him (by bad things I was thinking along the lines of him getting charged with tax evasion, Marvel getting a new EIC who fires his hack-ass, and a legal loophole making Powers owned by Disney - not like violent stuff, hence my "I'm not a violent person" lead in.) Context, fellow Maniac, context.
It's not prejudging if you've watched someone do the same thing several times to pretty much conclude that he will do the same thing again. It becomes an M.O. --- I read Civil War. House of M. World War Hulk. Avengers Disassembled. I know that's not all Bendis, but it's also not all bad. This isn't prejudging where Marvel MAY BE GOING, it's JUDGING WHERE MARVEL HAS GONE AND IS CURRENTLY HEADING. Who would say that a 3 hour movie that was 2 3/4's hours of boredom and the last 15 minutes were some of the most awesome minutes in film ever was, overall, the best film ever? Crap followed by crap followed by insulting crap is all still crap even if you put a tasty cherry on top of the steaming pile. --- I never once told anyone they couldn't like this stuff from Marvel if they do, nor that they are stupid for liking it. Don't take what I say that way - my tastes are neither universal nor absolute truth - they are just mine. I do know that MANY people find all this stuff to be largely crap, but I also know of 3 loyal customers who eagerly await each new issue of Amazing Spider-Man. I'm criticizing Kurt's dismissive approach to those who are complaining, first and foremost, and the products themselves, secondly and really as an afterthought. I'm not attacking anyone's taste or opinion about the books. As opposed, say, to Kurt (apparently) saying that those who complain simply do not have the patience to let a story play out (translation: the reader's fault), and his condensing what may - or may not - be legitimate complaints under the somewhat patronizing title of "fanboy ire" (translation: overly nitpicky geeks who want to complain.) There is a difference. And "boo-hoo" is also very condescending. Try to be a bit more careful if you really aren't trying to make things personal. I dunno what part, really, of saying that I'm not a violent person and then going into the extent of my hyperbole being me telling Bendis that I'm not a fan of his work whilst hoping bad things happen to him (by bad things I was thinking along the lines of him getting charged with tax evasion, Marvel getting a new EIC who fires his hack-ass, and a legal loophole making Powers owned by Disney - not like violent stuff, hence my "I'm not a violent person" lead in.) Context, fellow Maniac, context.
Justin Marks Penning HACK/SLASH - Apr 09, 2008 - 12:31pm
(tongue in cheek time) But why use urban legends and myths? Make up your own, stop copying and start being creative! And horror has been done, stop having monsters kill people. We've seen it. For that matter, stop using people - how many stories have people? People are overdone! And what is with the whole copying on using moving pictures? And that adding of sound and voice - that was old in 50's already! Hold on - while we are at it, let's stop with the whole "story" lazy work. All those people writing stories, we've seen that for centuries! Be more original and creative, stop copying all the authors before you and stop writing! --- What was that? My "be creative, use your own ideas" argument has been said before many times? You think I should get an original thought in my own head? (tongue out of cheek) Ideas get reused. That model has existed since before Ancient Greece. It's about time you all get used to it.
(tongue in cheek time) But why use urban legends and myths? Make up your own, stop copying and start being creative! And horror has been done, stop having monsters kill people. We've seen it. For that matter, stop using people - how many stories have people? People are overdone! And what is with the whole copying on using moving pictures? And that adding of sound and voice - that was old in 50's already! Hold on - while we are at it, let's stop with the whole "story" lazy work. All those people writing stories, we've seen that for centuries! Be more original and creative, stop copying all the authors before you and stop writing! --- What was that? My "be creative, use your own ideas" argument has been said before many times? You think I should get an original thought in my own head? (tongue out of cheek) Ideas get reused. That model has existed since before Ancient Greece. It's about time you all get used to it.
Secret Invasion: Implications and Musings - Apr 09, 2008 - 10:12am
Way too simplistic, Kurt. And most of the article reads like an apology. (not an "I'm sorry" apology, either - a "justification" apology) Bendis and Quesada, as much as I dislike what they have done to Marvel, are not the root of all the "fan boy ire" as you so conveniently dismiss it. They didn't kill Thor, for example. Or make Cyclops leave Madelyne for Jean. Or bring back Jean from the dead. Or make Cyclops and the White Queen an item. Ok, focusing too much on Scott there - Quesada and Bendis, the brainchilds behind Secret Invasion, would be retconning ("fixing") problems that "existed" long before they were involved. Marvel doesn't have some secret outline hidden somewhere that explains all the snafus created by new writers and editors ignoring past continuity as "part of a grand scheme." Wait and see? WTF?!?! Many problems in the storytelling of the big two super-hero comic book companies comes from "damn the hardcore fans who know the history, they'll whine but stick around - keep shaking things up to bring in the MUCH COVETED NEW READER." Seriously, even if Bendis and Quesada were just retconning their own storylines (sorry, sorry, it was all one big plan from the start, yep, sure thing, whatever you want to sell us) it would be bad. But with this crap they are (once again) crapping all over the work of others that came before them, work that many fans love. Crapping. All. Over. It. --- The issue was a bunch of shocks and gotchas, just like Civil War and Avengers Disassembled played out. If ANY of you reading this tripe expect ANYTHING other than the huge disappointments at the ends of those two colossal wastes of time you are in for tremendous surprises. Seriously, it was (taken outside of my pre-existing opinions and disgust for the current situation in Marvel U) a decent read, like most of the first issues of Disassembled or Civil War were. But its the end and the lack of a satisfying pay-off that will doom this as most everything else Quesada and Bendis have done via Marvel. (Not all - I'm sure Ult SPidey was great, and Quesada helped birth Runaways and brought Whedon to Marvel for awhile, so not all bad.) ---- I am SO glad I have a comic book store so I can flip through this garbage without paying for it. Yep, GARBAGE. I am not a violent person, but I don't know what I'd do if I ever met Bendis at a con myself. Probably smile and say "Yeah, not a fan." while in my head visualizing nasty events that could happen to him. Gah. ---- Sorry Kurt - usually even if I disagree with you I like your columns, but this one . . . it was an apology for Marvel - and it was a stab at all the comic book fans, you know, the guys who read your column and buy the books thus supporting the industry, for having an opinion that differs from yours or from Marvel's. How dismissive you are of people who hate all that has been done recently is somewhat insulting, though I guess not that surprising. I think most who are upset don't care if we get a "it was all a dream" Dallas ending or a "they were pod people" Body Snatchers explanation - BECAUSE WE ALREADY HAD TO SUFFER THROUGH THE HORRENDOUS STORYTELLING AND HORRIFIC DECONSTRUCTION OF OUR FAVORITE CHARACTERS AND COMICS. Nothing that comes at the end of that makes it right. As I argued against you way back when, the ENDS DO _NOT_ JUSTIFY THE MEANS.
Way too simplistic, Kurt. And most of the article reads like an apology. (not an "I'm sorry" apology, either - a "justification" apology) Bendis and Quesada, as much as I dislike what they have done to Marvel, are not the root of all the "fan boy ire" as you so conveniently dismiss it. They didn't kill Thor, for example. Or make Cyclops leave Madelyne for Jean. Or bring back Jean from the dead. Or make Cyclops and the White Queen an item. Ok, focusing too much on Scott there - Quesada and Bendis, the brainchilds behind Secret Invasion, would be retconning ("fixing") problems that "existed" long before they were involved. Marvel doesn't have some secret outline hidden somewhere that explains all the snafus created by new writers and editors ignoring past continuity as "part of a grand scheme." Wait and see? WTF?!?! Many problems in the storytelling of the big two super-hero comic book companies comes from "damn the hardcore fans who know the history, they'll whine but stick around - keep shaking things up to bring in the MUCH COVETED NEW READER." Seriously, even if Bendis and Quesada were just retconning their own storylines (sorry, sorry, it was all one big plan from the start, yep, sure thing, whatever you want to sell us) it would be bad. But with this crap they are (once again) crapping all over the work of others that came before them, work that many fans love. Crapping. All. Over. It. --- The issue was a bunch of shocks and gotchas, just like Civil War and Avengers Disassembled played out. If ANY of you reading this tripe expect ANYTHING other than the huge disappointments at the ends of those two colossal wastes of time you are in for tremendous surprises. Seriously, it was (taken outside of my pre-existing opinions and disgust for the current situation in Marvel U) a decent read, like most of the first issues of Disassembled or Civil War were. But its the end and the lack of a satisfying pay-off that will doom this as most everything else Quesada and Bendis have done via Marvel. (Not all - I'm sure Ult SPidey was great, and Quesada helped birth Runaways and brought Whedon to Marvel for awhile, so not all bad.) ---- I am SO glad I have a comic book store so I can flip through this garbage without paying for it. Yep, GARBAGE. I am not a violent person, but I don't know what I'd do if I ever met Bendis at a con myself. Probably smile and say "Yeah, not a fan." while in my head visualizing nasty events that could happen to him. Gah. ---- Sorry Kurt - usually even if I disagree with you I like your columns, but this one . . . it was an apology for Marvel - and it was a stab at all the comic book fans, you know, the guys who read your column and buy the books thus supporting the industry, for having an opinion that differs from yours or from Marvel's. How dismissive you are of people who hate all that has been done recently is somewhat insulting, though I guess not that surprising. I think most who are upset don't care if we get a "it was all a dream" Dallas ending or a "they were pod people" Body Snatchers explanation - BECAUSE WE ALREADY HAD TO SUFFER THROUGH THE HORRENDOUS STORYTELLING AND HORRIFIC DECONSTRUCTION OF OUR FAVORITE CHARACTERS AND COMICS. Nothing that comes at the end of that makes it right. As I argued against you way back when, the ENDS DO _NOT_ JUSTIFY THE MEANS.
Justin Marks Penning HACK/SLASH - Apr 09, 2008 - 09:50am
I'm really excited for Tim Seeley and I hope the movie is a huge success. He's a great guy. Hack/Slash is a definite must for horror fans!
I'm really excited for Tim Seeley and I hope the movie is a huge success. He's a great guy. Hack/Slash is a definite must for horror fans!
Williams Plays in Whedon's DOLLHOUSE - Apr 07, 2008 - 12:16am
I almost wonder if Fox execs have multi-million dollar side-bets going on how many times they can trick Whedon into making a show for them, just so they can prevent the competition from possibly benefiting from his ideas YET they themselves don't really like what he does. Big enough money bets that they can waste the cash for pilots and 3 episodes or such. "Hey, Arvid, I bet we can get one more pilot out him. This time we cancel the show before the second episode airs!" "No way, Tom, he won't come back this time! You're on!"
I almost wonder if Fox execs have multi-million dollar side-bets going on how many times they can trick Whedon into making a show for them, just so they can prevent the competition from possibly benefiting from his ideas YET they themselves don't really like what he does. Big enough money bets that they can waste the cash for pilots and 3 episodes or such. "Hey, Arvid, I bet we can get one more pilot out him. This time we cancel the show before the second episode airs!" "No way, Tom, he won't come back this time! You're on!"
CLOVERFIELD Hits DVD April 22 - Apr 05, 2008 - 09:34am
mckraken - this wasn't your story to tell. Write your own story with your own ending. People can dislike stories, that's cool. But whenever somebody tries telling another creator that "they wrote the wrong ending" or "you wrote your character wrong" I cringe. It is THEIR STORY, NOT YOURS. You want a different kind of story or ending, look elsewhere. Or write your own. To be clear, I'm not at all trying to tell anyone they can't criticize media nor that they shouldn't point out what they didn't like. But when it comes down to blatantly saying that the way a FICTIONAL story was ended was WRONG and SHOULD HAVE BEEN DONE ANOTHER WAY is just ridiculous.
mckraken - this wasn't your story to tell. Write your own story with your own ending. People can dislike stories, that's cool. But whenever somebody tries telling another creator that "they wrote the wrong ending" or "you wrote your character wrong" I cringe. It is THEIR STORY, NOT YOURS. You want a different kind of story or ending, look elsewhere. Or write your own. To be clear, I'm not at all trying to tell anyone they can't criticize media nor that they shouldn't point out what they didn't like. But when it comes down to blatantly saying that the way a FICTIONAL story was ended was WRONG and SHOULD HAVE BEEN DONE ANOTHER WAY is just ridiculous.
Williams Plays in Whedon's DOLLHOUSE - Apr 04, 2008 - 09:24pm
I give Dollhouse a secondary episode played first, out of order, and then the time switched for the third episode, delayed for some sporting events for a few more weeks, and then cancelled before the last 3 episodes are aired, also out of order. Just upping the ante on what Fox did to Firefly and mixed in with what it constantly does to Bones.
I give Dollhouse a secondary episode played first, out of order, and then the time switched for the third episode, delayed for some sporting events for a few more weeks, and then cancelled before the last 3 episodes are aired, also out of order. Just upping the ante on what Fox did to Firefly and mixed in with what it constantly does to Bones.
PiQ Magazine: Anime Fans' Reactions - Apr 04, 2008 - 09:22pm
Wow. MW, we agree again. For the most part. I've not seen the remake of Appleseed, but I've also not wanted to. My anime watching / buying has trickled and died for the last several years. While a few gems still shone through for me (Trigun, Scrapped Princess) most of what I love is at least a decade old now and nothing new coming down the pipe, from story content to art style, really does anything for me. I have this mag is my store, obviously a replacement for the NewType I kept buying. My NewType buyers didn't pick it up.
Wow. MW, we agree again. For the most part. I've not seen the remake of Appleseed, but I've also not wanted to. My anime watching / buying has trickled and died for the last several years. While a few gems still shone through for me (Trigun, Scrapped Princess) most of what I love is at least a decade old now and nothing new coming down the pipe, from story content to art style, really does anything for me. I have this mag is my store, obviously a replacement for the NewType I kept buying. My NewType buyers didn't pick it up.
Vader is No Superman & Hulk Madness - Apr 04, 2008 - 09:18pm
Machete sure looked cool. --- I'm questioning whether I'm even going to pay money to see Hulk in the theater. Maybe if someone else wants to go and asks me. I'm not going on my own I don't think. Maybe a matinée. I dunno. That trailer REALLY turned me off. The slow mo charge and flying through the air at each other ... I think I'm going to be sick.
Machete sure looked cool. --- I'm questioning whether I'm even going to pay money to see Hulk in the theater. Maybe if someone else wants to go and asks me. I'm not going on my own I don't think. Maybe a matinée. I dunno. That trailer REALLY turned me off. The slow mo charge and flying through the air at each other ... I think I'm going to be sick.
CLOVERFIELD Hits DVD April 22 - Apr 02, 2008 - 11:13pm
I loved Cloverfield. I find absolutely no fault in the film.
I loved Cloverfield. I find absolutely no fault in the film.
Stan Lee and Disney Team for Three - Apr 02, 2008 - 08:27am
"We want comics with violence as it should be." Speak for yourself, exfan. I'm very happy with books like Blue Monday, Ghost World, Strangers In Paradise . . . there is more to great comics than people getting beat-up and killed.
"We want comics with violence as it should be." Speak for yourself, exfan. I'm very happy with books like Blue Monday, Ghost World, Strangers In Paradise . . . there is more to great comics than people getting beat-up and killed.
CLOVERFIELD Hits DVD April 22 - Apr 02, 2008 - 08:25am
Having experienced XBox Live, Zune's marketplace and Hulu now - who cares if anything comes out in Blu-Ray format. I want the digital downloads for everything! My home is now a piece or two of equipment away from being completely "wired" (wireless, actually) so that any computer, tv or handheld can draw upon a central storage device full of content. One of those pieces I'm missing is one of those 2 TB HDD's for storage. You can get a good Seagate for about $400 - that stores 40 Blu-Ray discs worth that, if you get all your discs at $20, saves you about $400. Better quality, better access, cheaper. The revolution is here. :) --- btb, Cloverfield rocked and I'm getting that DVD asap - or maybe the download. ;)
Having experienced XBox Live, Zune's marketplace and Hulu now - who cares if anything comes out in Blu-Ray format. I want the digital downloads for everything! My home is now a piece or two of equipment away from being completely "wired" (wireless, actually) so that any computer, tv or handheld can draw upon a central storage device full of content. One of those pieces I'm missing is one of those 2 TB HDD's for storage. You can get a good Seagate for about $400 - that stores 40 Blu-Ray discs worth that, if you get all your discs at $20, saves you about $400. Better quality, better access, cheaper. The revolution is here. :) --- btb, Cloverfield rocked and I'm getting that DVD asap - or maybe the download. ;)
Splitting Superman: The Siegel Victory - Apr 02, 2008 - 08:17am
Legally, the Siegels are in the right. Personally I would have rather have seen this ruling happen when Jerry Siegel could have benefited from it. The caveat about work-for-hire bugs me, but I guess if you work for a company and they ask you to design something for them while you are already contracted to said company AND you do it without negotiating additional rights for it (and you probably couldn't in that position, most of the time) - then, legally, yes, the company owns the creation. I hope less people put themselves in that position. While I'm not big on heirs and descendants being able to get the rights to things other created due STRICTLY to marriage or blood ties, this ruling is good for creators AND is what Copyright Laws were meant for. This is a step back in the RIGHT direction.
Legally, the Siegels are in the right. Personally I would have rather have seen this ruling happen when Jerry Siegel could have benefited from it. The caveat about work-for-hire bugs me, but I guess if you work for a company and they ask you to design something for them while you are already contracted to said company AND you do it without negotiating additional rights for it (and you probably couldn't in that position, most of the time) - then, legally, yes, the company owns the creation. I hope less people put themselves in that position. While I'm not big on heirs and descendants being able to get the rights to things other created due STRICTLY to marriage or blood ties, this ruling is good for creators AND is what Copyright Laws were meant for. This is a step back in the RIGHT direction.
WOLVERINE: FIRST CLASS #1 - Apr 01, 2008 - 07:59am
Bought it and really enjoyed it. Kurt calls it the "gentler" times - I say it's back to a more entertaining time of self-contained stories and more colors than black, gray, and charcoal. This book is about a B+, certainly. Anyone who pays any attention to me knows that Wolverine is not on my list of characters I like to read about. But with how much I like X-Men First Class, I thought I'd give this a go. Young Kitty was always a joy to read, and if they could capture a small portion of the magic Claremont had in the X-Men book back at this time period (when Kitty was new to the team) then I knew it would be worth my read. I enjoyed this book. Not the best Wolverine I've read, but the story was good and I enjoyed the art. That's about all I ask of a comic - good story, good art.
Bought it and really enjoyed it. Kurt calls it the "gentler" times - I say it's back to a more entertaining time of self-contained stories and more colors than black, gray, and charcoal. This book is about a B+, certainly. Anyone who pays any attention to me knows that Wolverine is not on my list of characters I like to read about. But with how much I like X-Men First Class, I thought I'd give this a go. Young Kitty was always a joy to read, and if they could capture a small portion of the magic Claremont had in the X-Men book back at this time period (when Kitty was new to the team) then I knew it would be worth my read. I enjoyed this book. Not the best Wolverine I've read, but the story was good and I enjoyed the art. That's about all I ask of a comic - good story, good art.
Siegel Estate Wins SUPERMAN Case - Mar 31, 2008 - 10:42pm
Fringe? Long after Wolverine has gone from the public memory a la Doc Savage or Billy Jack people will STILL be writing stories about King Arthur or the Necronomicon or Aladdin or Wonderland. Enamored with Mythology? I'm not the only one. How many comic books, tv shows, movies have been made about Hercules? I bring him up because he's a HUGE example. People sure don't seem to get tired of Jesus, but you're right - minor, forgettable character. --- Many, many, MANY writers create their own worlds and mythologies all the time - being able to write about Greek or Babylonian or Japanese or Native American mythos doesn't prevent that BUT you also get people writing about those myths as well. I again point out Neil Gaiman. If you can call Anansai Boys or Sandman "not creative" or "sitting on his ass" work, you and I have 2 COMPLETELY DIFFERENT definitions of what creativity and good storytelling is. -- oh, and Gaiman has created his own mythos, too, with books like Coraline and Neverwhere. Is Philip Jose Farmer's work really bad because To Your Scattered Bodies Go contains many historical and fictional characters? Does that make his work less great than Glenn Cook's Black Company novels just because Cook's characters are all original? I guess John Steinbeck's a hack for writing his version of King Arthur instead of coming up with his own mythical English king. Milton did an amazing job with Paradise Lost, you know, but I guess he could have completely made up his own deity and fallen beings and such and had the same impact ... You have no argument, WISEGUY562, other than to try and dismiss the NUMEROUS examples I give you of how Public Domain provides plenty of creative, entertaining and WELL WRITTEN works for the enjoyment of all. I can make long lists, but let's just accept the following facts, ok? 1 - Disney BUILT its animation studios NOT on Mickey Mouse but on PUBLIC DOMAIN CHARACTERS. 2 - Sherlock Holmes, whom you diss as "not playing a major role", "not very popular" and "no one is knocking down anyone's door to use him", has the following written about him at wikipedia: "As Sherlock Holmes is such a popular character, there have been many theatrical stage and cinematic adaptations of Conan Doyle's work — much in the same way that Hamlet or Dracula are often revised and adapted. The Guinness World Records has consistently listed him as the "most portrayed movie character" with over 70 actors playing the part in over 200 films." There is a Sherlock Holmes museum in England http://www.sherlock-holmes.co.uk/home.htm Stanford University has an ongoing study on Sherlock Holmes http://sherlockholmes.stanford.edu/ and there's tons more, the kind of saturation, name recognition, and enjoyment that few fictional characters have every reached. 3 - Tom Sawyer may well not excite the violent kiddies like Wolverine does these days, but to dismiss him as "fringe" or "unpopular" is just ridiculous. Mark Twain is one of America's greatest authors, and Sawyer is arguably his greatest creation. Tom Sawyer has influence up to recent movies (LoEG) and tv shows (Lost - you know, James Ford taking the name Sawyer.) --- Your communism argument is not worthy of any further discussion - it's a diversion. If you want to liken the ability for anyone to write about a character to no one being able to chose their livelihood, that intellectual property eventually falling into the public's ownership is the same as NEVER having private ownership, you go ahead and KEEP ON TRUCKING. ---- Anyone being able to do their take on Robin Hood is NOWHERE NEAR THE SAME THING as someone having to get permission from DC to write about Batman. DC will say no to 99% of those who ask AND the 1% they allow will be constrained by editorial control. That's FINE for properties while the Copyright holds for its LIMITED TIME so that the INITIAL CREATORS can reap the INITIAL PROFITS so they are REPAID FOR THEIR CREATIVITY. It's not the same thing, and you know it. --- I don't care, WISEGUY562, what you would want to read and not want to read. I wasn't asking you - I was stating that MANY people WOULD like to read it. Not only does Frank Miller have reknown and most comic readers see him as having successfully redefined / saved Batman and Daredevil, but most comic readers HATE what Marvel (the Copyright holders) are doing with Spider-Man right now and would LOVE to read someone else writing the character in a different way IF THEY HAD THE OPTION - - and, in a FREE MARKET SOCIETY, a CAPITALISTIC SOCIETY, the GOVERNMENT WOULD NOT PREVENT OTHERS FROM COMPETING WITH AND WRITING THE SAME CHARACTER. It is only via government regulation that Copyright Laws work - you know, State Control of Business that is FAR MORE LIKE COMMUNISM than like CAPITALISM, since you seem so set against communism - and those regulations, if pushed too far, STIFLE CREATIVITY and no longer PROMOTE IT. Really, WISEGUY562, your arguments fall apart when you try to suggest that big companies with money and power endlessly regurgitating the same character over and over again in a tightly controlled way to keep the character's image ever unchanging somehow PROMOTES CREATIVITY. Your argument also fails when you completely ignore that artists (writers are artists) like to create their own works most of the time instead of "copying" the works of others, and therefore would create their own works even if they can just repeat what's already been created. You don't buy it? Then why aren't most writers just endlessly rewriting old myths and fables? While we see vampires and zombies and flying men in capes often, we also see new kinds of creatures and meta-humans all the time. Finally, your argument fails to stand up to the understanding that just because people CAN copy something that is popular doesn't mean that their copy will be successful - it still needs to be done with talent and creativity or else it will be ignored and forgotten, a failure. --- I don't know what your beef is with Public Domain and the benefits we all have reaped from it (again, there is no way I believe you have not enjoyed anything that has been redone from Public Domain source material) - but I do know this is the last response I'm giving. Feel free to have the last word.
Fringe? Long after Wolverine has gone from the public memory a la Doc Savage or Billy Jack people will STILL be writing stories about King Arthur or the Necronomicon or Aladdin or Wonderland. Enamored with Mythology? I'm not the only one. How many comic books, tv shows, movies have been made about Hercules? I bring him up because he's a HUGE example. People sure don't seem to get tired of Jesus, but you're right - minor, forgettable character. --- Many, many, MANY writers create their own worlds and mythologies all the time - being able to write about Greek or Babylonian or Japanese or Native American mythos doesn't prevent that BUT you also get people writing about those myths as well. I again point out Neil Gaiman. If you can call Anansai Boys or Sandman "not creative" or "sitting on his ass" work, you and I have 2 COMPLETELY DIFFERENT definitions of what creativity and good storytelling is. -- oh, and Gaiman has created his own mythos, too, with books like Coraline and Neverwhere. Is Philip Jose Farmer's work really bad because To Your Scattered Bodies Go contains many historical and fictional characters? Does that make his work less great than Glenn Cook's Black Company novels just because Cook's characters are all original? I guess John Steinbeck's a hack for writing his version of King Arthur instead of coming up with his own mythical English king. Milton did an amazing job with Paradise Lost, you know, but I guess he could have completely made up his own deity and fallen beings and such and had the same impact ... You have no argument, WISEGUY562, other than to try and dismiss the NUMEROUS examples I give you of how Public Domain provides plenty of creative, entertaining and WELL WRITTEN works for the enjoyment of all. I can make long lists, but let's just accept the following facts, ok? 1 - Disney BUILT its animation studios NOT on Mickey Mouse but on PUBLIC DOMAIN CHARACTERS. 2 - Sherlock Holmes, whom you diss as "not playing a major role", "not very popular" and "no one is knocking down anyone's door to use him", has the following written about him at wikipedia: "As Sherlock Holmes is such a popular character, there have been many theatrical stage and cinematic adaptations of Conan Doyle's work — much in the same way that Hamlet or Dracula are often revised and adapted. The Guinness World Records has consistently listed him as the "most portrayed movie character" with over 70 actors playing the part in over 200 films." There is a Sherlock Holmes museum in England http://www.sherlock-holmes.co.uk/home.htm Stanford University has an ongoing study on Sherlock Holmes http://sherlockholmes.stanford.edu/ and there's tons more, the kind of saturation, name recognition, and enjoyment that few fictional characters have every reached. 3 - Tom Sawyer may well not excite the violent kiddies like Wolverine does these days, but to dismiss him as "fringe" or "unpopular" is just ridiculous. Mark Twain is one of America's greatest authors, and Sawyer is arguably his greatest creation. Tom Sawyer has influence up to recent movies (LoEG) and tv shows (Lost - you know, James Ford taking the name Sawyer.) --- Your communism argument is not worthy of any further discussion - it's a diversion. If you want to liken the ability for anyone to write about a character to no one being able to chose their livelihood, that intellectual property eventually falling into the public's ownership is the same as NEVER having private ownership, you go ahead and KEEP ON TRUCKING. ---- Anyone being able to do their take on Robin Hood is NOWHERE NEAR THE SAME THING as someone having to get permission from DC to write about Batman. DC will say no to 99% of those who ask AND the 1% they allow will be constrained by editorial control. That's FINE for properties while the Copyright holds for its LIMITED TIME so that the INITIAL CREATORS can reap the INITIAL PROFITS so they are REPAID FOR THEIR CREATIVITY. It's not the same thing, and you know it. --- I don't care, WISEGUY562, what you would want to read and not want to read. I wasn't asking you - I was stating that MANY people WOULD like to read it. Not only does Frank Miller have reknown and most comic readers see him as having successfully redefined / saved Batman and Daredevil, but most comic readers HATE what Marvel (the Copyright holders) are doing with Spider-Man right now and would LOVE to read someone else writing the character in a different way IF THEY HAD THE OPTION - - and, in a FREE MARKET SOCIETY, a CAPITALISTIC SOCIETY, the GOVERNMENT WOULD NOT PREVENT OTHERS FROM COMPETING WITH AND WRITING THE SAME CHARACTER. It is only via government regulation that Copyright Laws work - you know, State Control of Business that is FAR MORE LIKE COMMUNISM than like CAPITALISM, since you seem so set against communism - and those regulations, if pushed too far, STIFLE CREATIVITY and no longer PROMOTE IT. Really, WISEGUY562, your arguments fall apart when you try to suggest that big companies with money and power endlessly regurgitating the same character over and over again in a tightly controlled way to keep the character's image ever unchanging somehow PROMOTES CREATIVITY. Your argument also fails when you completely ignore that artists (writers are artists) like to create their own works most of the time instead of "copying" the works of others, and therefore would create their own works even if they can just repeat what's already been created. You don't buy it? Then why aren't most writers just endlessly rewriting old myths and fables? While we see vampires and zombies and flying men in capes often, we also see new kinds of creatures and meta-humans all the time. Finally, your argument fails to stand up to the understanding that just because people CAN copy something that is popular doesn't mean that their copy will be successful - it still needs to be done with talent and creativity or else it will be ignored and forgotten, a failure. --- I don't know what your beef is with Public Domain and the benefits we all have reaped from it (again, there is no way I believe you have not enjoyed anything that has been redone from Public Domain source material) - but I do know this is the last response I'm giving. Feel free to have the last word.
Siegel Estate Wins SUPERMAN Case - Mar 31, 2008 - 05:22pm
Do you really believe that, with the trend of where Copyright Law is going, that these big companies wouldn't copyright things already in the Public Domain if they could? --- Monkeyfoot, There's nothing about "product of numerous people" for copyright. How many people have written Superman, Spider-Man, etc. - yet they are copyright protected. To be honest, Bram Stoker's Dracula isn't that good, comparatively, to later writer's versions of Dracula. And Bram Stoker benefited from vampire folklore from long before he started writing. Mary Shelly was a genius, however, and nothing touches her Modern Day Prometheus. Why should "estates" continue to hold copyrights? I don't understand the reasoning - so spouses, children and grandchildren continue to make money off of their relative's work? You may think / want Copyright to mean more than this, but repeat after me - Copyright Laws were created to protected creators so as to inspire innovation. They were NOT created to allow companies to own the rights to something. IN FACT, Copyright Laws were protecting creators from companies taking the rights to the creator's property - the opposite of what happens with Work For Hire. --- WISEGUY562, It's obvious that you are being overly selective in your reasoning. 1 - You say that "even if public domain characters became copyrighted" (which is my point with Public Domain) that "you can sit on your ass and take advantage of someone else's work." So Disney, Marvel, DC, and basically almost EVERY CREATOR OUT THERE who's EVER used previously created characters or materials and WRITES FOR HOURS, DAYS, WEEKS, MONTHS, YEARS and then goes through the arduous process of getting said works published (from the big companies like Disney having to do the production work to the small creators trying to get publishing firms to buy their work) are - and I quote you - "sitting on their asses" because they used Public Domain property? "you have no incentive to be creative, just wait and you'll get you're hands on someone else's work and profit from that." So all that stuff - Marvel's Thor comics, Neil Gaiman's American Gods, Disney's Aladdin, the movie Excalibur - that was all worthless crap because they used characters and stories that were in the public domain? People like Neil Gaiman, Stan Lee, Rospo Pallenberg, John Boorman, Ron Clements . . . they did NOTHING creative, produced hack work, because they didn't develop, out of whole cloth, their own characters and mythos? Seriously, that's what you think? 2 - “I would hate a world where you have 4 or more different companies publishing any of my fave characters” Clearly you either don't like: King Arthur, Hercules, Thor, Sherlock Holmes, Sinbad, Robin Hood, Jesus, Paul Bunyan, Gulliver, Pinochio, Cthutlhu, Captain Nemo, Alan Quartermaine, Alice, Tom Sawyer - or tons of other characters that have entered Public Domain and been used by MANY! And you must find, for example, Alan Moore a hack and his (IMO) excellent League of Extraordinary Gentlemen stories just rip-offs with no literary value. AND you hate Marvel, DC, Disney, etc, for OR You live in a different reality from mine where Superman never met King Arthur, Spider-Man never teamed up with Thor, Batman never matched his detective skills against Sherlock Holmes, and Wonder Woman somehow exists without Zeus, Athena, Ares, Paradise Island, etc. “So we don't neeed to saturate the market anymore. And IMO most comic readers wouldn't like that idea either.” I disagree, as I think most comic book readers have no problem with Ares being on the Mighty Avengers as well as fighting Wonder Woman. Or with Loki being in Marvel Comics beating the snot out of the Avengers while also having appeared in American Gods as the second con man in Wednesday's grand scheme. I posit that MOST people want to be entertained by good story telling, and that if the story is creative and well written they don't mind if it's yet another take on Robin Hood or Dracula. I put forth, also, that many MANY people are pissed at what George Lucas has done to the Star Wars universe and would LOVE someone outside of Lucas creating stuff that George wouldn't approve of; that many MANY comic fans hate Quesada and Marvel for what they did to Spider-Man in Brand New Day and would happily read Frank Miller's “unofficial, not-sanctioned-by-Marvel” version of Parker. -- Public Domain is NOT communism – what a ridiculous notion! It is what happens to ideas after an appropriate period of time being owned by the original creator. Communism (small c) is no private ownership, no profit motive, no choice. Public Domain lets ANYONE profit from long established characters, and ANYONE can choose to write about any of the Public Domain characters or not. What unending corporate intellectual property rights IS like, however, is fascism – corporate control.
Do you really believe that, with the trend of where Copyright Law is going, that these big companies wouldn't copyright things already in the Public Domain if they could? --- Monkeyfoot, There's nothing about "product of numerous people" for copyright. How many people have written Superman, Spider-Man, etc. - yet they are copyright protected. To be honest, Bram Stoker's Dracula isn't that good, comparatively, to later writer's versions of Dracula. And Bram Stoker benefited from vampire folklore from long before he started writing. Mary Shelly was a genius, however, and nothing touches her Modern Day Prometheus. Why should "estates" continue to hold copyrights? I don't understand the reasoning - so spouses, children and grandchildren continue to make money off of their relative's work? You may think / want Copyright to mean more than this, but repeat after me - Copyright Laws were created to protected creators so as to inspire innovation. They were NOT created to allow companies to own the rights to something. IN FACT, Copyright Laws were protecting creators from companies taking the rights to the creator's property - the opposite of what happens with Work For Hire. --- WISEGUY562, It's obvious that you are being overly selective in your reasoning. 1 - You say that "even if public domain characters became copyrighted" (which is my point with Public Domain) that "you can sit on your ass and take advantage of someone else's work." So Disney, Marvel, DC, and basically almost EVERY CREATOR OUT THERE who's EVER used previously created characters or materials and WRITES FOR HOURS, DAYS, WEEKS, MONTHS, YEARS and then goes through the arduous process of getting said works published (from the big companies like Disney having to do the production work to the small creators trying to get publishing firms to buy their work) are - and I quote you - "sitting on their asses" because they used Public Domain property? "you have no incentive to be creative, just wait and you'll get you're hands on someone else's work and profit from that." So all that stuff - Marvel's Thor comics, Neil Gaiman's American Gods, Disney's Aladdin, the movie Excalibur - that was all worthless crap because they used characters and stories that were in the public domain? People like Neil Gaiman, Stan Lee, Rospo Pallenberg, John Boorman, Ron Clements . . . they did NOTHING creative, produced hack work, because they didn't develop, out of whole cloth, their own characters and mythos? Seriously, that's what you think? 2 - “I would hate a world where you have 4 or more different companies publishing any of my fave characters” Clearly you either don't like: King Arthur, Hercules, Thor, Sherlock Holmes, Sinbad, Robin Hood, Jesus, Paul Bunyan, Gulliver, Pinochio, Cthutlhu, Captain Nemo, Alan Quartermaine, Alice, Tom Sawyer - or tons of other characters that have entered Public Domain and been used by MANY! And you must find, for example, Alan Moore a hack and his (IMO) excellent League of Extraordinary Gentlemen stories just rip-offs with no literary value. AND you hate Marvel, DC, Disney, etc, for OR You live in a different reality from mine where Superman never met King Arthur, Spider-Man never teamed up with Thor, Batman never matched his detective skills against Sherlock Holmes, and Wonder Woman somehow exists without Zeus, Athena, Ares, Paradise Island, etc. “So we don't neeed to saturate the market anymore. And IMO most comic readers wouldn't like that idea either.” I disagree, as I think most comic book readers have no problem with Ares being on the Mighty Avengers as well as fighting Wonder Woman. Or with Loki being in Marvel Comics beating the snot out of the Avengers while also having appeared in American Gods as the second con man in Wednesday's grand scheme. I posit that MOST people want to be entertained by good story telling, and that if the story is creative and well written they don't mind if it's yet another take on Robin Hood or Dracula. I put forth, also, that many MANY people are pissed at what George Lucas has done to the Star Wars universe and would LOVE someone outside of Lucas creating stuff that George wouldn't approve of; that many MANY comic fans hate Quesada and Marvel for what they did to Spider-Man in Brand New Day and would happily read Frank Miller's “unofficial, not-sanctioned-by-Marvel” version of Parker. -- Public Domain is NOT communism – what a ridiculous notion! It is what happens to ideas after an appropriate period of time being owned by the original creator. Communism (small c) is no private ownership, no profit motive, no choice. Public Domain lets ANYONE profit from long established characters, and ANYONE can choose to write about any of the Public Domain characters or not. What unending corporate intellectual property rights IS like, however, is fascism – corporate control.
Running the Property Dispute Gauntlet - Mar 31, 2008 - 02:03pm
Patrick was one of the guests of honor at the WASFEn Con in Wausau, WI. I had a table there for my comic book store. Got to talk to him and artist Tim Seeley. And beginning to feel like I'm bragging about it. :/
Patrick was one of the guests of honor at the WASFEn Con in Wausau, WI. I had a table there for my comic book store. Got to talk to him and artist Tim Seeley. And beginning to feel like I'm bragging about it. :/
Siegel Estate Wins SUPERMAN Case - Mar 31, 2008 - 11:53am
#19 - I know they are not copyrighted. That's my point. They are public domain. So ANYONE can use them. And DC and Marvel and DC and MANY, MANY others have used them very creatively. Neil Gaiman, for example, and Douglas Adams. But if, for example, DC had copyrighted all the Greek Myths with Wonder Woman then there would have been no American Gods novel by Neil Gaiman. And if Marvel had copyright Norse Myths with Thor, then there would have been no Dirk Gently novels by Douglas Adams. Did Dirk Gently hurt Thor sales? Did American Gods turn people off from Wonder Woman? Letting the copyrights eventually expire is in the best interests of the whole of humanity. --- Public Domain is a good thing, people.
#19 - I know they are not copyrighted. That's my point. They are public domain. So ANYONE can use them. And DC and Marvel and DC and MANY, MANY others have used them very creatively. Neil Gaiman, for example, and Douglas Adams. But if, for example, DC had copyrighted all the Greek Myths with Wonder Woman then there would have been no American Gods novel by Neil Gaiman. And if Marvel had copyright Norse Myths with Thor, then there would have been no Dirk Gently novels by Douglas Adams. Did Dirk Gently hurt Thor sales? Did American Gods turn people off from Wonder Woman? Letting the copyrights eventually expire is in the best interests of the whole of humanity. --- Public Domain is a good thing, people.
Siegel Estate Wins SUPERMAN Case - Mar 31, 2008 - 08:59am
Work for hire is a slightly different concept - and I'm unsure how I feel about that, or how those behind copyright law at it's initiation would have felt. Truth being that if you work for a company, and that company tells you to design character X for them or write up new character Y for them - eh, this is tricky. I think SMART creators who have concepts they want for themselves would go the Todd McFarlan route and release that character on their own instead of through the company they work for. That said, public domain undeniably spawns creativity - once the big companies with the connections, money and name recognition can no longer saturate the market with their easily recognizable characters, then not only will small guys get to play with those characters (and then only the best creators work with such characters will ever float up to the top of the heap) but the big companies, looking for the NEXT PROPERTY they can keep a stranglehold on for 50+ years will be trying out new things, promoting other characters they still have the exclusive rights to, and MAYBE ... just maybe ... the big 2 comic book companies would stop resting on their profitable licensed properties, constantly rebooting their universes and destroying the continuity of their stories, and let old characters die as new characters are brought in. Let's look at DC, to start. Yes, Superman and Batman would be there - but Wonder Woman, as she exists, wouldn't. Some company would own the rights to the Greek Myths and Wonder Woman is an Amazon with ties to all the Greek Gods. So Diana might exist in some form, but she couldn't be the Wonder Woman we know. Over to Marvel. Say goodbye to Thor, Loki, all of Asgard and other Norse mythology. The Eternals would be next off the list, being basically Greek Gods. Oh, and the Greek Gods, like Hercules and Ares - poof, gone. How about Disney? Snow White, Cinderella, Sword in the Stone, Little Mermaid, Aladdin, Mulan, Lion King, Hercules (boy, those Greek Myths sure get around in entertainment, huh?) - the Mouse empire would no longer have an animated division, and would never have been able to team with Pixar to bring us the excellent films we see from them. Characters going into public domain don't help creativity? How many well-established writers have based their works on the writings of Poe, Lovecraft, Doyle? How many times has Dracula shown up in someone's writing? Even in Buffy. Babylon 5, like MANY tv shows, would have a good chunk of episodes it could not have written due to having characters or storylines imbedded that were public domain - such as King Arthur. --- The creators are completely entitled to their own work. If copyright law changed to be "for the life of the creator(s)" - I wouldn't agree, but I would think that is fair. Unfortunately, due to wranglings of lawyers and corporate money, corporations are legal "entities" and they don't have a life span. And since courts repeatedly rule to give corporations MORE rights than real breathing people, "for life" would mean as long as Disney or Marvel were in existence. And that, historically and ethically and intellectually and creatively, is bad in the long run. Necessity is the mother of invention - or paraphrased, competition breads creativity. If you are Marvel and DC, and you dominate the markets with Superman and Spider-Man, why do you EVER really work to promote other characters? And while only Marvel and DC can write those characters, how could ANYONE ever rise above those characters with their own creations? But WHEN Superman and Spider-Man enter public domain, suddenly VERY TALENTED creators can work with the characters and some better stories will come from those characters. And suddenly Marvel and DC have to start paying more attention to their creativity and characters and promote NEW characters (or work REALLY hard to make their versions of Peter and Clark to be the best.) AND new characters can rise up more easily. There is no loser save big corporations who want to lazily keep the stranglehold on properties. ---- Take the time to do some research on Open Source sometime, and see how a bunch of geeks with no corporate structure, money, or search for profit developed the web server base programs that all the big companies (IBM, Microsoft, Sun Microsystems) despite having the money and resources COULD NOT BEAT and ended up using the open source version. Creativity and innovation do not come from forever patents and copyrights, and other such retardations for advancement and change. Copyright laws and patent laws were created to PROTECT CREATORS so as to PROMOTE INNOVATION. When those laws are changed to the point that they STIFLE CREATIVITY and INNOVATION, then the laws have become corrupt.
Work for hire is a slightly different concept - and I'm unsure how I feel about that, or how those behind copyright law at it's initiation would have felt. Truth being that if you work for a company, and that company tells you to design character X for them or write up new character Y for them - eh, this is tricky. I think SMART creators who have concepts they want for themselves would go the Todd McFarlan route and release that character on their own instead of through the company they work for. That said, public domain undeniably spawns creativity - once the big companies with the connections, money and name recognition can no longer saturate the market with their easily recognizable characters, then not only will small guys get to play with those characters (and then only the best creators work with such characters will ever float up to the top of the heap) but the big companies, looking for the NEXT PROPERTY they can keep a stranglehold on for 50+ years will be trying out new things, promoting other characters they still have the exclusive rights to, and MAYBE ... just maybe ... the big 2 comic book companies would stop resting on their profitable licensed properties, constantly rebooting their universes and destroying the continuity of their stories, and let old characters die as new characters are brought in. Let's look at DC, to start. Yes, Superman and Batman would be there - but Wonder Woman, as she exists, wouldn't. Some company would own the rights to the Greek Myths and Wonder Woman is an Amazon with ties to all the Greek Gods. So Diana might exist in some form, but she couldn't be the Wonder Woman we know. Over to Marvel. Say goodbye to Thor, Loki, all of Asgard and other Norse mythology. The Eternals would be next off the list, being basically Greek Gods. Oh, and the Greek Gods, like Hercules and Ares - poof, gone. How about Disney? Snow White, Cinderella, Sword in the Stone, Little Mermaid, Aladdin, Mulan, Lion King, Hercules (boy, those Greek Myths sure get around in entertainment, huh?) - the Mouse empire would no longer have an animated division, and would never have been able to team with Pixar to bring us the excellent films we see from them. Characters going into public domain don't help creativity? How many well-established writers have based their works on the writings of Poe, Lovecraft, Doyle? How many times has Dracula shown up in someone's writing? Even in Buffy. Babylon 5, like MANY tv shows, would have a good chunk of episodes it could not have written due to having characters or storylines imbedded that were public domain - such as King Arthur. --- The creators are completely entitled to their own work. If copyright law changed to be "for the life of the creator(s)" - I wouldn't agree, but I would think that is fair. Unfortunately, due to wranglings of lawyers and corporate money, corporations are legal "entities" and they don't have a life span. And since courts repeatedly rule to give corporations MORE rights than real breathing people, "for life" would mean as long as Disney or Marvel were in existence. And that, historically and ethically and intellectually and creatively, is bad in the long run. Necessity is the mother of invention - or paraphrased, competition breads creativity. If you are Marvel and DC, and you dominate the markets with Superman and Spider-Man, why do you EVER really work to promote other characters? And while only Marvel and DC can write those characters, how could ANYONE ever rise above those characters with their own creations? But WHEN Superman and Spider-Man enter public domain, suddenly VERY TALENTED creators can work with the characters and some better stories will come from those characters. And suddenly Marvel and DC have to start paying more attention to their creativity and characters and promote NEW characters (or work REALLY hard to make their versions of Peter and Clark to be the best.) AND new characters can rise up more easily. There is no loser save big corporations who want to lazily keep the stranglehold on properties. ---- Take the time to do some research on Open Source sometime, and see how a bunch of geeks with no corporate structure, money, or search for profit developed the web server base programs that all the big companies (IBM, Microsoft, Sun Microsystems) despite having the money and resources COULD NOT BEAT and ended up using the open source version. Creativity and innovation do not come from forever patents and copyrights, and other such retardations for advancement and change. Copyright laws and patent laws were created to PROTECT CREATORS so as to PROMOTE INNOVATION. When those laws are changed to the point that they STIFLE CREATIVITY and INNOVATION, then the laws have become corrupt.
Jason Cast for FRIDAY Remake - Mar 31, 2008 - 08:35am
You know, scary has next to nothing to do with gore, excessive violence, language or sex/nudity (the things that'll get you an R rating) - though I will admit that when you see the PG-13 rating, it isn't unfair to assume they are trying to target pre-teens and therefore the film may be quite unwatchable. EDIT - All that I care about is that they keep Jason as a revenant.
You know, scary has next to nothing to do with gore, excessive violence, language or sex/nudity (the things that'll get you an R rating) - though I will admit that when you see the PG-13 rating, it isn't unfair to assume they are trying to target pre-teens and therefore the film may be quite unwatchable. EDIT - All that I care about is that they keep Jason as a revenant.
Running the Property Dispute Gauntlet - Mar 31, 2008 - 08:32am
I've mentioned elsewhere my suspicions about the Dabel Bros / Marvel deal - but have always tempered it with "no one is raising a stink about it so it probably wasn't that bad." Still, if Quesada was involved ... I actually got to meet Patrick Rothfuss this Saturday. He's a very nice guy. Looking forward to making myself take the time to read his novel.
I've mentioned elsewhere my suspicions about the Dabel Bros / Marvel deal - but have always tempered it with "no one is raising a stink about it so it probably wasn't that bad." Still, if Quesada was involved ... I actually got to meet Patrick Rothfuss this Saturday. He's a very nice guy. Looking forward to making myself take the time to read his novel.
Siegel Estate Wins SUPERMAN Case - Mar 30, 2008 - 05:33pm
Opinions are fine. But I, for one, would hate to live in a world where NEVER DYING corporate entities had held the rights to Sherlock Holmes, King Arthur, the Greek Myths, etc. Most of Disney's best animated films would never have happened. Half of DC and Marvel's characters would not exist. Public domain helps EVERYONE. It's a good thing. Copyright is very similar to patents. So, WISEGUY562, you think it'd be right for companies to keep the patent rights to, say, life saving drugs or medical devices? So they can charge whatever they want without the lowering of prices that competition provides? Preventing the innovations to chemical formulas or engineering designs that would vastly improve these products as the result of other companies getting their hands on them? ----- Imagine, for one minute, what our entertainment landscape would be like if Superman were public domain. We could have dozens of Superman movies, tv shows, novels, comics, etc. As many as people wanted to create. Would most of them SUCK HORRIBLY? Most probably. But would some be FAR BETTER than anything an overly large company like DC would ever allow to be made? Very likely. "If everyone could make Superman movies or comics the property would be ruined." Like Star Wars wasn't, right? Like Hercules or Cinderella or Hamlet was?
Opinions are fine. But I, for one, would hate to live in a world where NEVER DYING corporate entities had held the rights to Sherlock Holmes, King Arthur, the Greek Myths, etc. Most of Disney's best animated films would never have happened. Half of DC and Marvel's characters would not exist. Public domain helps EVERYONE. It's a good thing. Copyright is very similar to patents. So, WISEGUY562, you think it'd be right for companies to keep the patent rights to, say, life saving drugs or medical devices? So they can charge whatever they want without the lowering of prices that competition provides? Preventing the innovations to chemical formulas or engineering designs that would vastly improve these products as the result of other companies getting their hands on them? ----- Imagine, for one minute, what our entertainment landscape would be like if Superman were public domain. We could have dozens of Superman movies, tv shows, novels, comics, etc. As many as people wanted to create. Would most of them SUCK HORRIBLY? Most probably. But would some be FAR BETTER than anything an overly large company like DC would ever allow to be made? Very likely. "If everyone could make Superman movies or comics the property would be ruined." Like Star Wars wasn't, right? Like Hercules or Cinderella or Hamlet was?
SMALLVILLE: Veritas - Mar 30, 2008 - 05:24pm
I didn't find this episode so bad - but a grade of C feels about right. I'll probably watch until the end, but this show SHOULD end soon.
I didn't find this episode so bad - but a grade of C feels about right. I'll probably watch until the end, but this show SHOULD end soon.
21 Beats the Odds and Hits Jackpot - Mar 30, 2008 - 05:22pm
... well, yet again I hesitate but ... I liked Superhero Movie. And the theater I was in had plenty of people laughing through much of the movie. Greatest spoof ever? No. Funniest comedy this year? Not close. Enjoyable? Yep.
... well, yet again I hesitate but ... I liked Superhero Movie. And the theater I was in had plenty of people laughing through much of the movie. Greatest spoof ever? No. Funniest comedy this year? Not close. Enjoyable? Yep.
Siegel Estate Wins SUPERMAN Case - Mar 30, 2008 - 08:44am
1 - Copyright laws were created, and always intended, to protect CREATORS, not BUYERS. 2 - Copyright laws should, under the spirit of what they are intended to do, be amended so that neither corporations nor private interests can BUY FULLY the rights to anything someone creates. 3 - Copyright laws were never intended to be FOREVER - they were intended to protect the creator's rights to initial profits from their creations, in order to encourage people to be creative and try new things. Therefore the law should revert back to a shorter time-span of protection: I'd argue a quarter century is JUST FINE. 4 - Heirs / willing copyright to others should only last for as long as the copyright protection from initial creation (right now that's like seventy-some years, but really should be much less) and no longer just because it transfered on death. As it stands, copyright laws work to dull or retard creation of new things - why would DC promote some new super-heroes when they can stranglehold the rights to Superman forever? However, when Superman finally becomes public domain (like Aladdin, King Arthur, Sherlock Holmes, etc.) and EVERYONE can legally sell Superman stories, DC will scramble to create and promote THE NEXT BIG HERO. Hence creativity and new ideas will be empowered. Copyright laws were never specifically about money - they were about protecting creators so they could create. Everything that has come afterward is corporations and lawyers mucking it all up for profit margins.
1 - Copyright laws were created, and always intended, to protect CREATORS, not BUYERS. 2 - Copyright laws should, under the spirit of what they are intended to do, be amended so that neither corporations nor private interests can BUY FULLY the rights to anything someone creates. 3 - Copyright laws were never intended to be FOREVER - they were intended to protect the creator's rights to initial profits from their creations, in order to encourage people to be creative and try new things. Therefore the law should revert back to a shorter time-span of protection: I'd argue a quarter century is JUST FINE. 4 - Heirs / willing copyright to others should only last for as long as the copyright protection from initial creation (right now that's like seventy-some years, but really should be much less) and no longer just because it transfered on death. As it stands, copyright laws work to dull or retard creation of new things - why would DC promote some new super-heroes when they can stranglehold the rights to Superman forever? However, when Superman finally becomes public domain (like Aladdin, King Arthur, Sherlock Holmes, etc.) and EVERYONE can legally sell Superman stories, DC will scramble to create and promote THE NEXT BIG HERO. Hence creativity and new ideas will be empowered. Copyright laws were never specifically about money - they were about protecting creators so they could create. Everything that has come afterward is corporations and lawyers mucking it all up for profit margins.
No Zod, No Constantine and No FF 3 - Mar 28, 2008 - 12:56pm
I personally have nothing against the character of Darkseid, but I think he'd be a hard sell to the suits, let alone the public. Either you have to dumb him way down to where he's not interesting (in a 2 hour movie there is no way to devote enough time to get across the concept of Apokolips, the New Gods and the anti-life equation - and without most of that, Darkseid becomes uninteresting) or fundamentally change the character into what he's not - like some kind of alien invader of Earth, basically Doomsday with Omega Beams. The Superman movie mythos is TOO ROOTED in Metropolis and the every-day. To bring outer-space invasions, Parademons, the whole 4th World concept . . . even casual comic book fans who don't follow that aspect of DC will be scratching their heads. And forget the non-comic reading audience. I offer Parasite and Bizzaro as characters that are not too deeply developed and therefore very easily malleable for script writers to make something palatable to non-comic -book-reading audiences. I think Mxytlplck (or however you spell that) would also be lost on your typical audience. Lex is used because Lex works. Zod is used because Zod is just a militaristic, power-hungry Superman. You start straying too far beyond that and you loose your paying audience. You can all disagree with me all you want, and I'm not saying I have to be right and you have to be wrong - but I promise if you think beyond your own personal tastes (me, I want a JLA versus Apokolips or Secret Society film despite knowing it'll suck) and fandom's reactions, you'll have to at least acknowledge the probability that Darkseid won't sell well to audiences. At least - not yet. Maybe if Man of Steel expands the Superman film mythos partially outside of Metropolis and just into space we could see a third movie start tackling outer-space threats. That's how I see it, at least.
I personally have nothing against the character of Darkseid, but I think he'd be a hard sell to the suits, let alone the public. Either you have to dumb him way down to where he's not interesting (in a 2 hour movie there is no way to devote enough time to get across the concept of Apokolips, the New Gods and the anti-life equation - and without most of that, Darkseid becomes uninteresting) or fundamentally change the character into what he's not - like some kind of alien invader of Earth, basically Doomsday with Omega Beams. The Superman movie mythos is TOO ROOTED in Metropolis and the every-day. To bring outer-space invasions, Parademons, the whole 4th World concept . . . even casual comic book fans who don't follow that aspect of DC will be scratching their heads. And forget the non-comic reading audience. I offer Parasite and Bizzaro as characters that are not too deeply developed and therefore very easily malleable for script writers to make something palatable to non-comic -book-reading audiences. I think Mxytlplck (or however you spell that) would also be lost on your typical audience. Lex is used because Lex works. Zod is used because Zod is just a militaristic, power-hungry Superman. You start straying too far beyond that and you loose your paying audience. You can all disagree with me all you want, and I'm not saying I have to be right and you have to be wrong - but I promise if you think beyond your own personal tastes (me, I want a JLA versus Apokolips or Secret Society film despite knowing it'll suck) and fandom's reactions, you'll have to at least acknowledge the probability that Darkseid won't sell well to audiences. At least - not yet. Maybe if Man of Steel expands the Superman film mythos partially outside of Metropolis and just into space we could see a third movie start tackling outer-space threats. That's how I see it, at least.
No Zod, No Constantine and No FF 3 - Mar 28, 2008 - 07:53am
1 - I hope there is more FF. I really like the cast and enjoy the films. They aren't my favorites, yet FF is one of those movies that whenever I come across it on tv I end up sitting and watching most of it. Personally, I really like Julian due to gig on Charmed. I thought it was good casting. Never seen Nip/Tucked. -- 2 - I stopped reading at "Mark Millar", though I skimmed to see if it mentioned anything about him retiring. -- 3 - Personally not "tired of Zod." Because I've seen him in Superman 2 and inhabiting Lex's body in Smallville doesn't make him overdone. I am, however, tired of Doomsday and Darkseid - reading comic books and watching the animated series, those bastards are everywhere. Darkseid is at least often an interesting character, but Doomsday is worse than Venom or Sabertooth IMO. Characters simply created as poorly written foils. (yes, I know, Sabertooth existed before he became the anti-Wolverine: he had even LESS development then!) Given Singer's style, I'd like to see Parasite as the main super-villain with Lex having recruited or paid Parasite. Other than Parasite, I think maybe Metallo or Bizarro would work. Doomsday would be stupid. Darkseid or Mongul too hard to sell to the audience without fundamentally changing who the characters are. As an aside, I find it endlessly amusing the "sick of Lex" "sick of Zod" comments, but no one ever mentions being sick of the Joker. Let me say that, though - I am totally sick of the Joker. Still, I'm looking forward to Dark Knight. I enjoyed X-Men 1 & 2 despite personally hating the character of Wolverine. -- 4 - I enjoyed Constantine enough, but I'm uncaring whether or not a sequel is made.
1 - I hope there is more FF. I really like the cast and enjoy the films. They aren't my favorites, yet FF is one of those movies that whenever I come across it on tv I end up sitting and watching most of it. Personally, I really like Julian due to gig on Charmed. I thought it was good casting. Never seen Nip/Tucked. -- 2 - I stopped reading at "Mark Millar", though I skimmed to see if it mentioned anything about him retiring. -- 3 - Personally not "tired of Zod." Because I've seen him in Superman 2 and inhabiting Lex's body in Smallville doesn't make him overdone. I am, however, tired of Doomsday and Darkseid - reading comic books and watching the animated series, those bastards are everywhere. Darkseid is at least often an interesting character, but Doomsday is worse than Venom or Sabertooth IMO. Characters simply created as poorly written foils. (yes, I know, Sabertooth existed before he became the anti-Wolverine: he had even LESS development then!) Given Singer's style, I'd like to see Parasite as the main super-villain with Lex having recruited or paid Parasite. Other than Parasite, I think maybe Metallo or Bizarro would work. Doomsday would be stupid. Darkseid or Mongul too hard to sell to the audience without fundamentally changing who the characters are. As an aside, I find it endlessly amusing the "sick of Lex" "sick of Zod" comments, but no one ever mentions being sick of the Joker. Let me say that, though - I am totally sick of the Joker. Still, I'm looking forward to Dark Knight. I enjoyed X-Men 1 & 2 despite personally hating the character of Wolverine. -- 4 - I enjoyed Constantine enough, but I'm uncaring whether or not a sequel is made.
Words and Pictures: Comics vs. Literature - Mar 28, 2008 - 07:41am
That's right, Moore is taking over Runaways! I'd forgotten that. That's AWESOME! -- AzuLTaLoN, If people are fans of bloody stories and Wolverine, I guess those are reasons to like the book. I am a fan of the writers and of X-23, however, and that's not enough for me to like it. Just liking Wolverine and violence shouldn't be enough to like a book if the quality is this bad. I think most of what turns me off about this book is the art. I don't like how it's drawn, and I hate the pacing. All the other elements add up, too, but, as I said, I could ignore them if it was well written and drawn. It isn't, at least IMO.
That's right, Moore is taking over Runaways! I'd forgotten that. That's AWESOME! -- AzuLTaLoN, If people are fans of bloody stories and Wolverine, I guess those are reasons to like the book. I am a fan of the writers and of X-23, however, and that's not enough for me to like it. Just liking Wolverine and violence shouldn't be enough to like a book if the quality is this bad. I think most of what turns me off about this book is the art. I don't like how it's drawn, and I hate the pacing. All the other elements add up, too, but, as I said, I could ignore them if it was well written and drawn. It isn't, at least IMO.
Common Says Fans Have Say for LEAGUE - Mar 27, 2008 - 09:10am
In the words of Thor, god of thunder, son of Odin, Lord of Asgard - "I SAY THEE NAY!" And then I'd hit some WB execs over the head with a 50 pound stone mallet. ;)
In the words of Thor, god of thunder, son of Odin, Lord of Asgard - "I SAY THEE NAY!" And then I'd hit some WB execs over the head with a 50 pound stone mallet. ;)
BIOSHOCK MMO & Movie on Horizon? - Mar 27, 2008 - 09:09am
Bioshock is AMAZING! The theme, the setting, the graphics, the gameplay, the story, the sound, the voice acting . . . Of course, the guys behind this also made Freedom Force, so . . . No, I know this is basically a FPS in gameplay, but it is such an awesome game! Thanks, kaybar, but I'm already there with you. ;) I'm happy Take Two didn't sell to EA. EA is freaking buying every good company, and their past record ain't so good. Anyone remember Origin? Anyone remember Origin doing ANYTHING after EA bought them? I'm very concerned that EA bought Bioware. Very concerned. But we'll wait and see what happens. EA doesn't have to own EVERY game company, does it?
Bioshock is AMAZING! The theme, the setting, the graphics, the gameplay, the story, the sound, the voice acting . . . Of course, the guys behind this also made Freedom Force, so . . . No, I know this is basically a FPS in gameplay, but it is such an awesome game! Thanks, kaybar, but I'm already there with you. ;) I'm happy Take Two didn't sell to EA. EA is freaking buying every good company, and their past record ain't so good. Anyone remember Origin? Anyone remember Origin doing ANYTHING after EA bought them? I'm very concerned that EA bought Bioware. Very concerned. But we'll wait and see what happens. EA doesn't have to own EVERY game company, does it?
Three More Join Whedon's DOLLHOUSE - Mar 27, 2008 - 09:05am
Oddly, I'm more than a little skeptical about this. Largely because I cannot believe Whedon is willing to work with Fox AGAIN. I'll watch it and hope that it rocks, but I'm wary for some undefinable reason.
Oddly, I'm more than a little skeptical about this. Largely because I cannot believe Whedon is willing to work with Fox AGAIN. I'll watch it and hope that it rocks, but I'm wary for some undefinable reason.
Words and Pictures: Comics vs. Literature - Mar 26, 2008 - 12:31pm
Wow. Interesting points, psionotic. --- As an aside, Marvel's winning big with Secret Invasion. At least at my store. I have people requesting all SI titles be pulled for them, so I have to order titles I don't even stock now (like Ms. Marvel.) I haven't felt the full vibe yet, but I know at least myself and one other are back to all but ditching X-Books again. I'll stick out the First Class books, and if you consider New Exiles as an X-Book, but with Whedon ending Astonishing, Scott turning Dirty Harry, and the other titles slipping off into unreadability (honestly, I'm shocked that some of you are enjoying X-Force) - I'm finding myself making almost as much money from Archie Books as from Marvel. --- EDIT: To give credit to artists, Georges Jeanty on Buffy is amazing and is at least a strong part of why I keep buying the book, and Jo Chen's covers are stunning. The Evil Dead limited series has great art from John Bolton. George Perez is quite possibly my absolute favorite super-hero comic book artist, and he had some great issues of Brave and the Bold recently. I know not everyone appreciates it, but Greg Land's style is one that I really enjoy. And last I'll toss out another nod to Terry Moore, who's talents continue to entertain me.
Wow. Interesting points, psionotic. --- As an aside, Marvel's winning big with Secret Invasion. At least at my store. I have people requesting all SI titles be pulled for them, so I have to order titles I don't even stock now (like Ms. Marvel.) I haven't felt the full vibe yet, but I know at least myself and one other are back to all but ditching X-Books again. I'll stick out the First Class books, and if you consider New Exiles as an X-Book, but with Whedon ending Astonishing, Scott turning Dirty Harry, and the other titles slipping off into unreadability (honestly, I'm shocked that some of you are enjoying X-Force) - I'm finding myself making almost as much money from Archie Books as from Marvel. --- EDIT: To give credit to artists, Georges Jeanty on Buffy is amazing and is at least a strong part of why I keep buying the book, and Jo Chen's covers are stunning. The Evil Dead limited series has great art from John Bolton. George Perez is quite possibly my absolute favorite super-hero comic book artist, and he had some great issues of Brave and the Bold recently. I know not everyone appreciates it, but Greg Land's style is one that I really enjoy. And last I'll toss out another nod to Terry Moore, who's talents continue to entertain me.
ASSASSIN'S CREED - Mar 26, 2008 - 12:25pm
I've considered renting it, but on that note too I want to wait until the rental price drops. That's kind of what I was looking for, Tim. Is the game so stunning that one can get over big hang-ups and still enjoy it. Example - I dislike FPS style gaming. I really dislike it. But I love the Halo series. I'm not sold, but I'm leaning further to trying it.
I've considered renting it, but on that note too I want to wait until the rental price drops. That's kind of what I was looking for, Tim. Is the game so stunning that one can get over big hang-ups and still enjoy it. Example - I dislike FPS style gaming. I really dislike it. But I love the Halo series. I'm not sold, but I'm leaning further to trying it.
No More FANTASTIC FOUR?? - Mar 26, 2008 - 09:14am
This is not anything concrete. Just one actor's opinion. This is kind of sad for me. I really enjoyed both the FF films. I find it amusing that at Mania, a supposed haven for genre fans, that almost all the super-hero movies get endlessly bashed. But whatever. I enjoyed Ghost Rider. I enjoyed these FF films and, after initial misgivings at having Alba cast, I really like the cast they had and the chemistry amongst the actors. I'd see a third if they did it.
This is not anything concrete. Just one actor's opinion. This is kind of sad for me. I really enjoyed both the FF films. I find it amusing that at Mania, a supposed haven for genre fans, that almost all the super-hero movies get endlessly bashed. But whatever. I enjoyed Ghost Rider. I enjoyed these FF films and, after initial misgivings at having Alba cast, I really like the cast they had and the chemistry amongst the actors. I'd see a third if they did it.
ASSASSIN'S CREED - Mar 26, 2008 - 09:11am
People, lay off. Seriously, the game is STILL for sale and is STILL relatively new. There are plenty of people (like me) who haven't touched it and are interested in someone like Tim's opinion. Games are not like comic books - heck, they even aren't like movies. Most players don't buy everything that comes out the first month of release. There are MANY gamers, like me, who wait until the game drops to half price. You can buy more games for less money that way. I'm currently waiting on Gears of War to drop to under $30 before I try that. ---- As for this game, I keep hearing good things about it and your review sounds good, Tim, but can you answer this question for me - Considering that I don't like playing the bad guy (and, I don't care how you spin it, an assassin is about as textbook a definition you an get for bad guy) AND I don't like stealth games like Splinter Cell - is there any reason I would still enjoy this game?
People, lay off. Seriously, the game is STILL for sale and is STILL relatively new. There are plenty of people (like me) who haven't touched it and are interested in someone like Tim's opinion. Games are not like comic books - heck, they even aren't like movies. Most players don't buy everything that comes out the first month of release. There are MANY gamers, like me, who wait until the game drops to half price. You can buy more games for less money that way. I'm currently waiting on Gears of War to drop to under $30 before I try that. ---- As for this game, I keep hearing good things about it and your review sounds good, Tim, but can you answer this question for me - Considering that I don't like playing the bad guy (and, I don't care how you spin it, an assassin is about as textbook a definition you an get for bad guy) AND I don't like stealth games like Splinter Cell - is there any reason I would still enjoy this game?
Words and Pictures: Comics vs. Literature - Mar 26, 2008 - 09:04am
I understand your point, Kurt, and I would never want to dismiss the role the artists have in creating comics - but I think you are using too narrow a definition of literature. Books have often had illustrations, some to the point of being sequential art without being comics. Children's picture books come to mind. But ever since Gutenberg started churning out bibles on his fancy new press books have more often than not included illustrations. I understand your point - comics are MORE THAN just word novels. But I think creators like Terry Moore and Dave Sim would strenuously disagree with you that their work is not literature just because they choose to include more visual icons than just letters and numbers. --- That said, I too think Marvel deserves some credit for their recent Illustrated lines - but only some. They pretty much "took" the properties from the Dabel Bros. in a very Disney-esque shady deal. While no one has officially / publicly called "foul", I still think this was probably one pulled over on the little guy.
I understand your point, Kurt, and I would never want to dismiss the role the artists have in creating comics - but I think you are using too narrow a definition of literature. Books have often had illustrations, some to the point of being sequential art without being comics. Children's picture books come to mind. But ever since Gutenberg started churning out bibles on his fancy new press books have more often than not included illustrations. I understand your point - comics are MORE THAN just word novels. But I think creators like Terry Moore and Dave Sim would strenuously disagree with you that their work is not literature just because they choose to include more visual icons than just letters and numbers. --- That said, I too think Marvel deserves some credit for their recent Illustrated lines - but only some. They pretty much "took" the properties from the Dabel Bros. in a very Disney-esque shady deal. While no one has officially / publicly called "foul", I still think this was probably one pulled over on the little guy.
Futurama is Back - Mar 24, 2008 - 08:06am
"I'm back, baby!" That DVD rocked so hard! Futurama works for me in so many ways that Simpsons just never could.
"I'm back, baby!" That DVD rocked so hard! Futurama works for me in so many ways that Simpsons just never could.
Mainstream Readers and Future Formats - Mar 20, 2008 - 07:14pm
1 - I did not have disdain for the project from the start. As I just wrote, I was excited to read it. I was looking forward to it. I PAID for the first 2 issues. Dude, I get to read most of the comics for free now and I ordered myself the first 3 issues of this book, sight unseen save knowing the concept and the cover art. While I do think that Scott is being miswritten by everyone short of Whedon lately, I was looking forward to this book. Yost and Kyle are writers I normally dig - despite the concept of X-23 being one I would mock endlessly prior to reading it, I really like the character of Laura and how they've written her. I loved their writing on New X-Men. I was looking forward to this. This was NOT a case of "I was going to hate it anyway." 2- What I don't like about it not clear? "story" " "must-be-a-Skrull" Cyclops" "mutilations and killings" "unusual artwork" (that should read "IMO, horrible artwork") those were all things I didn't like that I would have forgiven if the writing have pulled it through - but I feel like Bendis is writing this pile of crap. NOTHING has happened in 2 issues. Yes, Rahne was captured (I guess that is something), and yes they've gone to rescue her (I guess that is something) but it all felt so "oh look, more corpses of nameless goons." The only interesting aspect of the story so far (no, going after Magus didn't register on my "interesting" scale") is the fact that they have Scott out killer-instincting Logan. That raised my eyebrows. The book stinks. It uses the same flawed Civil War logic - "what recently just happened is SO MUCH WORSE than anything else they've been through that NOW Scott decides wetworks is ok." BULLSH!T. The sequential art storytelling leaves so much to be desired. The pacing doesn't flow. From panel to panel its disjointed and unreadable. I found myself forcing the pages to be turned. The characterizations being spot on? Laura doens't feel like Laura to me at all and, YES I KNOW these guys created her. Thunderbird feels like he's in over his head and squeemish. Rahne is being played like a victim. And Wolverine is being shown as the voice of restraint and reason over everyone else. Yeah, I buy ALL OF THAT. (SARCASM, BTW) Look, lister, if that doesn't express to you what it is I don't like about this crappy series in enough detail that you can at least understand, if not necessarily agree in your opinion with, me - I guess I can resort to sock puppets next. :P
1 - I did not have disdain for the project from the start. As I just wrote, I was excited to read it. I was looking forward to it. I PAID for the first 2 issues. Dude, I get to read most of the comics for free now and I ordered myself the first 3 issues of this book, sight unseen save knowing the concept and the cover art. While I do think that Scott is being miswritten by everyone short of Whedon lately, I was looking forward to this book. Yost and Kyle are writers I normally dig - despite the concept of X-23 being one I would mock endlessly prior to reading it, I really like the character of Laura and how they've written her. I loved their writing on New X-Men. I was looking forward to this. This was NOT a case of "I was going to hate it anyway." 2- What I don't like about it not clear? "story" " "must-be-a-Skrull" Cyclops" "mutilations and killings" "unusual artwork" (that should read "IMO, horrible artwork") those were all things I didn't like that I would have forgiven if the writing have pulled it through - but I feel like Bendis is writing this pile of crap. NOTHING has happened in 2 issues. Yes, Rahne was captured (I guess that is something), and yes they've gone to rescue her (I guess that is something) but it all felt so "oh look, more corpses of nameless goons." The only interesting aspect of the story so far (no, going after Magus didn't register on my "interesting" scale") is the fact that they have Scott out killer-instincting Logan. That raised my eyebrows. The book stinks. It uses the same flawed Civil War logic - "what recently just happened is SO MUCH WORSE than anything else they've been through that NOW Scott decides wetworks is ok." BULLSH!T. The sequential art storytelling leaves so much to be desired. The pacing doesn't flow. From panel to panel its disjointed and unreadable. I found myself forcing the pages to be turned. The characterizations being spot on? Laura doens't feel like Laura to me at all and, YES I KNOW these guys created her. Thunderbird feels like he's in over his head and squeemish. Rahne is being played like a victim. And Wolverine is being shown as the voice of restraint and reason over everyone else. Yeah, I buy ALL OF THAT. (SARCASM, BTW) Look, lister, if that doesn't express to you what it is I don't like about this crappy series in enough detail that you can at least understand, if not necessarily agree in your opinion with, me - I guess I can resort to sock puppets next. :P
Mainstream Readers and Future Formats - Mar 19, 2008 - 09:27pm
FvJvA isn't going to win any comic awards for writing or story or art - but its just fun. I normally hate it when people say the following, but I think it applies in this case: with a title like Freddy vs. Jason vs. Ash, and that subject matter, what the HECK did you expect? As for X-Force... It sucks donkey balls. And you all know I rarely get this degenerate with my language. The book blows chunks, and this from someone who was excited to read it despite the concept. I normally like the writers involved and love how X-23 has developed up to this point. But this series is crap - they got 2 issues more out of me than they should have.
FvJvA isn't going to win any comic awards for writing or story or art - but its just fun. I normally hate it when people say the following, but I think it applies in this case: with a title like Freddy vs. Jason vs. Ash, and that subject matter, what the HECK did you expect? As for X-Force... It sucks donkey balls. And you all know I rarely get this degenerate with my language. The book blows chunks, and this from someone who was excited to read it despite the concept. I normally like the writers involved and love how X-23 has developed up to this point. But this series is crap - they got 2 issues more out of me than they should have.
Pirates - Mar 19, 2008 - 02:34pm
For the most part I rebuy stuff that I liked and chuck the stuff I didn't. It's sort of a cheaper test run than buying something full price as well. But for "test runs" of that sort, I tend to just download the frakkin thing for completely free, refusing to let someone else make money off of another's work, and then if I like the software or movie I buy it. I'll hedge a little for hanso and gauley - "piracy" (the downloading free copies or buying bootleg copies) is as much "stealing" as taking someone else's idea is "stealing." My big problem with calling file-sharing and bootlegging "stealing" is that the word implies far worse things than what is really happening. Stealing, to me, makes me think of taking something from someone so they no longer get the benefit of it. I'm not arguing the legality of bootlegs and such - just the use of the word "stealing." Really, the word "piracy" bothers me too. Its just sloppy use of language. Copyright infringement is the proper term, albeit an unwieldy one. I think someone asked what I did with those bootlegs once I got the real thing. I usually keep them just cause or toss them. I still have the Tick disc and the Neverwhere VHS tapes. But I'm also something of a pack rat. Gauley, look, we're having a civil discussion!
For the most part I rebuy stuff that I liked and chuck the stuff I didn't. It's sort of a cheaper test run than buying something full price as well. But for "test runs" of that sort, I tend to just download the frakkin thing for completely free, refusing to let someone else make money off of another's work, and then if I like the software or movie I buy it. I'll hedge a little for hanso and gauley - "piracy" (the downloading free copies or buying bootleg copies) is as much "stealing" as taking someone else's idea is "stealing." My big problem with calling file-sharing and bootlegging "stealing" is that the word implies far worse things than what is really happening. Stealing, to me, makes me think of taking something from someone so they no longer get the benefit of it. I'm not arguing the legality of bootlegs and such - just the use of the word "stealing." Really, the word "piracy" bothers me too. Its just sloppy use of language. Copyright infringement is the proper term, albeit an unwieldy one. I think someone asked what I did with those bootlegs once I got the real thing. I usually keep them just cause or toss them. I still have the Tick disc and the Neverwhere VHS tapes. But I'm also something of a pack rat. Gauley, look, we're having a civil discussion!
CW Delivering the WRECKING Ball - Mar 19, 2008 - 08:43am
I dunnon, #5, what is wrong with The Shield? I have a negative interest in watching cop, lawyer, or doctor shows. Sorry. It's my entertainment time and my prerogative. If you like The Shield, bully for you, watch it to your hearts content.
I dunnon, #5, what is wrong with The Shield? I have a negative interest in watching cop, lawyer, or doctor shows. Sorry. It's my entertainment time and my prerogative. If you like The Shield, bully for you, watch it to your hearts content.
Mainstream Readers and Future Formats - Mar 19, 2008 - 08:41am
Freddy vs Jason vs Ash is much fun. But then I do enjoy all the Army of Darkness and Evil Dead books... X-Force is pretty bad. Story aside, weird "must-be-a-skrull" Cyclops aside, mutilations and killing aside, unusual for a comic artwork aside - the book is pretty awful. I don't think you'll like it overall, Kurt, even though it takes "grim and gritty" down into some pretty rank sewers of filth.
Freddy vs Jason vs Ash is much fun. But then I do enjoy all the Army of Darkness and Evil Dead books... X-Force is pretty bad. Story aside, weird "must-be-a-skrull" Cyclops aside, mutilations and killing aside, unusual for a comic artwork aside - the book is pretty awful. I don't think you'll like it overall, Kurt, even though it takes "grim and gritty" down into some pretty rank sewers of filth.
Pirates - Mar 19, 2008 - 08:35am
Guys - that's called hi-jacking a thread. You two want to beat each other silly, take it to email or private messages. If all you guys are trying to do is one-up each other in front of readers - newsflash. No one seems to care. :) Honestly, that is such a tired debate. spiderhero, you aren't even addressing gauleyboy's points most of the time you are just insulting him. Blech. For the record, I still stand by the notion that to "steal" you have to actually take something from someone that they can therefore no longer use.
Guys - that's called hi-jacking a thread. You two want to beat each other silly, take it to email or private messages. If all you guys are trying to do is one-up each other in front of readers - newsflash. No one seems to care. :) Honestly, that is such a tired debate. spiderhero, you aren't even addressing gauleyboy's points most of the time you are just insulting him. Blech. For the record, I still stand by the notion that to "steal" you have to actually take something from someone that they can therefore no longer use.
CW Delivering the WRECKING Ball - Mar 18, 2008 - 09:10am
Petitions don't matter. Nielsen boxes do (and now, DVD box sales.) I can't think of any doctor, lawyer, or cop shows that I've liked or watched. thinking... thinking... thinking... I saw an episode of Eli Stone and enjoyed it, but I like Zero Cool so... Ok, I think as a kid I watched Hunter fairly regularly for some reason. And Scarecrow and Mrs. King, if that counts. But I also enjoyed garbage like A-Team and Knight Rider, which have got to be some of the most boring shows ever made, so I wouldn't use the judgment of a pre-teen who also though Growing Pains was fun.
Petitions don't matter. Nielsen boxes do (and now, DVD box sales.) I can't think of any doctor, lawyer, or cop shows that I've liked or watched. thinking... thinking... thinking... I saw an episode of Eli Stone and enjoyed it, but I like Zero Cool so... Ok, I think as a kid I watched Hunter fairly regularly for some reason. And Scarecrow and Mrs. King, if that counts. But I also enjoyed garbage like A-Team and Knight Rider, which have got to be some of the most boring shows ever made, so I wouldn't use the judgment of a pre-teen who also though Growing Pains was fun.
Pirates - Mar 18, 2008 - 09:03am
movielord, you know I love you - well, like - well, tolerate . . . but buying bootlegs at a convention is a bit more complex than the propaganda that CEO's and studio execs want you to regurgitate. NOT saying that you don't honestly believe what you said, but the fact of the matter is that for many of the things that are available at bootleg tables, NO ONE is seeing any money for that stuff period (yeah, yeah, the guy selling the bootlegs - bear with me a moment) because most of the attraction of bootlegs for many people is the unavailability of the material. You, in the same breath as denouncing the bootleg seller, state that it was before you had access to YouTube. uhm - how much royalties does anyone see from YouTube again? Thought so. There is an IMPORTANT roll that bootlegs play in our entertainment media industry. They gauge public interest in material that the brainiacs at the studios and distributing houses don't think it's worth releasing. For example, were it not for the overwhelming purchases of Invader Zim bootlegs the show would have never gotten back on the air and probably would not have seen DVD release (this was still right before EVERYTHING started appearing on DVD.) Using your Star Trek bloopers example, the reason the actors weren't getting "paid" for people seeing the bloopers was simply because the studios were not releasing them in a format that consumers who wanted to see them could legitimately pay for them. Even if they had, the actors would STILL probably have seen no additional money for that "content." So your argument, at least your example, is flawed. --- Where I will stand with you is against bootleggers selling commercially available material as a copy. If you can purchase it legitimately, then you shouldn't purchase it illegally. I'm right there on that one. Except with Microsoft, but that's another story. Small joke. I am not ashamed to admit that I've bought many bootlegs back in the day - they were all things that were not available any other way. Buffy Season One , Neverwhere, The Tick (live action), Heat Vision & Jack, and some anime parodies (overdubbings. all come to mind. Did I "rip off" the creators and actors? Well, you and others might argue I did. But let me tell you the ending of that story - when each of those (the ones that eventually DID, at least) become available for legitimate purchase, I bought them. I have all of Buffy on DVD. I have Tick and Neverwhere. As far as I know, the dubbing parodies can never be "legal" and since HV&J was a failed pilot I don't think it is available anywhere either. My point? The same thing with file-sharing. If companies want people to stop buying "illegal, making-actors-and-directors-so-very-poor" copies, make the material available AND for a reasonable price. End of story. --- Oh, and finally, as an analogy: The concept that "piracy" costs creators money (when its studios that rip them off) is as flawed and divisive as the concept that immigrants cost "real" Americans their jobs (when it is corporations hiring the immigrants and, more importantly, shipping factories and jobs overseas to third world countries.) Maybe you can feel a bit of moral ego-stroking at having only purchased that one bootleg, Bob, but I think doing the work of propagandists is beneath you.
movielord, you know I love you - well, like - well, tolerate . . . but buying bootlegs at a convention is a bit more complex than the propaganda that CEO's and studio execs want you to regurgitate. NOT saying that you don't honestly believe what you said, but the fact of the matter is that for many of the things that are available at bootleg tables, NO ONE is seeing any money for that stuff period (yeah, yeah, the guy selling the bootlegs - bear with me a moment) because most of the attraction of bootlegs for many people is the unavailability of the material. You, in the same breath as denouncing the bootleg seller, state that it was before you had access to YouTube. uhm - how much royalties does anyone see from YouTube again? Thought so. There is an IMPORTANT roll that bootlegs play in our entertainment media industry. They gauge public interest in material that the brainiacs at the studios and distributing houses don't think it's worth releasing. For example, were it not for the overwhelming purchases of Invader Zim bootlegs the show would have never gotten back on the air and probably would not have seen DVD release (this was still right before EVERYTHING started appearing on DVD.) Using your Star Trek bloopers example, the reason the actors weren't getting "paid" for people seeing the bloopers was simply because the studios were not releasing them in a format that consumers who wanted to see them could legitimately pay for them. Even if they had, the actors would STILL probably have seen no additional money for that "content." So your argument, at least your example, is flawed. --- Where I will stand with you is against bootleggers selling commercially available material as a copy. If you can purchase it legitimately, then you shouldn't purchase it illegally. I'm right there on that one. Except with Microsoft, but that's another story. Small joke. I am not ashamed to admit that I've bought many bootlegs back in the day - they were all things that were not available any other way. Buffy Season One , Neverwhere, The Tick (live action), Heat Vision & Jack, and some anime parodies (overdubbings. all come to mind. Did I "rip off" the creators and actors? Well, you and others might argue I did. But let me tell you the ending of that story - when each of those (the ones that eventually DID, at least) become available for legitimate purchase, I bought them. I have all of Buffy on DVD. I have Tick and Neverwhere. As far as I know, the dubbing parodies can never be "legal" and since HV&J was a failed pilot I don't think it is available anywhere either. My point? The same thing with file-sharing. If companies want people to stop buying "illegal, making-actors-and-directors-so-very-poor" copies, make the material available AND for a reasonable price. End of story. --- Oh, and finally, as an analogy: The concept that "piracy" costs creators money (when its studios that rip them off) is as flawed and divisive as the concept that immigrants cost "real" Americans their jobs (when it is corporations hiring the immigrants and, more importantly, shipping factories and jobs overseas to third world countries.) Maybe you can feel a bit of moral ego-stroking at having only purchased that one bootleg, Bob, but I think doing the work of propagandists is beneath you.
HORTON Hears a Victory - Mar 17, 2008 - 08:43am
Doomsday was an amazingly enjoying mix of TONS of staples of genre movies. Yes, Mad Max and Escape from New York and random zombie movie were in there (Day of the Dead felt most right to me, not Resident Evil), but you ALSO had Aliens, Lord of the Rings, Escape from LA, Death Race, 007, I Am Legend, Big Trouble in Little China, Red Sonja, Assault on Precinct 13, Robin Hood, V for Vendetta, Land of the Dead, Underworld ... you know, at some point, after SO MANY changes in the direction and feel of the film it stops feeling like blatant copying and starts to feel like a loving homage to all those styles and films that came before. I went into the theater expecting a mediocre Mad Maxine - I got way more than I bargained for. Original? Yes, in the way the Matrix was original.
Doomsday was an amazingly enjoying mix of TONS of staples of genre movies. Yes, Mad Max and Escape from New York and random zombie movie were in there (Day of the Dead felt most right to me, not Resident Evil), but you ALSO had Aliens, Lord of the Rings, Escape from LA, Death Race, 007, I Am Legend, Big Trouble in Little China, Red Sonja, Assault on Precinct 13, Robin Hood, V for Vendetta, Land of the Dead, Underworld ... you know, at some point, after SO MANY changes in the direction and feel of the film it stops feeling like blatant copying and starts to feel like a loving homage to all those styles and films that came before. I went into the theater expecting a mediocre Mad Maxine - I got way more than I bargained for. Original? Yes, in the way the Matrix was original.
Hulk, Iron Man and More for FX - Mar 17, 2008 - 08:35am
A Marvel network could have movies (there are a few), tv shows (there was the old live action Spider-Man, the Hulk, etc.), and yes they'd have to fall back on cartoons (but that would fill Saturday mornings, afternoons after school, late night.) They even have their straight to video animation as well. To flesh things out they could easily, if they wanted, get the rights to other "super-hero" style media that's not Marvel (but not DC) - anything from Knight Rider to Max Headroom. It would start much like Sci Fi (endless Quantum Leap, anyone?) and Cartoon Network (Hannah Barbara and those Coast to Coast / Sea Lab 2021 cheapie parodies) did - small and repetitious and low budget. It could work. --- to ponyboy, I think an Ant Man movie would be fine. I'd much rather see that than a Wolverine or Magneto movie, personally. It depends on who writes it and how they go at it. It should probably focus on two things - the scientific aspects of Dr. Pym's work, and the infatuation Janet (his smart but plays dumb assistant) has for him. I actually think this would be enormously fun, especially if at the end of the movie it shows him develop (or hints at him doing so) the growth side of his Pym Particles - leading to a nudge-nudge, wink-wink at the "geeks" in the audience about Giant Man coming next.
A Marvel network could have movies (there are a few), tv shows (there was the old live action Spider-Man, the Hulk, etc.), and yes they'd have to fall back on cartoons (but that would fill Saturday mornings, afternoons after school, late night.) They even have their straight to video animation as well. To flesh things out they could easily, if they wanted, get the rights to other "super-hero" style media that's not Marvel (but not DC) - anything from Knight Rider to Max Headroom. It would start much like Sci Fi (endless Quantum Leap, anyone?) and Cartoon Network (Hannah Barbara and those Coast to Coast / Sea Lab 2021 cheapie parodies) did - small and repetitious and low budget. It could work. --- to ponyboy, I think an Ant Man movie would be fine. I'd much rather see that than a Wolverine or Magneto movie, personally. It depends on who writes it and how they go at it. It should probably focus on two things - the scientific aspects of Dr. Pym's work, and the infatuation Janet (his smart but plays dumb assistant) has for him. I actually think this would be enormously fun, especially if at the end of the movie it shows him develop (or hints at him doing so) the growth side of his Pym Particles - leading to a nudge-nudge, wink-wink at the "geeks" in the audience about Giant Man coming next.
Hulu in Review - Mar 17, 2008 - 08:28am
I'm going to have to check this out - Seriously, people, considering this: Imagine a day when it isn't Nielsen Ratings that decides what shows continue to air? Imagine a day when it is, instead, instantly tracked numbers of views / downloads that constitutes whether a shows continues airing? Now imagine that day also means that one show doesn't fail simply because another, "on at the same time", is successful. Where each show can continue or fail on its own merits (at least how many people want to watch it) instead of on scheduling by network execs? Now, finally, imagine being able to watch that episode at ANY TIME, not having to be there just when it happens, not even having to set up a DVR / TiVO (or even a VCR!) So... close...
I'm going to have to check this out - Seriously, people, considering this: Imagine a day when it isn't Nielsen Ratings that decides what shows continue to air? Imagine a day when it is, instead, instantly tracked numbers of views / downloads that constitutes whether a shows continues airing? Now imagine that day also means that one show doesn't fail simply because another, "on at the same time", is successful. Where each show can continue or fail on its own merits (at least how many people want to watch it) instead of on scheduling by network execs? Now, finally, imagine being able to watch that episode at ANY TIME, not having to be there just when it happens, not even having to set up a DVR / TiVO (or even a VCR!) So... close...
SMALLVILLE: Hero - Mar 17, 2008 - 12:37am
Want to defend the show. Can't. This episode was weak. This whole season is weak. I wanted to have a fun season with Supergirl, but they are wasting the character so badly. This is like X-Files for me at this point - expect I liked that series more at the beginning, and and I gave up on it a few seasons earlier.
Want to defend the show. Can't. This episode was weak. This whole season is weak. I wanted to have a fun season with Supergirl, but they are wasting the character so badly. This is like X-Files for me at this point - expect I liked that series more at the beginning, and and I gave up on it a few seasons earlier.
Gellar Deciding When VERONIKA Dies - Mar 16, 2008 - 07:41am
Hadn't seen Southland Tales. Dunno, the trailer looked really dumb. I actually think The Rock is a better "actor" than previous action stars we've had (Stallone and Schwarzenegger, for example) and I like the director and SMG - but, again, the trailer turned me off.
Hadn't seen Southland Tales. Dunno, the trailer looked really dumb. I actually think The Rock is a better "actor" than previous action stars we've had (Stallone and Schwarzenegger, for example) and I like the director and SMG - but, again, the trailer turned me off.
Official HULK Site Launched & More. - Mar 15, 2008 - 04:10pm
manjisan - That's hilarious! I posted, and then went back and read through all the other comments. You get the exact feeling I did about this trailer, vis a vis Matrix Revolutions. Glad I wasn't the only one.
manjisan - That's hilarious! I posted, and then went back and read through all the other comments. You get the exact feeling I did about this trailer, vis a vis Matrix Revolutions. Glad I wasn't the only one.
Official HULK Site Launched & More. - Mar 15, 2008 - 04:06pm
I saw the trailer today before Doomsday - (aside: Doomsday was AWESOME. I lost count of the number of films I saw parts of in this one - Neil Marshall just got to do a buffet of all his favorite genre films, no doubt!) I'm sorry. We went to Liv Tyler from Jennifer Connelly, that should express it all. I know I'm in the minority on this site, but I loved Ang Lee's Hulk. This trailer - nothing worked for me. Other than being excited at the very start because I had wanted to see it. Abomination looks like crap, but that's not a big deal. Hulk looks worse than the Hulk in the previous film, that's not big deal. I don't buy Norton as Banner at all - this IS a big deal. All the acting and actors look second rate compared to the last - yes, overall, Norton is probably a better actor than Bana, but I LIKED Bana as Banner and Norton is just not cutting it for me. And then, the biggest annoyance - the two monsters line up, they charge, and I realize that I'm going to be watching f*@king Matrix Revolutions's Neo/Smith battle with two green-skinned monsters. I know that makes some of you all orgasmic, but I actually got very, very sad. It looks (I know many of you don't understand this, especially after I just had a ball watching Doomsday) BORING. Yes, those mindless, pointless action sequences (like X3, like Transformers, and like how this looks) bore me. To tears. Not to rain on anyone's parade - since this is the film we are getting, I hope those who hated the previous one love this one. Then we ALL can have at least one we like. I'll still see this. I still HOPE to see something of at least Blade Trinity quality, but I'm expecting (at best) Matrix Reloaded. At least I'm still stoked about Iron Man.
I saw the trailer today before Doomsday - (aside: Doomsday was AWESOME. I lost count of the number of films I saw parts of in this one - Neil Marshall just got to do a buffet of all his favorite genre films, no doubt!) I'm sorry. We went to Liv Tyler from Jennifer Connelly, that should express it all. I know I'm in the minority on this site, but I loved Ang Lee's Hulk. This trailer - nothing worked for me. Other than being excited at the very start because I had wanted to see it. Abomination looks like crap, but that's not a big deal. Hulk looks worse than the Hulk in the previous film, that's not big deal. I don't buy Norton as Banner at all - this IS a big deal. All the acting and actors look second rate compared to the last - yes, overall, Norton is probably a better actor than Bana, but I LIKED Bana as Banner and Norton is just not cutting it for me. And then, the biggest annoyance - the two monsters line up, they charge, and I realize that I'm going to be watching f*@king Matrix Revolutions's Neo/Smith battle with two green-skinned monsters. I know that makes some of you all orgasmic, but I actually got very, very sad. It looks (I know many of you don't understand this, especially after I just had a ball watching Doomsday) BORING. Yes, those mindless, pointless action sequences (like X3, like Transformers, and like how this looks) bore me. To tears. Not to rain on anyone's parade - since this is the film we are getting, I hope those who hated the previous one love this one. Then we ALL can have at least one we like. I'll still see this. I still HOPE to see something of at least Blade Trinity quality, but I'm expecting (at best) Matrix Reloaded. At least I'm still stoked about Iron Man.
Gellar Deciding When VERONIKA Dies - Mar 15, 2008 - 08:14am
While I'd mildly disagree about Family Guy (not a fan, full disclosure) as they seem pretty liberal and more concerned about pop culture than political statement - South Park definitely leaves NOTHING SACRED. :) And don't worry about not understanding the Buffy thing. I mocked people who liked that show for YEARS, having seen a couple episodes even and wondering what was wrong with people. Then I accidentally got into watching it (long story - short version, it tied into Angel which I started watching without knowing it had ties to Buffy) and realized I had been an ignorant jerk. I've known several other people who had similar experiences. Not saying you are an ignorant jerk, and not saying that you'll eventually end up liking Buffy. Just saying that, without watching a bunch of Whedon's stuff, most people from the outside find his work uninteresting. Maybe a better comparison would be me marveling in endless disbelief (really, disgust, truthfully) at people enjoying Bay's Transformers.
While I'd mildly disagree about Family Guy (not a fan, full disclosure) as they seem pretty liberal and more concerned about pop culture than political statement - South Park definitely leaves NOTHING SACRED. :) And don't worry about not understanding the Buffy thing. I mocked people who liked that show for YEARS, having seen a couple episodes even and wondering what was wrong with people. Then I accidentally got into watching it (long story - short version, it tied into Angel which I started watching without knowing it had ties to Buffy) and realized I had been an ignorant jerk. I've known several other people who had similar experiences. Not saying you are an ignorant jerk, and not saying that you'll eventually end up liking Buffy. Just saying that, without watching a bunch of Whedon's stuff, most people from the outside find his work uninteresting. Maybe a better comparison would be me marveling in endless disbelief (really, disgust, truthfully) at people enjoying Bay's Transformers.
Gellar Deciding When VERONIKA Dies - Mar 14, 2008 - 11:46pm
Tread lightly, mlaforcer - not only do you insult Buffy at your own peril (here I am being humrous) you mentioning of a movie star OD'ing so soon after Ledger died is somewhat tasteless. (here I am serious)
Tread lightly, mlaforcer - not only do you insult Buffy at your own peril (here I am being humrous) you mentioning of a movie star OD'ing so soon after Ledger died is somewhat tasteless. (here I am serious)
SUPERMAN Sequel Begins Script Phase - Mar 14, 2008 - 01:45pm
hanso, I was letting the conversation end instead of constantly responding and beating a dead horse with you and hobbs. I put forth the facts I could find and my opinions. You, Hobbs, others put forth dissenting opinions. It's fine to leave it at that. Plus the posting degenerated into, well, I'll be polite and just say it swerved far off topic. --- If you want examples of insults you send towards me, first let me define what I mean by "insult" so you know my criteria, and then you can see what I meant. insult --> to treat or speak to insolently or with contemptuous rudeness; to demean --- examples of what hanso wrote about me that I consider "insolent", "contemptuous", "rude" and "demeaning": #28 - "JOnniej - Yes he did use those words and sadly I don't believe he is joking. You shouldn't have brought up numbers man. Now Merin will be in here with budgets, box office numbers and polls saying people like Superman Returns." This post is condescending and rude. You are mocking me for using facts and research to back up what I say. You are also being rude by how you said "sadly I don't think he was joking" as if you pity me for finding Singer's film genius. ---- #63 - "Did I call it or what? lol," Mocking. Condescending. Rude. "You need to chilax my little green friend." Superior. Dismissive. Patronizing. --- #72 - "Oh oh, now TheCollector doesn't agree with Merin, tsk tsk Collector you should know better than to disagree with Merin. Damn, I'm gonna have to change my post so Merin doesn't say I'm insulting him. " Baiting. Judgmental. Libelous. You are blatantly (as someone else does) misrepresenting what I'm saying. AND, as mlaforcer directly said to you, you are TRYING to get me to respond - you are a few steps removed from simply TROLLING for me, trying to get me to engage in a flame war with you. --- It's not disagreement on matter of opinions that I will argue with people. We can state opinions freely on whether or not a film or tv show or book was good or bad, because those are just opinions and cannot be proven right or wrong. It is when people make factually inaccurate statements and dispute actual facts presented to them that I will argue. You are insulting me by setting up a straw man - trying to libel me by saying I do something that I don't. To be clear: I do not tell people they are WRONG or BAN THEM for disagreeing with me about whether something was good or bad. I tell people they are wrong when they are wrong about FACTUALLY PROVABLE statements - i.e. "Superman Returns failed financially" is provable WRONG since you can look at the budget AND the box office and see it made more than it cost. --- As for the other poster who keeps attacking and insulting me by claiming that I banned him from commenting on my profile and I no longer respond to him because he disagreed with me about whether something was good or not - this is also factually provable wrong. It will take some digging, but that started when gauleyboy420 was insulting someone else in a comments section. It had gotten so bad that I told him I could no longer keep him as a Friend because I didn't agree with how he was posting stuff, the level of discourse he was using against someone else, and as such I removed him as a friend. This pissed him off to no end - despite his constant posts about "not caring", and then he followed my posts in many comments sections for awhile attacking whatever I said. I would not respond to what he said and finally he posted something on my Profile since I wouldn't respond to him in comments sections. After he did THAT, I banned him from my Profile. It has ZERO to do with disagreeing about liking or disliking something. Trust me - if that were the case, DarkJedi/Jarrod and I would be trying to kill each other over Star Wars and Transformers. ;) --- Now, as I've done before in discussions with others that go ON and ON and ON and get WAY OFF TOPIC, I'm ending my participation in THIS PARTICULAR COMMENT THREAD. We've gone back and forth over this enough, more than enough. If you want the last word, hanso, you are free to it. But I'm done discussing this here. I've more than stated my case and defended myself. I'm not going to change your mind, hanso, so there's no point in me responding to you, anymore, in this thread about this topic. We can have other arguments in other threads about other topics soon enough. ;)
hanso, I was letting the conversation end instead of constantly responding and beating a dead horse with you and hobbs. I put forth the facts I could find and my opinions. You, Hobbs, others put forth dissenting opinions. It's fine to leave it at that. Plus the posting degenerated into, well, I'll be polite and just say it swerved far off topic. --- If you want examples of insults you send towards me, first let me define what I mean by "insult" so you know my criteria, and then you can see what I meant. insult --> to treat or speak to insolently or with contemptuous rudeness; to demean --- examples of what hanso wrote about me that I consider "insolent", "contemptuous", "rude" and "demeaning": #28 - "JOnniej - Yes he did use those words and sadly I don't believe he is joking. You shouldn't have brought up numbers man. Now Merin will be in here with budgets, box office numbers and polls saying people like Superman Returns." This post is condescending and rude. You are mocking me for using facts and research to back up what I say. You are also being rude by how you said "sadly I don't think he was joking" as if you pity me for finding Singer's film genius. ---- #63 - "Did I call it or what? lol," Mocking. Condescending. Rude. "You need to chilax my little green friend." Superior. Dismissive. Patronizing. --- #72 - "Oh oh, now TheCollector doesn't agree with Merin, tsk tsk Collector you should know better than to disagree with Merin. Damn, I'm gonna have to change my post so Merin doesn't say I'm insulting him. " Baiting. Judgmental. Libelous. You are blatantly (as someone else does) misrepresenting what I'm saying. AND, as mlaforcer directly said to you, you are TRYING to get me to respond - you are a few steps removed from simply TROLLING for me, trying to get me to engage in a flame war with you. --- It's not disagreement on matter of opinions that I will argue with people. We can state opinions freely on whether or not a film or tv show or book was good or bad, because those are just opinions and cannot be proven right or wrong. It is when people make factually inaccurate statements and dispute actual facts presented to them that I will argue. You are insulting me by setting up a straw man - trying to libel me by saying I do something that I don't. To be clear: I do not tell people they are WRONG or BAN THEM for disagreeing with me about whether something was good or bad. I tell people they are wrong when they are wrong about FACTUALLY PROVABLE statements - i.e. "Superman Returns failed financially" is provable WRONG since you can look at the budget AND the box office and see it made more than it cost. --- As for the other poster who keeps attacking and insulting me by claiming that I banned him from commenting on my profile and I no longer respond to him because he disagreed with me about whether something was good or not - this is also factually provable wrong. It will take some digging, but that started when gauleyboy420 was insulting someone else in a comments section. It had gotten so bad that I told him I could no longer keep him as a Friend because I didn't agree with how he was posting stuff, the level of discourse he was using against someone else, and as such I removed him as a friend. This pissed him off to no end - despite his constant posts about "not caring", and then he followed my posts in many comments sections for awhile attacking whatever I said. I would not respond to what he said and finally he posted something on my Profile since I wouldn't respond to him in comments sections. After he did THAT, I banned him from my Profile. It has ZERO to do with disagreeing about liking or disliking something. Trust me - if that were the case, DarkJedi/Jarrod and I would be trying to kill each other over Star Wars and Transformers. ;) --- Now, as I've done before in discussions with others that go ON and ON and ON and get WAY OFF TOPIC, I'm ending my participation in THIS PARTICULAR COMMENT THREAD. We've gone back and forth over this enough, more than enough. If you want the last word, hanso, you are free to it. But I'm done discussing this here. I've more than stated my case and defended myself. I'm not going to change your mind, hanso, so there's no point in me responding to you, anymore, in this thread about this topic. We can have other arguments in other threads about other topics soon enough. ;)
Gellar Deciding When VERONIKA Dies - Mar 14, 2008 - 01:14pm
Look, as much as I would love more Buffy or Angel or Firefly, we have to move on. It ain't going to happen. Whedon tried post-Angel to get something Buffy-verse filmed, whether it be a Spike tv movie or a Faith spin-off. He couldn't even get a Buffy cartoon, my friends! The comics are the best he could do (and the comics are FREAKING awesome.) The cast has moved on. You think Boreanz wants to go back to Angel from Bones? You think Hannigan wants to leave How I Met Your Mother for more Willow? Actors like to continue their careers and do more than just 1 character - and if the fans and studios won't let them, they commit suicide (well, Reeve did.) Despite what some of my fellow Maniacs like to believe, Gellar has a successful movie career. While she's not A-list by far, she makes more money and gets more recognition now from the public in general than she did from the niche Whedon fans. Some highlights of her film career: Scooby Doo: $275 million worldwide box office., from an $85 million budget. Cruel Intentions: $75 million worldwide, from $11 million budget. The Grudge: $110 million US box office, from $10 million budget. TMNT: $55 million US box office, from $35 million budget. She's been the lead or supporting cast of many movies, including several independent films, is a frequent animation voice actress and often has cameos in tv shows. She doesn't need Buffy. Some may only like her in Buffy, and that's fine. But she doesn't need the show. It helped her career enormously, yes, but do you think George Cloony wants to go back to ER or even Anniston or Cox want to go back to Friends? Really? Any more live action Buffy isn't going to happen in the forseeable future, if at all, and it isn't because of Gellar. It's because no studios want to do anything with the material.
Look, as much as I would love more Buffy or Angel or Firefly, we have to move on. It ain't going to happen. Whedon tried post-Angel to get something Buffy-verse filmed, whether it be a Spike tv movie or a Faith spin-off. He couldn't even get a Buffy cartoon, my friends! The comics are the best he could do (and the comics are FREAKING awesome.) The cast has moved on. You think Boreanz wants to go back to Angel from Bones? You think Hannigan wants to leave How I Met Your Mother for more Willow? Actors like to continue their careers and do more than just 1 character - and if the fans and studios won't let them, they commit suicide (well, Reeve did.) Despite what some of my fellow Maniacs like to believe, Gellar has a successful movie career. While she's not A-list by far, she makes more money and gets more recognition now from the public in general than she did from the niche Whedon fans. Some highlights of her film career: Scooby Doo: $275 million worldwide box office., from an $85 million budget. Cruel Intentions: $75 million worldwide, from $11 million budget. The Grudge: $110 million US box office, from $10 million budget. TMNT: $55 million US box office, from $35 million budget. She's been the lead or supporting cast of many movies, including several independent films, is a frequent animation voice actress and often has cameos in tv shows. She doesn't need Buffy. Some may only like her in Buffy, and that's fine. But she doesn't need the show. It helped her career enormously, yes, but do you think George Cloony wants to go back to ER or even Anniston or Cox want to go back to Friends? Really? Any more live action Buffy isn't going to happen in the forseeable future, if at all, and it isn't because of Gellar. It's because no studios want to do anything with the material.
Spartans Returning, Y Trilogy and More Brainiac - Mar 14, 2008 - 11:33am
Agreed, Hobbs - I, too, can't understand why they won't tell Kara who she is. Or give her back her bracelet. It just rings so false, so pointless - I mean, I know WHY they are writing it, so that there's this false friction and so Lex can start sliming his way into the pants of another girl that Clark cares about. Seriously, I don't understand the need of the writers to keep some kind of animosity between Clark and Kara. I love Supergirl, the character, but really don't like how Smallville is portraying her.
Agreed, Hobbs - I, too, can't understand why they won't tell Kara who she is. Or give her back her bracelet. It just rings so false, so pointless - I mean, I know WHY they are writing it, so that there's this false friction and so Lex can start sliming his way into the pants of another girl that Clark cares about. Seriously, I don't understand the need of the writers to keep some kind of animosity between Clark and Kara. I love Supergirl, the character, but really don't like how Smallville is portraying her.
Gellar Deciding When VERONIKA Dies - Mar 14, 2008 - 08:30am
I dunno, I thought The Return was actually a very good movie. The first American version of The Grudge was decent for that kind of movie, too. And I really liked the Scooby Doo movies. Plus I want to see Alice if that ever gets made.
I dunno, I thought The Return was actually a very good movie. The first American version of The Grudge was decent for that kind of movie, too. And I really liked the Scooby Doo movies. Plus I want to see Alice if that ever gets made.
SERENITY- Better Days - Mar 14, 2008 - 08:28am
If we're being nitpicky, it's also Jayne and not Jane. Pretty good review. I enjoyed the book, certainly, and your are dead on about the dialog and the characters all feeling perfect. I like the art just fine, though. I would probably notch it up to an A- - I only don't think it is A worthy due to the fact that the Buffy comic series feels far superior to this one so far PLUS I want another Season of Firefly, not another prequel trilogy (prequel to the movie, that is.) Otherwise, I really enjoyed it.
If we're being nitpicky, it's also Jayne and not Jane. Pretty good review. I enjoyed the book, certainly, and your are dead on about the dialog and the characters all feeling perfect. I like the art just fine, though. I would probably notch it up to an A- - I only don't think it is A worthy due to the fact that the Buffy comic series feels far superior to this one so far PLUS I want another Season of Firefly, not another prequel trilogy (prequel to the movie, that is.) Otherwise, I really enjoyed it.
Spartans Returning, Y Trilogy and More Brainiac - Mar 14, 2008 - 08:21am
I loved 300, but I cannot imagine what they mean by "sequel" - another Frank Miller comic? No. What the 300 Spartans did next? No. Maybe they'll do Marathon (a prequel, really) or they can do a good action movie about Alexander or his father Phillip, instead of that crap with that crappy actor Farrell. I'm up for more AVP from the guys who did the last one. Enjoyed it just fine. I'm still watching Smallville, but it is just a TV soap opera and has been for so long - it does indeed need to be brought to an end. I get it - no costume, no flying - but we've had costumed heroes AND flying Kryptonians by the score - isn't it time he GREW UP?
I loved 300, but I cannot imagine what they mean by "sequel" - another Frank Miller comic? No. What the 300 Spartans did next? No. Maybe they'll do Marathon (a prequel, really) or they can do a good action movie about Alexander or his father Phillip, instead of that crap with that crappy actor Farrell. I'm up for more AVP from the guys who did the last one. Enjoyed it just fine. I'm still watching Smallville, but it is just a TV soap opera and has been for so long - it does indeed need to be brought to an end. I get it - no costume, no flying - but we've had costumed heroes AND flying Kryptonians by the score - isn't it time he GREW UP?
Watching the Watchmen - Mar 13, 2008 - 10:02am
Hobbs, Thanks for that. I will admit that thematically 1984 and V for Vendetta have very similar backgrounds, worlds, and concepts. joeybaloney, Unbreakable wasn't a flop financially (Lady in the Water was, I believe) - but it performed the poorest and got the poorest reviews, overall, of all of MNS's films PRIOR TO Lady in the Water. I personally liked Unbreakable, so I'm not attacking the film, and overall I agree with your assessment of the film. I do know, however, that many people who saw that movie would NOT have had they know the opening quote of the film would have been about comic books. . . . Personally, I think you can fairly judge the writing style of someone and the general quality of a piece of literature after you've read about a quarter of it. I read about a third of V for Vendetta, but haven't been able to bring myself to finish it. I coasted through Watchmen purely on excitement that was ultimately deflated when I finished the book with a loud cry of "THAT'S IT?!?! THAT'S WHAT ALL THE FUSS IS ABOUT?!?!" Just to toss a little flame bait out there, I can't stand the LoTR novels either - only two things allowed me to finish them - 1- I wanted to have read them before the movies came out. 2- I took them with me on the train to and from work, and only them, so I could either read them or stare and people and listen to bums ask for money.
Hobbs, Thanks for that. I will admit that thematically 1984 and V for Vendetta have very similar backgrounds, worlds, and concepts. joeybaloney, Unbreakable wasn't a flop financially (Lady in the Water was, I believe) - but it performed the poorest and got the poorest reviews, overall, of all of MNS's films PRIOR TO Lady in the Water. I personally liked Unbreakable, so I'm not attacking the film, and overall I agree with your assessment of the film. I do know, however, that many people who saw that movie would NOT have had they know the opening quote of the film would have been about comic books. . . . Personally, I think you can fairly judge the writing style of someone and the general quality of a piece of literature after you've read about a quarter of it. I read about a third of V for Vendetta, but haven't been able to bring myself to finish it. I coasted through Watchmen purely on excitement that was ultimately deflated when I finished the book with a loud cry of "THAT'S IT?!?! THAT'S WHAT ALL THE FUSS IS ABOUT?!?!" Just to toss a little flame bait out there, I can't stand the LoTR novels either - only two things allowed me to finish them - 1- I wanted to have read them before the movies came out. 2- I took them with me on the train to and from work, and only them, so I could either read them or stare and people and listen to bums ask for money.
SUPERMAN Sequel Begins Script Phase - Mar 13, 2008 - 09:50am
"Merin, far be it for me to be critical of where someone gets their info but you are using wikipedia as a reference...heck, as far as I know Sony wrote all that." And, acknowledging that someone would go the ad hominem route of "well, you got that from wikipedia - you should know better than to trust those internets, which are just a series of tubes!" (paraphrasing AND mocking, yes) - in particular to your disagreement, Hobbs, about whether Fox let Singer go or if Singer bailed, I directly pulled up the REFERENCE that the wikipedia article used - see, when writing an article, it is important to cite sources on claims. The wikipedia article I cited to answer your claim that Singer bailed itself cited a source (that whole #6 thing shows that the information was taken from the Hollywood Reporter.) BUT - since just the words "wikipedia" bug you so much, here's an article DIRECTLY from the Hollywood Reporter - http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/search/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003019246 "Warners was delighted to poach Singer -- a proven tentpole director with a canny understanding of the action-adventure universe -- from Fox. He was available because Fox Filmed Entertainment co-chairman Tom Rothman had been playing a game of chicken with him on his "Last Stand" deal: Singer wanted to cash in on the final installment of the "X-Men" saga. When Warners lured Singer away with the chance to direct "Superman" and a top-dollar deal -- sources say it was $10 million vs. 7% of the gross -- Rothman was livid. He promptly shut down Singer's Bad Hat Harry Prods. office on the Fox lot -- though Singer returned the next day to the Fox set of his TV series "House."" Fox was dicking around Singer, Singer got an offer to do Superman Returns, he took the offer, X3 (which was already on hold over contract and script negotiations) would have had to wait for Singer to finish Superman Returns, but Fox was ticked off that Singer was helping WB with a rival super-hero flick and dumped him. Case seems closed to me - Fox is the bad guy here, not Singer. OH, and as for the "WB is not happy with Singer and Superman Returns" - here from the same article, a direct quote from WB - ""'Superman Returns' will be profitable for us," says Warner Bros. production president Jeff Robinov. "We would have liked it to have made more money, but it reintroduced the character in a great way and was a good launching pad for the next picture. We believe in Bryan and the franchise. Clearly, this was the most emotional and realistic superhero movie ever made."" All the anecdotal garbage that some of the rest of you are tossing out, pulling it from somewhere but not saying where other than your own "common sense" (read: opinion based on a dislike of the movie) - is meaningless when compared to DIRECT QUOTES FROM THE STUDIO. Oh, but wait - I know the response - of course the STUDIOS are LYING to us and only some posters on genre websites KNOW the truth despite having NO CREDIBLE SOURCE OF SAID TRUTH. Gotcha. You run with that. BTB, the title of that article is "Fox got bigger hit, but WB happy with Singer" Anne Thompson clearly doesn't know what she's talking about, though, what with her actually interviewing people and such. Crazy, I know. --- And keep attacking me hanso for quoting sources and posting links and citations, it sure makes you look like you have the stronger argument. (Sarcasm.) hanso = opinion, insults hobbs = opinion, refusal to research (got better things to do with his time, like posting libelous, unsupported rumors repeatedly) Merin = opinion, research and citing sources Yep, I'm the one to roll your eyes at.
"Merin, far be it for me to be critical of where someone gets their info but you are using wikipedia as a reference...heck, as far as I know Sony wrote all that." And, acknowledging that someone would go the ad hominem route of "well, you got that from wikipedia - you should know better than to trust those internets, which are just a series of tubes!" (paraphrasing AND mocking, yes) - in particular to your disagreement, Hobbs, about whether Fox let Singer go or if Singer bailed, I directly pulled up the REFERENCE that the wikipedia article used - see, when writing an article, it is important to cite sources on claims. The wikipedia article I cited to answer your claim that Singer bailed itself cited a source (that whole #6 thing shows that the information was taken from the Hollywood Reporter.) BUT - since just the words "wikipedia" bug you so much, here's an article DIRECTLY from the Hollywood Reporter - http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/search/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003019246 "Warners was delighted to poach Singer -- a proven tentpole director with a canny understanding of the action-adventure universe -- from Fox. He was available because Fox Filmed Entertainment co-chairman Tom Rothman had been playing a game of chicken with him on his "Last Stand" deal: Singer wanted to cash in on the final installment of the "X-Men" saga. When Warners lured Singer away with the chance to direct "Superman" and a top-dollar deal -- sources say it was $10 million vs. 7% of the gross -- Rothman was livid. He promptly shut down Singer's Bad Hat Harry Prods. office on the Fox lot -- though Singer returned the next day to the Fox set of his TV series "House."" Fox was dicking around Singer, Singer got an offer to do Superman Returns, he took the offer, X3 (which was already on hold over contract and script negotiations) would have had to wait for Singer to finish Superman Returns, but Fox was ticked off that Singer was helping WB with a rival super-hero flick and dumped him. Case seems closed to me - Fox is the bad guy here, not Singer. OH, and as for the "WB is not happy with Singer and Superman Returns" - here from the same article, a direct quote from WB - ""'Superman Returns' will be profitable for us," says Warner Bros. production president Jeff Robinov. "We would have liked it to have made more money, but it reintroduced the character in a great way and was a good launching pad for the next picture. We believe in Bryan and the franchise. Clearly, this was the most emotional and realistic superhero movie ever made."" All the anecdotal garbage that some of the rest of you are tossing out, pulling it from somewhere but not saying where other than your own "common sense" (read: opinion based on a dislike of the movie) - is meaningless when compared to DIRECT QUOTES FROM THE STUDIO. Oh, but wait - I know the response - of course the STUDIOS are LYING to us and only some posters on genre websites KNOW the truth despite having NO CREDIBLE SOURCE OF SAID TRUTH. Gotcha. You run with that. BTB, the title of that article is "Fox got bigger hit, but WB happy with Singer" Anne Thompson clearly doesn't know what she's talking about, though, what with her actually interviewing people and such. Crazy, I know. --- And keep attacking me hanso for quoting sources and posting links and citations, it sure makes you look like you have the stronger argument. (Sarcasm.) hanso = opinion, insults hobbs = opinion, refusal to research (got better things to do with his time, like posting libelous, unsupported rumors repeatedly) Merin = opinion, research and citing sources Yep, I'm the one to roll your eyes at.
Watching the Watchmen - Mar 13, 2008 - 12:01am
1 - V for Vendetta, the film, was (IMO) far superior to the graphic novel that I could not finish. 2 - V for Vendetta didn't rip off 1984. There's fascist government in there, sure, but so is there in much literature and film. I'm not defending Alan Moore's writing here beyond saying that similarities between things does not equate into ripping something off - you can be influenced by something. Moore himself says that he was writing about what he thought England might become under Margaret Thatcher and the conservative government of the time when he was writing it. 3 - I liked many comic book movies far better than Spider-Man - including Spider-Man 2 and 3. That's just my opinion, that list, and as such there is no "X doesn't belong at number 1" nor "Y should be number 2" as the list is what I liked and no one but I can dictate my own tastes. ;) 4 - Unbreakable is one of Shyamalan's worst movies (financially and reviewed), only beaten by Lady in the Water, and it TRICKED people into watching a "super-hero" film with no costumes, no fighting, and not based on a comic book so - no, it's not a fair comparison to Watchmen.
1 - V for Vendetta, the film, was (IMO) far superior to the graphic novel that I could not finish. 2 - V for Vendetta didn't rip off 1984. There's fascist government in there, sure, but so is there in much literature and film. I'm not defending Alan Moore's writing here beyond saying that similarities between things does not equate into ripping something off - you can be influenced by something. Moore himself says that he was writing about what he thought England might become under Margaret Thatcher and the conservative government of the time when he was writing it. 3 - I liked many comic book movies far better than Spider-Man - including Spider-Man 2 and 3. That's just my opinion, that list, and as such there is no "X doesn't belong at number 1" nor "Y should be number 2" as the list is what I liked and no one but I can dictate my own tastes. ;) 4 - Unbreakable is one of Shyamalan's worst movies (financially and reviewed), only beaten by Lady in the Water, and it TRICKED people into watching a "super-hero" film with no costumes, no fighting, and not based on a comic book so - no, it's not a fair comparison to Watchmen.
SUPERMAN Sequel Begins Script Phase - Mar 12, 2008 - 11:47pm
"Merin, Did u actually use the words "brilliant and ingeinous" referring to SR??" Yes, I did. "U must b joking?" No, I'm not. "The movie was weakas well as the dialogue and HUGE dissapointment WORLD WIDE.. the numbers prove that. I can tell u liked it, and thats fine, but don't be blind." Your opinion on the weakness and dialog, and you are entitled to it jonniej1017, but "the numbers" don't prove it - oh wait, here comes hanso - "JOnniej - Yes he did use those words and sadly I don't believe he is joking." Ah, patronizing and insulting. No surprise there. What a pleasant commentator you are hanso. "You shouldn't have brought up numbers man. Now Merin will be in here with budgets, box office numbers and polls saying people like Superman Returns." Right, hanso - far be it from me to be so anal as to see someone claim that, by the numbers, something failed when, by the numbers, something succeeded. How DARE I point out blatant misrepresentations. Superman Returns was a Critical success (far more positive reviews by critics than negative); Superman Returns was an Audience success (exit polls and most every ranking site gives it an average of "B-" to "C" or so, where failure should be rated as D+ or lower); Superman Returns was a Financial success (EVEN if you take the inflated $270 million dollar budget estimate, which includes previous failed attempts at making the movie BEFORE Singer and the Returns script were part of the picture, it took in $390 million worldwide BEFORE considering DVD rentals and sales). from wikipedia - "Superman Returns grossed $200,081,192 in the United States and an estimated $191 million internationally, taking in over $391 million worldwide by the time its theatrical run officially closed on November 2, 2006. It made $21,037,277 from its June 27, 2006 and June 28, 2006 screenings and $52 million in its first weekend, a rather fair amount, but it was quickly crushed in its second weekend by Disney's Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest in the U.S, But kept a fairly steady gross in the UK.. The movie was fairly well reviewed by many critics. It has been a "Certified Fresh" film on Rotten Tomatoes, with 77% overall approval from critics, and a 73% from the "Cream of the Crop."[28] The film also received a 72% on Metacritic.[29] Many critics gave the film particularly high praise. Empire gave the film five stars (out of five), and described it as "the finest popular entertainment since the Rings trilogy closed."[30] David Ansen of Newsweek said, "Next to Singer's champagne, most recent superhero adventure movies are barely-sparkling cider."[31] Other reviews said that Singer had done the Superman character proud, and that the whole cast had succeeded.[32][33] Leonard Maltin commented on his website, "Bryan Singer has brought us a brand-new movie that celebrates the traditions of Superman in a movie that somehow still seems fresh. Superman Returns is completely absorbing and highly entertaining."[34]" The numbers show a success. Maybe not a runaway train success, but a success. Also, hanso, you constantly using "ripped off" when you even admit you are wrong to use that phrase just shows your arrogance. If you know he didn't "rip off" Donner why do you insist on saying "ripped off" unless you just want to libel Singer? Now Hobbs - "If something better comes along he will bail on the project. " Hobbs, Singer didn't bail on X-3. Fox dropped him when he signed on to do Superman Returns. There's a difference between leaving of your own free will and being booted because you accepted a job with another studio that makes Fox upset. Also, Fox would not greenlight the story that Singer wanted to do - a Phoenix story with Emma Frost as the main villain - which would have been so much better than the CRAP we got. wikipedia - "Superman Returns In mid-2004, Singer was in negotiations to direct X-Men 3 for Fox. Fox and Singer could not meet an agreement and, after an extended period of nothing happening, Singer was offered the chance to direct the new Superman film, which was ready to go. On July 19, 2004, Variety reported that Singer had signed on to direct Superman Returns for Warner Bros. In retaliation, Fox terminated their production deal with Bad Hat Harry Productions, Singer's production company. [6] Superman Returns was filmed in Australia in 2005, and was released on June 28, 2006. Singer claims that though he had not read the comics, he had always admired and identified with the character, citing the fact that he and Superman are both orphans. He instead based Returns on his love of the 1978 film made by Richard Donner. [7]" Here's your source for 6, as I know many will decry using wikipedia - 6 ^ Liza Foreman. Fox breaks off film deal with helmer Singer. The Hollywood Reporter. Retrieved on August 6, 2004. “20th Century Fox has terminated its two-year deal with Bryan Singer and his Bad Hat Harry production company -- in the middle of its first year -- in the wake of the director's signing last month with Warner Bros. Pictures to direct a new "Superman" feature.” Also from wikipedia - "Bryan Singer, the director of the first two X-Men films, left the project during preproduction in order to direct the film Superman Returns. He was joined by X2 screenwriters Dan Harris and Michael Dougherty and composer / editor John Ottman. Though Singer, Harris and Dougherty had yet to complete a script, the director has revealed that at the time of his departure they had partially completed a story treatment for the film which would have focused exclusively on Jean Grey's resurrection[4] with the new villain Emma Frost, a role intended for Sigourney Weaver.[5]" --- It is clear to me that blind hatred of this film leads people to make false claims, knowingly doing so - "As far as the ripoff comment goes, dude I'm sorry, I can't help myself, I wanna stop but I can't. It's easier to write than to say the things about honoring and all those things you mention. Please forgive me ol pal, but I cant." - or remaining willfully ignorant to do so like Hobbs - "Did I go check for other facts to support my theory? Absolutely not...most important thing I have better things to do with my time." To me a person automatically not only looses the argument, but looses the right to be taken seriously, when he knowingly makes false claims and/or refuses to fact check wild claims that he just tosses out of nowhere.
"Merin, Did u actually use the words "brilliant and ingeinous" referring to SR??" Yes, I did. "U must b joking?" No, I'm not. "The movie was weakas well as the dialogue and HUGE dissapointment WORLD WIDE.. the numbers prove that. I can tell u liked it, and thats fine, but don't be blind." Your opinion on the weakness and dialog, and you are entitled to it jonniej1017, but "the numbers" don't prove it - oh wait, here comes hanso - "JOnniej - Yes he did use those words and sadly I don't believe he is joking." Ah, patronizing and insulting. No surprise there. What a pleasant commentator you are hanso. "You shouldn't have brought up numbers man. Now Merin will be in here with budgets, box office numbers and polls saying people like Superman Returns." Right, hanso - far be it from me to be so anal as to see someone claim that, by the numbers, something failed when, by the numbers, something succeeded. How DARE I point out blatant misrepresentations. Superman Returns was a Critical success (far more positive reviews by critics than negative); Superman Returns was an Audience success (exit polls and most every ranking site gives it an average of "B-" to "C" or so, where failure should be rated as D+ or lower); Superman Returns was a Financial success (EVEN if you take the inflated $270 million dollar budget estimate, which includes previous failed attempts at making the movie BEFORE Singer and the Returns script were part of the picture, it took in $390 million worldwide BEFORE considering DVD rentals and sales). from wikipedia - "Superman Returns grossed $200,081,192 in the United States and an estimated $191 million internationally, taking in over $391 million worldwide by the time its theatrical run officially closed on November 2, 2006. It made $21,037,277 from its June 27, 2006 and June 28, 2006 screenings and $52 million in its first weekend, a rather fair amount, but it was quickly crushed in its second weekend by Disney's Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest in the U.S, But kept a fairly steady gross in the UK.. The movie was fairly well reviewed by many critics. It has been a "Certified Fresh" film on Rotten Tomatoes, with 77% overall approval from critics, and a 73% from the "Cream of the Crop."[28] The film also received a 72% on Metacritic.[29] Many critics gave the film particularly high praise. Empire gave the film five stars (out of five), and described it as "the finest popular entertainment since the Rings trilogy closed."[30] David Ansen of Newsweek said, "Next to Singer's champagne, most recent superhero adventure movies are barely-sparkling cider."[31] Other reviews said that Singer had done the Superman character proud, and that the whole cast had succeeded.[32][33] Leonard Maltin commented on his website, "Bryan Singer has brought us a brand-new movie that celebrates the traditions of Superman in a movie that somehow still seems fresh. Superman Returns is completely absorbing and highly entertaining."[34]" The numbers show a success. Maybe not a runaway train success, but a success. Also, hanso, you constantly using "ripped off" when you even admit you are wrong to use that phrase just shows your arrogance. If you know he didn't "rip off" Donner why do you insist on saying "ripped off" unless you just want to libel Singer? Now Hobbs - "If something better comes along he will bail on the project. " Hobbs, Singer didn't bail on X-3. Fox dropped him when he signed on to do Superman Returns. There's a difference between leaving of your own free will and being booted because you accepted a job with another studio that makes Fox upset. Also, Fox would not greenlight the story that Singer wanted to do - a Phoenix story with Emma Frost as the main villain - which would have been so much better than the CRAP we got. wikipedia - "Superman Returns In mid-2004, Singer was in negotiations to direct X-Men 3 for Fox. Fox and Singer could not meet an agreement and, after an extended period of nothing happening, Singer was offered the chance to direct the new Superman film, which was ready to go. On July 19, 2004, Variety reported that Singer had signed on to direct Superman Returns for Warner Bros. In retaliation, Fox terminated their production deal with Bad Hat Harry Productions, Singer's production company. [6] Superman Returns was filmed in Australia in 2005, and was released on June 28, 2006. Singer claims that though he had not read the comics, he had always admired and identified with the character, citing the fact that he and Superman are both orphans. He instead based Returns on his love of the 1978 film made by Richard Donner. [7]" Here's your source for 6, as I know many will decry using wikipedia - 6 ^ Liza Foreman. Fox breaks off film deal with helmer Singer. The Hollywood Reporter. Retrieved on August 6, 2004. “20th Century Fox has terminated its two-year deal with Bryan Singer and his Bad Hat Harry production company -- in the middle of its first year -- in the wake of the director's signing last month with Warner Bros. Pictures to direct a new "Superman" feature.” Also from wikipedia - "Bryan Singer, the director of the first two X-Men films, left the project during preproduction in order to direct the film Superman Returns. He was joined by X2 screenwriters Dan Harris and Michael Dougherty and composer / editor John Ottman. Though Singer, Harris and Dougherty had yet to complete a script, the director has revealed that at the time of his departure they had partially completed a story treatment for the film which would have focused exclusively on Jean Grey's resurrection[4] with the new villain Emma Frost, a role intended for Sigourney Weaver.[5]" --- It is clear to me that blind hatred of this film leads people to make false claims, knowingly doing so - "As far as the ripoff comment goes, dude I'm sorry, I can't help myself, I wanna stop but I can't. It's easier to write than to say the things about honoring and all those things you mention. Please forgive me ol pal, but I cant." - or remaining willfully ignorant to do so like Hobbs - "Did I go check for other facts to support my theory? Absolutely not...most important thing I have better things to do with my time." To me a person automatically not only looses the argument, but looses the right to be taken seriously, when he knowingly makes false claims and/or refuses to fact check wild claims that he just tosses out of nowhere.
Anime Music Videos: Doing it Right - Mar 12, 2008 - 11:08pm
This stuff is great fun. Several years ago, when I first stumbled upon it, I really wanted to do some with El Hazard scenes and such - but hooking up the VCR and the resulting image quality caused me to cease trying (yes, pre-DVD time.) It should be noted that not just Anime gets this treatment. You can find TONS of Buffy music videos, Supernatural ones, movies and comic images - pretty much anything you can think of! will.i.am did one to Senator Obama's "Yes We Can" speech in South Carolina, after all. Good article!
This stuff is great fun. Several years ago, when I first stumbled upon it, I really wanted to do some with El Hazard scenes and such - but hooking up the VCR and the resulting image quality caused me to cease trying (yes, pre-DVD time.) It should be noted that not just Anime gets this treatment. You can find TONS of Buffy music videos, Supernatural ones, movies and comic images - pretty much anything you can think of! will.i.am did one to Senator Obama's "Yes We Can" speech in South Carolina, after all. Good article!
Mark Rolston Cuts Into SAW V - Mar 12, 2008 - 09:59am
The biggest reason for Saw continuing as a franchise is because it is so profitable. The budgets are relatively small, and while its box office is never "blockbuster" it usually doubles or more its money at the theater.
The biggest reason for Saw continuing as a franchise is because it is so profitable. The budgets are relatively small, and while its box office is never "blockbuster" it usually doubles or more its money at the theater.
Watching the Watchmen - Mar 12, 2008 - 09:57am
http://www.mania.com/Merin/blog/261.html "Overall 1. V for Vendetta 2. Ghost World 3. X-Men 4. The Crow" The Crow hits number 4 of all time comic book adaptations to film for me. But the majority of people watching it, like Blade, didn't know it was based on a comic. Just like Road to Perdition, for example. And The Crow wasn't a DC or Marvel film like Blade was a Marvel film. The financial success of Blade allowed Marvel to get X-Men green lit. The success of X-Men gave Marvel the money/clout to finally get Spider-Man out of a web of legal tangles (heh.) That's why people point to Blade as the cause of the upsurge and acceptance of comic book films. DC only releases it's characters through WB, and WB can only make so many movies a year - but Marvel was using many studios so you could get several of their properties being made at once. --- That said, good or bad, Watchmen will have as much affect on "comic book films" for the general public as Sin City, 300, TMNT, Hellboy, Road to Perdition, The Crow or League of Extraordinary Gentlemen did - almost none. A successful Watchmen may cause studios to be more willing to make more independent comic books into films, but a failure will have as much impact as Mystery Men or The Specials not causing box office avalanches of money did - at worst, studios will only want to touch big named costumed do-gooders and avoid the "edges" of the genre (comedy or dark, edgy, gritty crap like Punisher.)
http://www.mania.com/Merin/blog/261.html "Overall 1. V for Vendetta 2. Ghost World 3. X-Men 4. The Crow" The Crow hits number 4 of all time comic book adaptations to film for me. But the majority of people watching it, like Blade, didn't know it was based on a comic. Just like Road to Perdition, for example. And The Crow wasn't a DC or Marvel film like Blade was a Marvel film. The financial success of Blade allowed Marvel to get X-Men green lit. The success of X-Men gave Marvel the money/clout to finally get Spider-Man out of a web of legal tangles (heh.) That's why people point to Blade as the cause of the upsurge and acceptance of comic book films. DC only releases it's characters through WB, and WB can only make so many movies a year - but Marvel was using many studios so you could get several of their properties being made at once. --- That said, good or bad, Watchmen will have as much affect on "comic book films" for the general public as Sin City, 300, TMNT, Hellboy, Road to Perdition, The Crow or League of Extraordinary Gentlemen did - almost none. A successful Watchmen may cause studios to be more willing to make more independent comic books into films, but a failure will have as much impact as Mystery Men or The Specials not causing box office avalanches of money did - at worst, studios will only want to touch big named costumed do-gooders and avoid the "edges" of the genre (comedy or dark, edgy, gritty crap like Punisher.)
SUPERMAN Sequel Begins Script Phase - Mar 12, 2008 - 09:46am
No iconic moments? Ahem - http://www.mania.com/Merin/blog/330.html - about 2/3rds of the way down, I list the Iconic Imagery. *sigh* And hanso, you need to stop the "ripped off" comments - ripped off implies that he stole the ideas from someone else against their wishes. Singer COMMUNICATED WITH and CONSULTED Donner. You cannot rip off someone with their permission, just like you cannot plagiarize someone who gives you permission to use his words. I grow tired of repeating this, but - Superman Returns was not a sequel to Superman 2. It was a pseudo-sequel to Superman the Movie. It was (IMO) a brilliant, ingenious combination of retelling and continuation of Superman the Movie. If that doesn't float your boat, that's your boat to let sink. --- As for villain, my thoughts are mixed. Mongul, Darkseid and Imperiax are not villains that will transfer to live-action film well. Bizarro was somewhat done in Superman IV. Remains a possibility, but it would have to be a Luthor-created clone. And that means more Luthor to piss off some movie-goers. Just say no to Doomsday. Doomsday = mindless stupid character created for a media event (killing Superman) and has zero worth as an antagonist save that he's "really strong and tough!" Brainiac, were he not all over cartoons and Smallville, would have been a decent choice. I think something else is called for. Metallo could be interesting, but if Raimi couldn't (after 2 huge blockbusters) twist enough arms to let him rely on Sandman for Spidey 3, I doubt the suits at WB will let Singer bring in such a third-string character as Metallo. The General could be an interesting choice, if Singer decided to go the "government fears super-beings" route a la X-Men United. Now Parasite - that's a villain that has REAL possibilities. I'd vote for Parasite, personally. Ultraman, were it not for the whole Crime Syndicate and alternate universe angle that might lose some audience members in confusion, would be a worthy foe. --- Really, though, I think Parasite or Metallo would be the best bet.
No iconic moments? Ahem - http://www.mania.com/Merin/blog/330.html - about 2/3rds of the way down, I list the Iconic Imagery. *sigh* And hanso, you need to stop the "ripped off" comments - ripped off implies that he stole the ideas from someone else against their wishes. Singer COMMUNICATED WITH and CONSULTED Donner. You cannot rip off someone with their permission, just like you cannot plagiarize someone who gives you permission to use his words. I grow tired of repeating this, but - Superman Returns was not a sequel to Superman 2. It was a pseudo-sequel to Superman the Movie. It was (IMO) a brilliant, ingenious combination of retelling and continuation of Superman the Movie. If that doesn't float your boat, that's your boat to let sink. --- As for villain, my thoughts are mixed. Mongul, Darkseid and Imperiax are not villains that will transfer to live-action film well. Bizarro was somewhat done in Superman IV. Remains a possibility, but it would have to be a Luthor-created clone. And that means more Luthor to piss off some movie-goers. Just say no to Doomsday. Doomsday = mindless stupid character created for a media event (killing Superman) and has zero worth as an antagonist save that he's "really strong and tough!" Brainiac, were he not all over cartoons and Smallville, would have been a decent choice. I think something else is called for. Metallo could be interesting, but if Raimi couldn't (after 2 huge blockbusters) twist enough arms to let him rely on Sandman for Spidey 3, I doubt the suits at WB will let Singer bring in such a third-string character as Metallo. The General could be an interesting choice, if Singer decided to go the "government fears super-beings" route a la X-Men United. Now Parasite - that's a villain that has REAL possibilities. I'd vote for Parasite, personally. Ultraman, were it not for the whole Crime Syndicate and alternate universe angle that might lose some audience members in confusion, would be a worthy foe. --- Really, though, I think Parasite or Metallo would be the best bet.
First HULK Teaser Trailer Online - Mar 12, 2008 - 01:03am
Add me to the list of fans of Ang Lee's Hulk. I LOVE that film. I had a blog awhile back http://www.mania.com/Merin/blog/261.html where I gave this list of overall best comic book movies: 1. V for Vendetta 2. Ghost World 3. X-Men 4. The Crow 5. Superman 6. 300 7. Sin City 8. Hulk 9. Batman: Mask of the Phantasm 10. Superman Returns I know that Superman Returns at #10 will turn people off probably more than Hulk at #8, but I thought I'd share. I don't have high hopes for this Hulk film yet. I need to see some footage.
Add me to the list of fans of Ang Lee's Hulk. I LOVE that film. I had a blog awhile back http://www.mania.com/Merin/blog/261.html where I gave this list of overall best comic book movies: 1. V for Vendetta 2. Ghost World 3. X-Men 4. The Crow 5. Superman 6. 300 7. Sin City 8. Hulk 9. Batman: Mask of the Phantasm 10. Superman Returns I know that Superman Returns at #10 will turn people off probably more than Hulk at #8, but I thought I'd share. I don't have high hopes for this Hulk film yet. I need to see some footage.
SUPERMAN Sequel Begins Script Phase - Mar 12, 2008 - 12:58am
I really like the "own up to it without making any apologies" line. And Singer goes up another notch in my estimation. That said - even if he directs it, I'm not paying money to see live-action Doomsday. F that.
I really like the "own up to it without making any apologies" line. And Singer goes up another notch in my estimation. That said - even if he directs it, I'm not paying money to see live-action Doomsday. F that.
Watching the Watchmen - Mar 12, 2008 - 12:56am
Blade, indeed, saved the genre and opened the door for X-Men, which opened the door for Spider-Man, which almost single-handedly saved Marvel from absolute bankruptcy (no, Quesada didn't do that - it was all Raimi and Maguire.) Blade deserves a lot of credit. Though an argument can be made that The Matrix had as much to do with the acceptance of super-hero comic book films as Blade. (Neither Blade nor Neo are really "super-heroes", but the former doesn't much feel like a comic book movie nor did the majority of the viewing audience know it was based on a comic - whereas even movie critics often referred to The Matrix as "like a comic book brought to the screen.") And Ben is absolutely, positively right - Mighty Avengers does suck. It sucks so bad that it makes most of the rest of Hack Bendis's work look great.
Blade, indeed, saved the genre and opened the door for X-Men, which opened the door for Spider-Man, which almost single-handedly saved Marvel from absolute bankruptcy (no, Quesada didn't do that - it was all Raimi and Maguire.) Blade deserves a lot of credit. Though an argument can be made that The Matrix had as much to do with the acceptance of super-hero comic book films as Blade. (Neither Blade nor Neo are really "super-heroes", but the former doesn't much feel like a comic book movie nor did the majority of the viewing audience know it was based on a comic - whereas even movie critics often referred to The Matrix as "like a comic book brought to the screen.") And Ben is absolutely, positively right - Mighty Avengers does suck. It sucks so bad that it makes most of the rest of Hack Bendis's work look great.
Lionsgate Joins Digital File Team with iPod - Mar 11, 2008 - 02:49pm
... Not exactly a step in the right direction here, Apple and Lionsgate. Not the right move at all.
... Not exactly a step in the right direction here, Apple and Lionsgate. Not the right move at all.
Mark Rolston Cuts Into SAW V - Mar 11, 2008 - 02:47pm
I guess I'm one of the few here who really enjoys the Saw movies.
I guess I'm one of the few here who really enjoys the Saw movies.
MUMMY Continues After Dragon Emperor? - Mar 11, 2008 - 02:44pm
Just sad that Rachel Weisz isn't back. I really like her.
Just sad that Rachel Weisz isn't back. I really like her.
AvP Sequel Talks Continue at Fox - Mar 10, 2008 - 03:26pm
#2 - Because Firefly had dismal ratings and Serenity did horrible box office. On a budget of $40 million, Serenity took in (worldwide) about $38 million. Despite Firefly and Serenity being AMAZINGLY GOOD, there is no financial basis to do another Serenity movie. Take heart - more Serenity comics are coming, and they are official cannon by Whedon. #3 - I personally liked AVP:R. You are not alone - though we are outnumbered.
#2 - Because Firefly had dismal ratings and Serenity did horrible box office. On a budget of $40 million, Serenity took in (worldwide) about $38 million. Despite Firefly and Serenity being AMAZINGLY GOOD, there is no financial basis to do another Serenity movie. Take heart - more Serenity comics are coming, and they are official cannon by Whedon. #3 - I personally liked AVP:R. You are not alone - though we are outnumbered.
Don't Believe the Hype - Mar 08, 2008 - 08:02am
I don't wish anyone death - although at one point somewhere I do think I mentioned I wanted Quesada tried for terrorism for what he's done to comics, tossed in Gitmo and treated to some of America's great "non-torture" interrogation techniques. An All-American ending.
I don't wish anyone death - although at one point somewhere I do think I mentioned I wanted Quesada tried for terrorism for what he's done to comics, tossed in Gitmo and treated to some of America's great "non-torture" interrogation techniques. An All-American ending.
Snyder Reveals WATCHMEN Characters - Mar 06, 2008 - 08:06am
Let me second the nomination of Snyder to do a restart of the X-Men. I'm there buying tickets the moment this happens.
Let me second the nomination of Snyder to do a restart of the X-Men. I'm there buying tickets the moment this happens.
SECRET INVASION SAGA #1 - Mar 06, 2008 - 08:04am
This Skrull "Secret Invasion" crap is just another way to crap on Marvel history. If, as Iron Man suggests, Black Bolt has been a Skrull infilitrator since the Kree-Skrull War, all stories with the Inhumans become at least somewhat tarnished. While I'd love to say that why Scott was such a dip under Morrison on forward (including the "falling for Emma" crap and creating the assassin group X-Force) is because he's a Skrull ... or why Doctor Strange can't detect the Skrulls and suddenly forgot what Chaos Magic is was due to him being a Skrull, that's just a cop-out. I think the only way I'll be happy is if I find out Bendis and Quesada are Skrulls - making them illegal aliens in this country, committing acts of terrorism on comic books in general, and for the one time in my life I'd put my principles aside and back the Bush-Cheney Administrations methods of deals with illegal alien terrorists.
This Skrull "Secret Invasion" crap is just another way to crap on Marvel history. If, as Iron Man suggests, Black Bolt has been a Skrull infilitrator since the Kree-Skrull War, all stories with the Inhumans become at least somewhat tarnished. While I'd love to say that why Scott was such a dip under Morrison on forward (including the "falling for Emma" crap and creating the assassin group X-Force) is because he's a Skrull ... or why Doctor Strange can't detect the Skrulls and suddenly forgot what Chaos Magic is was due to him being a Skrull, that's just a cop-out. I think the only way I'll be happy is if I find out Bendis and Quesada are Skrulls - making them illegal aliens in this country, committing acts of terrorism on comic books in general, and for the one time in my life I'd put my principles aside and back the Bush-Cheney Administrations methods of deals with illegal alien terrorists.
Don't Believe the Hype - Mar 05, 2008 - 04:28pm
Moore's writing does nothing for me, I'm sorry. I did enjoyed the first two series of LoEG, so I don't hate him as a rule, but his style doesn't work for me. I wanted to like Watchman and was excited when I started reading it. Dismiss my dislike of the book as "hating" if you like - my opinion is as valid as anyone elses - because you disagree doesn't make mine definable by a toss-away word like "hating." Dark Knight Returns had, IMO, crappy art, a plodding story, and overall was just dull. Frank Miller is another writer that just doesn't work for me. Note - I'm not saying either Miller nor Moore are not talented or creative - I recognize that - all I'm saying is their works, overall, leave me non-plussed. --- Don't get me started on Bendis. He's an ass. He's the biggest ass in comics. I think the only ego in comics that could match Bendis is Quesada himself. Mighty Avengers = unreadable crap. New Avengers = boring crap. Civil War, House of M, Avengers Disassembled = not all just Bendis, but part of the "shake-up" since he came in the door - all tearing apart books and characters I love Bendis's books are slow, unbelievably so. Nothing, and I mean NOTHING, happens in most of his Avengers books. He insults the work of those who came before him (Busiek's run on Avengers, for example - and I think Bendis has the worst understanding of Doctor Strange I have EVER read.) The guy is, IMO, an unqualified, over-hyped HACK. His stated purpose is to "piss off at least half his readers" or else he's "not doing his job right." Screw that. I have not read Ultimate Spider-Man. I am not a Spider-Man fan, and even JMS could only get me to read a couple issues before I was like "ugh, its Spidey, this is well written but I don't like the character." I am not a fan of the Ultimate line of comics, as a whole. I like the CONCEPT of the Ultimates lines, just none of the stories I've read. I've never read Powers. I'll assume that it was great stuff. I've never read his Daredevil, either, but I'll assume that was great stuff too. Just benefit of the doubt there. BIG BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT. Even granting those, everything I've read of Bendis's turns my stomach. I hate his characterization, his dialog, his extreme story decompression, his ideas. That enough reason for you, jedibanner? I don't see how this can be turned into a Bendis vs. Whedon fight. The two are not even in the same class. That'd be like trying to compare Mark Millar to JMS - no contest. One works inside the insular world of comic books, the other is successful in tv, movies and comics. No contest (either one.) Personal tastes aside (mine is that Whedon, 9 out of 10 times, creates gold.)
Moore's writing does nothing for me, I'm sorry. I did enjoyed the first two series of LoEG, so I don't hate him as a rule, but his style doesn't work for me. I wanted to like Watchman and was excited when I started reading it. Dismiss my dislike of the book as "hating" if you like - my opinion is as valid as anyone elses - because you disagree doesn't make mine definable by a toss-away word like "hating." Dark Knight Returns had, IMO, crappy art, a plodding story, and overall was just dull. Frank Miller is another writer that just doesn't work for me. Note - I'm not saying either Miller nor Moore are not talented or creative - I recognize that - all I'm saying is their works, overall, leave me non-plussed. --- Don't get me started on Bendis. He's an ass. He's the biggest ass in comics. I think the only ego in comics that could match Bendis is Quesada himself. Mighty Avengers = unreadable crap. New Avengers = boring crap. Civil War, House of M, Avengers Disassembled = not all just Bendis, but part of the "shake-up" since he came in the door - all tearing apart books and characters I love Bendis's books are slow, unbelievably so. Nothing, and I mean NOTHING, happens in most of his Avengers books. He insults the work of those who came before him (Busiek's run on Avengers, for example - and I think Bendis has the worst understanding of Doctor Strange I have EVER read.) The guy is, IMO, an unqualified, over-hyped HACK. His stated purpose is to "piss off at least half his readers" or else he's "not doing his job right." Screw that. I have not read Ultimate Spider-Man. I am not a Spider-Man fan, and even JMS could only get me to read a couple issues before I was like "ugh, its Spidey, this is well written but I don't like the character." I am not a fan of the Ultimate line of comics, as a whole. I like the CONCEPT of the Ultimates lines, just none of the stories I've read. I've never read Powers. I'll assume that it was great stuff. I've never read his Daredevil, either, but I'll assume that was great stuff too. Just benefit of the doubt there. BIG BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT. Even granting those, everything I've read of Bendis's turns my stomach. I hate his characterization, his dialog, his extreme story decompression, his ideas. That enough reason for you, jedibanner? I don't see how this can be turned into a Bendis vs. Whedon fight. The two are not even in the same class. That'd be like trying to compare Mark Millar to JMS - no contest. One works inside the insular world of comic books, the other is successful in tv, movies and comics. No contest (either one.) Personal tastes aside (mine is that Whedon, 9 out of 10 times, creates gold.)
Don't Believe the Hype - Mar 05, 2008 - 08:35am
Marvel can go spit. Other than a very few books (Thor, Hulk, and any Whedon book being the main ones) it has been in the crapper since Bendis came on board - Quesada deserves his share of blame, sure, and Millar has been a helping hand in the crap we've been fed. When a decent writer like Pak tries to weed his way through the morass that is Marvel continuity right now, it only partially succeeds (Planet Hulk was refreshing, WWHulk about as good as it could be having to take place in post-Civil War Marvel.) Seriously, my Marvel shelf in my comic store continues to shrink. To be fair, the DC shelf isn't growing - what's growing is manga, Archie of all things, and indie books (Buffy, Angel, PVP, and some Wildstorm (ok, that's DC technically.) But even my few customers are, outside of some Marvel Zombies, Thor, Hulk and Wolverine fans, not buying Marvel. I'm sure the national numbers are different, but that's my little anecdotal reference. I do have one good customer who buys all the X-books, but he's branching over to DC books right now and I'm sure that come the Final Crisis mini (which he's going to jump on) he'll make a big switch soon. My other 2 big customers (big = pulling over 20 books a month) are DC buyers. I agree with the gist of Kurt's column - though I'd only say that Maus deserves the recognition (Dark Knight Returns and Watchmen do nothing, absolutely nothing, for me.) I really do think the fun to be had from the big two is to either only buy certain runs of comics and treat them as isolated (read: not care about continuity outside that story arc / writer's run) or buy the books that exist outside the continuity (whether writers like Whedon's X-Men, or the Adventures line from Marvel - read: not care about continuity outside of the current story / writer's run.) I prefer "soap opera", myself, to episodic. I prefer continuing story with developing characters. But with the big two comic companies, they don't allow their characters to develop in any way that they won't get retconned back to status quo. It is sad that, at this point in my life where I'm selling the books that I'm finally getting jaded over how they are written.
Marvel can go spit. Other than a very few books (Thor, Hulk, and any Whedon book being the main ones) it has been in the crapper since Bendis came on board - Quesada deserves his share of blame, sure, and Millar has been a helping hand in the crap we've been fed. When a decent writer like Pak tries to weed his way through the morass that is Marvel continuity right now, it only partially succeeds (Planet Hulk was refreshing, WWHulk about as good as it could be having to take place in post-Civil War Marvel.) Seriously, my Marvel shelf in my comic store continues to shrink. To be fair, the DC shelf isn't growing - what's growing is manga, Archie of all things, and indie books (Buffy, Angel, PVP, and some Wildstorm (ok, that's DC technically.) But even my few customers are, outside of some Marvel Zombies, Thor, Hulk and Wolverine fans, not buying Marvel. I'm sure the national numbers are different, but that's my little anecdotal reference. I do have one good customer who buys all the X-books, but he's branching over to DC books right now and I'm sure that come the Final Crisis mini (which he's going to jump on) he'll make a big switch soon. My other 2 big customers (big = pulling over 20 books a month) are DC buyers. I agree with the gist of Kurt's column - though I'd only say that Maus deserves the recognition (Dark Knight Returns and Watchmen do nothing, absolutely nothing, for me.) I really do think the fun to be had from the big two is to either only buy certain runs of comics and treat them as isolated (read: not care about continuity outside that story arc / writer's run) or buy the books that exist outside the continuity (whether writers like Whedon's X-Men, or the Adventures line from Marvel - read: not care about continuity outside of the current story / writer's run.) I prefer "soap opera", myself, to episodic. I prefer continuing story with developing characters. But with the big two comic companies, they don't allow their characters to develop in any way that they won't get retconned back to status quo. It is sad that, at this point in my life where I'm selling the books that I'm finally getting jaded over how they are written.
LOST: The Constant - Mar 03, 2008 - 04:01pm
rgcthtiger, Season 1 had a good opening. Season 2 had a decent opening. I hated the first several episodes of Season 3, however, and the first episode of this season, so - I guess it's 50-50, to be fair.
rgcthtiger, Season 1 had a good opening. Season 2 had a decent opening. I hated the first several episodes of Season 3, however, and the first episode of this season, so - I guess it's 50-50, to be fair.
SEMI PRO Scores Small Victory - Mar 03, 2008 - 03:52pm
"Blades . . . . . of STEEL!" Yeah, that was fun stuff. :)
"Blades . . . . . of STEEL!" Yeah, that was fun stuff. :)
FAMILY GUY Spin-Off in the Works - Mar 03, 2008 - 09:13am
I just wanted to thank mlaforcer for the words of support. :) (and I find it odd that madmaniac999 hasn't jumped all over me with "sounding so superior" comments!)
I just wanted to thank mlaforcer for the words of support. :) (and I find it odd that madmaniac999 hasn't jumped all over me with "sounding so superior" comments!)
SEMI PRO Scores Small Victory - Mar 03, 2008 - 09:10am
I think Will Ferrel himself is a funn
I think Will Ferrel himself is a funn
And American Idol outperforms all other tv shows with the most viewers so it MUST be the best. DC has problems. But Marvel sucks. I'd write more, but I would guess it will come out unformatted or crawl off-screen, and my eyes are hurting from the colors already.