First look at live action Hiccup Horrendous Haddock & the leaked teaser trailer. Two things of note. First being obviously it's just a repeat of the first movie. Second is that they're hiding the supporting cast. Because they made Astrid black.

>>42136 (OP) >Creature Commandos The trailer looked interesting. >>42140 Seriously? HTTYD is not that old. How desperate are these companies for money?

>>42141 I wish it wasn't just Suicide Squad again. Gotta milk a successful franchise. Especially after the cheaper sequel streaming show failed spectacularly. I don't see this succeeding either when the much better movies exist. Unlike Percy Jackson where the original movies aren't very good but then the Disney+ show isn't exactly faithful either. Still those fans are much more desperate.

>>42141 They're doing a live action Moana remake, and that's even newer.

When has any of these live action adaptations actually broke bank?

>>42144 Aladdin & Lion King.

>>42144 Jungle Book. That's why they're doing all of them. >>42146 Didn't everyone hate Aladdin? There are also tons of other ones people forgot about entirely, like Cinderella, Beauty and the Beast, and even Pete's Dragon. Also, they did a live action Jungle Book in 1994 that I remember liking at the time, but nobody remembers that one, either.

>>42140 >Because they made Astrid black. Nico Parker is a mutt but anyway the live-action cast stink like crony mangling. Tuffnut will be cast by a fat woman. Now I want fat woman on a dragon jokes >>42147 >>42146 I don't think those Disney films count they got caught doing cooking the book at the time.

>>42147 India loved Aladdin. >>42148 A mutt is still not white. Ruffnut is also a travesty for being fat when she's a sticc.

>>42147 >That's why they're doing all of them. I thought the reason they made these remakes was so they could push them to replace the originals on streaming, letting them pay significantly less royalties.

>>42150 Don't they all just go on Disney+ anyway? I assume Disney doesn't have to pay royalties to put a movie they made in 1939 on their own streaming service.

>>42136 (OP) Moon Girl or COON Girl getting shitcanned because of one character becoming a tranny and the whole matrix considering her as a living mistake will unintentionally be the funniest fucking thing conceived by Nigflix.

I was tired of capeshit back in 2006 when it was mostly comic books and cartoons. When will it die?

>>42154 There were tons of capeshit movies in 2006. Superman Returns and X-Men 3 were two major ones that year. If you look back to the rest of the decade before that, the trend was already huge. Two X-Men movies, two Spider-Man movies, a Punisher movie (not counting the '80s one since it was before this boom), a Hulk movie (again not counting those TV movies since they were before the boom), a Fantastic Four movie, Catwoman, Batman Begins, Daredevil, Elektra, and I'm sure more I'm forgetting. Also Blade, but casuals didn't even realize Blade was Marvel, and just saw it as a cool action vampire movie. And that Man-Thing movie, but I don't think casuals even realized that existed. The point is, I hate when people act like the current boom started with Iron Man. Iron Man was just one more superhero movie among many. Nerds thought it was cool when the second Hulk movie (which casuals figured was a sequel) had a cameo to establish a shared universe. (The Spider-Man tv show that tied into the movies already had Michael Clark Duncan Kingpin to establish it as a shared universe with Daredevil.) But really it wasn't until Thor and Captain America, characters casuals wouldn't care about on their own or due to their stars (no RDJ comeback star-power) that they had to market more on the shared universe and promise of the upcoming Avengers movie and people really started to care about the MCU as a thing. The superhero movie boom started way earlier. And of course there were the Batman movies in the '80s and '90s and Superman movies in the '70s and '80s, but I won't say they started massive superhero movie booms. They had their own influence, but not specifically for making superhero adaptations, or at least not as many. Batman might have influenced things like The Crow, The Phantom, The Saint, and The Spirit (the movies. I know several of these characters predate Batman), but that's not quite the same as X-Men obviously directly influencing Spider-Man, Daredevil, Punisher, Fantastic Four, Ghost Rider, Iron Man, etc. >When will it die? It died after Endgame. Everything since is its rotting corpse. The HIV that was Captain Marvel became full-blown AIDS after Endgame.

>>42155 >It died after Endgame. Everything since is its rotting corpse. Come on anon, nobody gives a pig's shit about "when it died spiritually" cope, he's asking when it ENDS. No more movies being made. Finally actually dies and stops moving. Any less and it's still alive.

>>42157 Sony has someone actually made some money with Venom Last Dance despite the reviews & Kraven is on the way next. DC's rocky future is still up for debate. Marvel's on the way out with every flop. They can't survive on only occasional success like Deadpool & Wolverine.

>>42159 >>42157 The MCU is dying. Since Endgame there's been only a handful of movies that actually made money, most notably Guardians of the Galaxy 3 and Deadpool & Wolverine, both of which don't really offer much room for exploitation. Even Venom they capped it off with this last one, since the Sony Marvel Universe got effectively kneecapped by the monumental flop that was Morbius. Now Disney has the same with the Marvels, so there's not much gas in the tank for capeshit. Which it had a near thirty year run, so I think it can finally die now.

>>42160 The Marvels didn't even make money. They all opened the door for the multiverse which is Marvel's plan with or without Kang.

This is supposed to be live action Astrid. See any BIG differences?

>>42161 I meant to compare the Marvels to Morbius, but I can see I didn’t do a good job at making the connection.

>>42164 It's funny that even Morbius for all it's failures has a place in the public consciousness The Marvels does not.

>>42163 She doesn't look nigger to me (judging by her hand), but maybe that's just the lighting. Still, long hair brunette instead of short blond hair is odd.

>>42167 She's a mulatto. But they didn't even go through the trouble of actually giving her straight hair or dyeing it.

>>42157 >nobody gives a pig's shit about "when it died spiritually" cope, he's asking when it ENDS. No more movies being made. Finally actually dies and stops moving. Any less and it's still alive. Oh. Then the answer is "never." Even if things slow down even further, do you really think it will go to a lower level than we had in the '80s and '90s? I'd argue the boom started with X-Men, but there were Superman and Batman movies in a long chain for over 20 years before that. And I mentioned other Batman-esque films in the '90s that I bet people complaining would lump in with capeshit. They're gonna keep making Ninja Turtles movies forever. Are they capeshit? They're not gonna stop making Batman movies ever. So long as that continues, will we say that the capeshit trend has never died?

>>42157 >>42179

>>42157 >>42179 >>42160 Frankly, I'd be happy with "no more cinematic universe movies" and a return to the disconnected paradigm we had up until the 2000s. That's my definition of "the death of capeshit".

>>42181 I think it's a shame, because the comics they're adapting make a lot of good stories out of the characters living in a shared world. But these adaptations have fucked up so many times. Then again, I suppose the problem isn't the shared universe, it's that the people making the movies/shows/whatever just suck and want to make bad adaptations on the purpose because they hate the originals because SJWs just want to destroy everything that existed before them. I don't think getting rid of the shared universe will actually make the adaptations any better. I wish I could see a good adaptation of Crisis on Infinite Earths, but I no longer have much hope for that. In fact, I no longer have much hope for any good superhero movies anymore.

>>42136 (OP) >from Creature Commandos Wow, Grandpa Max, what the fuck?

Well that Snow White trailer with those CGI dwarves sure is a hell of a thing.

>>42295 This is literally Peter Dinklage's fault.

>>42295 Yeah, awful.

>>42296 I thought it was the Willow guy who had ruined things for his fellow dwarves.

>>42301 No.

Creature Commandos lost me immediately.

>>42296 I would wager that the gnomes are at fault for this.

>>42306 >>42308 Well the gnomes are always behind everything in the shadows.

Just so everyone can have full context. Also this show is the start of the DCU & it's already confusing in how they needlessly complicate what's canon. At least versions of the events of Peacemaker somehow are if I'm understanding this correctly.

>>42310 Starting a new cinematic universe with a cartoon series most people will probably not watch, is not a good start.

>>42310 How many DC universes are there already. Isn't it already enough?

>>42313 A lot, just by going though the comics alone, but even with TV series there is more than plenty, especially if you want to count really old stuff like Atom Man vs Superman from the 1950s or the Fleischer cartoons. If we go for things post 2000 that was either on TV, Theater or Direct to DVD then we have: >Smallville >Arrowverse >Nolanverse >Sniderverse >The new one with Superman and Creature Commandos <I don't know where The Batman even exists as a universe <I guess Watchman is also a DC universe now >Green Lantern universe >Superman Returns <This is a sequel to the first two Superman movies, but not III and IV As for cartoons: >The Justice League Cartoon <This also includes past shows, like Batman and Superman TAS, Batman Beyond and so on >Batman Brave and Bold >Beware the Batman >Some Batman show I probably forgot about <Not sure where all the animated movies fit in, some of them being Else-Worlds like Soviet Superman >Green Lantern: The Animated Series >Teen Titans Go! Honorable mention: >Arkhamverse These being the Batman Arkham games that culminated with the Suicide Squad killing Batman controlled by Brainiac Oh and there was also the Flash movie, that made references to the 90s Batman movie, a cancelled Superman movie from the 2000s with the giant spider, and I am sure I forgot some stuff.

>Helluva Boss >see the design for Satan >Looks like a shitty OC done by a highschooler This is probably the case lmfao >Doesn't remotely look like what he should or what he could >Lucifer & Satan are two different entities The fuck is this gay bullshit? I only watched it for Loona/octavia but they kept focusing on the worst possible aspects; Goes to show anything tumblr makes is garbage. Hopefully after S2 of HH Vivian gets mauled by a bear & they cancel it all. Both shows are about muh fadda & go nowhere. I watched S1 to near completion but dropped it. Haven't given a shit, but I realize these "shows" are genuinely terrible lmao In case you haven't seen satan's design I'll save you the trouble it's a four eyed dragon in casual clothing with a jacket that looks like a letterman's jacket.

>>42385 Lucifer and satan being two entities originates in judaism or some other abrahamic religion, I think. So it's not her idea. But satan does look goofy, I get the dragon idea that's a common design used in apocalyptic art pieces. But really? A cowboy-punker? That's just stupidly cheesey like 1990s cheesey. Also based tasyes for liking octavia

Secret Level, those animations from Amazon are out. Not really worth watching to be honest. The 40k one will probably get a meme or two outta it but that's it.

>>42385 >Lucifer & Satan are two different entities >The fuck is this gay bullshit? First time? Vivzie is not respectful to nor knowledgeable of actual biblical text. Even the extra stuff she pulls from like Dante's Inferno or the Ars Goetia doesn't get proper treatment. She also broke her own lore & had to make an excuse for it.

>>42388 I thought that was the case in the old testament or at least it was the title of any entity (most likely a demon) donning the title to torment mankind.

>>42389 No, read the Enochian texts.

>>42389 It's not canonically clear. Lucifer comes from the word for morningstar that was referring to a king as an insult. It was adopted by Paradise Lost I believe as the devil's angelic name. Whereas Satan came from the hebrew word for adversary & noncanonical text like the book of Enoch saying the fallen angel's name was Satanael.

>>42391 No the enochian texts are canonical, the catholic church just didn't want people summoning demons. The coptic church never stopped using it, and it is from them that the text has survived til today, a partial copy found with the dead sea scrolls verifies its age, and the current content.

>>42392 The new testament book of Jude quotes from it directly also.

>>42392 No they're not canonical. Canon means being officially recognized & in the official bible. The book of Enoch is not. It just leaves out explanations for things like the flood & giants that are canon.

>>42394 But it is, just not the catholic church. You know theres other churches right?

>>42395 Yes there's other sects. That doesn't make it canon if one sect considers it. Catholics & protestants by & large don't. Most bibles will not include it.

>>42396 That still doesn't make it non canon, as you said that word has a meaning, and enoch fulfills it. Appealing to popularity is a argumental fallacy, you are reaching, instead of just admitting you are wrong. Why?

>>42397 The council that decided biblical canon did not approve. Modern biblical scholars do not approve it. That means it's not canon. You can choose to believe it's canon but OFFICIALLY it is not.

>>42398 Nicea? Uh, yeah they did. And some modern biblical scholars believe it is divinely inspired and canon. Again appealing to popularity is not how you argue, people agreeing with you doesn't make you correct. Facts do. And OFFICIALLY in the Coptic Orthodox Church (founded 42 AD) It is. Why you being weird about this dude? If your a believing Catholic, or one of its breakaway sects (Protestant) than you believe it is non canon. Thats a statement of faith based on the teachings of your specific denomination. Not a universal truth, representing it as a universal truth, is a fallacy. Do you understand? Cuz im losing my patience tbh bro

>>42399 Where are you getting that from? By your logic, when was it NOT considered canon after then? If you believe in the bible then you have to believe it as universal truth. And I have no idea where you get the idea it is or ever was considered largely canon. You're acting like a hipster who's going against the grain on what's "popular". Nowhere officially in most bibles nor major modern sects of Christianity is Enoch canon. If you want to tell me otherwise then by all means provide sources but to me right now it sounds like you're just coping for no reason.

>>42400 No, I am attempting to correct your bad theology, and in the process your logical fallacy when it comes to arguing. The Enochian texts are not considered CATHOLIC canon, and as such were repressed by that church somewhere around 1400ad exact date is hard to specify. You can say "these aren't catholic canon" and I wouldnt not argue with you, because that is a correct theological statement. However that is not what you said. As for sources, on what the existence of Churches besides the one in Rome? Yeah thats, ridiculously easy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coptic_Orthodox_Church Enjoy I guess.

>>42401 They only recognized FIRST enoch dude. No one has ever considered second or third enoch to be canon. Stop busting peoples balls in a comic thread, and go back to your designated containment board >>>/fringe/

>>42401 >>42402 My brother in Christ this isn't a debate class. There is no argument. You just admitted the Enoch texts are not Catholic canon. The catholic church was established first. Ergo it is not canon text. There end of discussion. You're the only one being anal about this for no reason.

>>42403 Well the coptic church was founded in 42 AD, and Peter didn't claim to be pope until at best guess 56 AD. Soooo no, you're wrong.

>>42400 >Nowhere officially in most bibles nor major modern sects of Christianity is Enoch canon. Technically, not true. Enoch is considered canon according to the Ethiopian and Eritrean Orthodox Tewahedo Church. But nowhere else, that's it. Not according to the Protestants, the Catholics, the Orthodox, or any other denomination or communion. It's only those two specific sects that consider Enoch to be canon to the New Testament.

>>42403 Please ignore him, he's a schizo who's been trying to summon demons on /fringe/ for the past year. He's obsessed with Enoch. Do not engage, report to your local board owner. I'm sorry brother.

>>42405 Thats the best kind of true, technically true! >>42406 Nigger you're the first person I'm gonna curse when I figure out Solomon's uncorrupted pre-Renphan seal.

>>42407 Curses aren't real and you can't summon demons regardless of how "canon" your books are.

>>42409 Curses aren't real, but your faggotry is pretty real

>>42405 Canon to 2 small sects is not the same as wide Christian canon. It's like when people say "Oh this is canon because of this comic" even though it's an AU story.

I have nothing to add then this thing

>>42385 >muh fadda I don't know this newfangled slang. >>42386 >1990s cheesey. Sounds great compared to other modern shit. Helluvaboss has been okay so far to me. I think the last episode I saw was the one with the party maybe? It's been a while. Octavia a cute though. Too bad about Loona lusting after that nigger though. And of course, her syphilis.

>>42136 (OP) Beware my fellow comic fans, there's a wrongthinker on the loose: https://yewtu.be/watch?v=bme5ltOS45s You'd be surprised the amount of numales shitting their pants in rage because the ginger straight out named the (((marxist))) instead of doing hoops and loops on what went wrong with DC and Marvel. >>42310 Fucking hell, if you didn't tell it was another shitty TimeWarner cartoon I would've assumed it was another million dollar original piece of shit with "subtle" leftwing ideals produced by Nigflix. Of course le ebil skeptics didn't bring up the question that'd make any dyke get their panties in a twist being: >If you're so feminist? Then build a house without the help of men and work yourself to death hauling heavy furniture

>>42391 According to the few guys who bothered to read the whole bible realized that the Devil or Lucifer are not real characters and the humanoid creature with horns is just an uncanny bible character, so far the closest thing to Satan is the talking snake and the guy convincing Christ into ditching humanity.

>>42298 >snow tan and the seven AI abominations I'm morbidly curious what they're going to do about the true love's kiss.

>>42549 I like how the guy making the reaction video is really upset but the closest thing to an argument he can come up with is "it's only race swaps, you can't have a DC movie without race swaps". >unpauses video he's reacting to >the first thing that plays is a quote from the show about privileged white assholes <starts backpedaling That made me kek

>>42577 And remember: You're a moron for falling in line under the good word of multiculturalism: https://yewtu.be/watch?v=DaIux7Ab4vA This became the perfect example on how faggots can't argue for shit on why he's wrongthinking: >Ginger shouts the "retard" slur <Reactcuck responds with: That was stupid, u so stupid and racist Quite hilarious how the commentary section are bashing each other heads over the fact that capeshit has undeniable became printed propaganda whose editorials are sinking down in a downwards spiral.

Teaser trailer for James Gunn's Superman. Besides obviously Superman, we get to see Krypto, Guy Gardner, Hawkgirl, Metamorpho, & Mr. Terrific. Lex Luthor obviously as well. And a kaiju that looks like a giant armored axolotl.

>>42136 (OP) >This is Jack Kirby's legacy, folks. 30+ years past his death and they still vandalize his greatest works. At the very least Stan met his punishment at the hands of his own daughter. How will the people responsible for the total mutilation of capeshit atone for their crimes? >inb4 collapse of american comics, animation, and media industries for AI As satisfying as it would be i feel they deserve worse than that.

>>42306 why anyone continues to give either DC or Marvel chances is beyond me. Mark my words Gunn's shared universe will be a disasterous dumpster fire that bombs on arrival, all signs point us in that direction already. also, fuck balak and bobbypills for their involvement in this mess

>>42163 i pray both this and the stitch remakes bomb legendarily and bring an immediate end to live action cartoon remakes in their entirety. anyone that supports either of these deserves to be disappointed.

>>42586 >See the hair Is the actor playing Clark a Kike? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Corenswet <His father, John Corenswet, was from a prominent Jewish family in New Orleans

This is from the new Superman movie trailer.

>>42612 One shot by Shaggy. F to a real one.

We need to destroy DC.

>>42590 Do any of you managed to obtain Stan Lee's blood signature comics?

>>42626 Who's more responsible for killing whatever's left of her dignity here? I'm guessing the writer's more to blame here, but that's because I've seen too many cases of women shoving in their shit fetishes where they don't belong.

>>42629 What if Harley got killed just to appease the necrophiliacs? Superhero comics to this day are still shoving fetishes, the current team being no exception.

>>42629 Whoever's in charge of DC themselves. It's not just WB mandating more Harley. DC has been doing it since New 52.

>>42627 not me but I'd love to hear from any anon who did. you have to love the karmic justice that led to stan getting his comeuppance at the hand of his greedy wine aunt spinster daughter

I'm sick of nerds complaining that "muh comic adaptations are afraid of being le wacky and cartoony" when Speed Racer did exactly that but everyone hated it and wouldn't shut the fuck up about it.

>>42689 Because it looked weird & could've just been fully CGI. There's zero reason to have real actors in an entirely CGI world.

>>42689 I rather just see more (good) animated capeshit projects embrace that side of things. At this point Im not a fan of any of the live action cape stuff that comes out, and I much preferred when the older adaption attempts would take some creative license in telling these stories.

>>42689 >when Speed Racer did exactly that but everyone hated it and wouldn't shut the fuck up about it. Speed Racer is a great movie, when you cut out everything having to do with Spritle and Chim-Chim. Such as them acting out the bad TV show, or them terrorizing security at Royalton, or them even halting the climax of the movie for a "Cooties" warning. Cut those three segments out and the film is 10 times better. >>42690 >There's zero reason to have real actors in an entirely CGI world. Said by someone who has never watch Sky Captain And The World Of Tomorrow. >>42692 I feel like live-action capeshit films "peaked" with the original Iron Man and The Incredible Hulk films back in 2008, with the Rami Spoder-Man trilogy and the Nolan Batham trilogy fighting for a close second.

>>42695 No one's seen Sky Captain.

>>42695 > I feel like live-action capeshit films "peaked" with the original Iron Man and The Incredible Hulk films back in 2008, with the Rami Spoder-Man trilogy and the Nolan Batman trilogy fighting for a close second It's always up for debate when live action capeshit peaked. For me it was the double whammy of DOFP and Logan. The older I've become the more disillusioned I've grown with the MCU overall. That first Iron Man was a favorite of mine for years, but now that it carries the baggage of over a dozen shittier movies, I've come to resent it. Meanwhile the FoX-men and Jackman, for all their fumbles, managed to deliver a solid conclusion to their handle with their characters. Really we could have ended the series with DOFP and I would have been perfectly content. Logan almost acts like a desert following a great full course meal. The only other capeshit series to manage that was Raimi's Spiderman. Even Bale's Batman kind of struggled to stick the landing (and I say as much as one of the unironic few fans TDKR has). That said, there's alot of overlooked titles I still appreciate now. But part of me knows nothing will ever come close to those heights again. The only reason I kept routing for Sony's disaster of a non-spiderman cinematic universe was in the hopes that we could land a modern day sleeper hit in the vein of Blade. I could talk your ear off with the autistic ideas that have crossed my mind in the last few years as capeflicks became worse and worse.

>>42696 This. It's fallen into the same memory hole that consumed the likes of Billy Zane's Phantom, Beatty's Dick Tracy, Neeson's Darkman, and Baldwin's Shadow along with many others. They're all too niche to land with normalfag audiences who dont "get it". The 2000's was the last time we could have fun with alot of genre films like it.

>>42706 At least Darkman has minor relevance through Sam Raimi's name. People didn't appreciate Dick Tracy like they should've.

>>42626 I didn't even notice the subtle farting shit, I was too distracted by the tumblr artstyle.

>>42721 You need to stop with these random unrelated images in your posts. It makes you look like a schizo.

>>42712 these days it seems like alot of raimi's other films have been completely obscured by the popularity of his spiderman trilogy and evil dead/aod. hell thr average person probably wouldnt recognize darkman, let alone MANTIS. >People didn't appreciate Dick Tracy like they should've. Sadly, yes. Sadder still is knowing what the Disney suits were aiming for. It's evident they wanted their own capeshit pantheon for years before acquiring Marvel. All through out the turn of the millenium, they were so fixated on grabbing the boys' demo by the horns. That's why they made Gargoyles and acquired Powr Rangers for a time. But my personal theory is they wanted to establish their own pantheon of classic heroes. Thats why they adapted Rocketeer and Dick Tracy to begin with. Then they kept trying with Hercules, Tarzan, Treasure Planet, and ultimately Atlantis before throwing in the towel. John Carter, Tron Legacy, and Lone Ranger were the last gasps of that effort before they just bought out everything under the sun. It's frustrating because I still want to see that realized. A boy's equivalent to the disney princesses in a way. These days I suppose that's exactly what capeshit has become, but there's nothing that feels like "classic americana" about the stuff we get now.

>>42626 I've been looking at the artists' other art and it reminds me of certain inflation porn comic artists. Those who know know

>>42737 > they were so fixated on grabbing the boys' demo by the horns. Hilariously they bought out Marvel and Star Wars to own the boy market only to immediately turn SW into a girlboss thing and Marvel into the same after Thanos dies. I can't decide if it's hubris or nigh malicious incompetence. Like imaging being known as the people who completely destroyed the brand and the fandom of a phenomenon like Star Wars. It's a wonder that everyone involved hasn't been fired and made pariahs in the entire industry.

>>42626 Dreamworks for pseudo-adults

>>42737 >These days I suppose that's exactly what capeshit has become, but there's nothing that feels like "classic americana" about the stuff we get now. It feels like a lot of the "Americana" entertainment from the 80's onward mostly has to do with the military. I think the most recent example of a "true" Americana film was in 2010 with Unstoppable and The A-Team movie

>>42742 Im all too aware. It seems like its just the company culture at disney to set everything on fire. just think, the company just got gayer from the 80's onward. the few instances where we got actual kino all seem like happy accidents in retrospect. Speaking of which, in the case of SW and Marvel, it was both. We know as much just from looking at the people responsible for the decisions made in the last decade. that bull dyke that worked for marvel who decided to push the ANAD cast into the movies and the wicked witch of the west coast in kathleen kennedy. And the worst part is they both got away with it. Neither will see any repercussion. None of the cunts responsible for the total destruction of american culture will. I see people all over the net discussing the harley brap comic and all I have to say is it feels like the final nail in the coffin for the genre. the quiet whimper that a flailing sinking medium makes before falling out of vogue forever more. alot of the last few years worth of releases leave me with that feeling in all honesty. my hope now is that someone else shares my interests enough to rekindle that passion, but I wont hold my breath.

>>42752 movies really abandoned the notion of being escapism past 2010 didnt they? it's depressing really, but it also highlights why certain titles stood the test of time releasing when they did. you look back on christian bale batman and raimi spiderman now and you largely cant even recall they saw release between 9/11, the war on terror, and two bush jr presidencies.

>>42763 No TDK trilogy becomes obvious when everything is based on rejected military prototype tech instead of actual Batman shit.

>>42712 >Dick Tracy like they should've The Dick Tracey movie definitely launched at the worst time possible, not only trying to compete with Tim Burton's Batman but also rivalizing the other box office insta-cult classic from the same company: Roger Rabbit in which also had a detective protagonist located within an absurd universe and the 70's cartoon didn't help by infantizing the shit out of its original premise and throwing out of the window the outcome of Dick Tracy straight out killing the flavor of the month villain.

>>42774 If all his villains were dead then you couldn't get the visuals of bringing them to life. There's also something ironic about live action Dick Tracy not being a killer but live action Batman for the time was.

>>42762 >(Disney) just got gayer from the '80s onward. Which just so happens to be when the Disney family lost control and the company got taken over by execs from other movie companies, who immediately started changing films to be political, such as having Beauty and the Beast be re-written to make Belle more feminist. But I'm sure this is all pure (((coincidence.))) But capeshit charaters will begin to become public domain in the next few years. Everyone stopped caring about Mickey Mouse as anything more than a logo decades ago, but people still sort of care about Superman, and Batman will become public domain a year later. Then you'll be allowed to make your own Batman stories. You'll have to be careful to not use elements that aren't public domain yet, but it's an improvement. >>42763 At the time, critics said The Dark Knight was an allegory for The War on Terror, with Batman having to use unethical mass surveillance technology to spy on everybody so that he could save them from The Joker. They then argued that The Dark Knight Rises was an allegory for Occupy Wall Street, with Bane riling up riots with rhetoric against the rich, going into the stock exchange and all that. I've also heard people try to say that Spider-Man always having some scene where the citizens of New York show their support for him against the bad guy was a reaction to 9/11, but I'm skeptical about that since really that's just the logical conclusion of the character arc and conflict, where The Green Goblin tells Spidey that they should join forces because the people will turn against him anyway. And then in Spider-Man 2 there's the whole thing where he doesn't want to be Spidey anymore. Of course, this is all a far cry from just explicitly having characters rant out their politics, or having characters do evil or unlikable things but expecting the audience to like it because said characters have vaginas or excess melanin.

>>42306 James gunn is a hack and I've been saying this since I first saw any of his work, too many people are too willing to let things slip just for the sake of being, "not so cynical"

>>42385 >Lucifer & Satan are two different entities HaSatan exists as a separate entity from the general title of Satan in Judaism. His name translates to "adversary" or "accuser", and his job in Job is given by God. The title Satan is used repeatedly in the OT to refer to accusers and adversaries. In the NT, Jesus says he saw Satan fall from Heaven like lightening, but that could easily mean that God will no longer bother testing the Israelites or any other group now that Jesus has arrived or that Satan will need a bigger role to be a constant test for the Jews now that they had Jesus to give them a clear path to Heaven and the world was clear for them as their prior opponents had been defeated through persistence with the OT or soon would be with the NT. This character was then mangled into the Devil by mistranslation. Lucifer is a long mangled version of a historically positive phrase used in Judaism, Morning Star, and was first used negatively in Isaiah to ironically accuse the king of Babylon who had fallen out of favor with God. Extrabiblical texts like the Apocalypse of Moses and Book of Enoch and pagan influences like Venus in Roman mythology and Milton's Paradise Lost twisted this into the modern figure of Lucifer. Not only this, but Jesus is equated to Lucifer, a Morning Star, in Peter. In Revelations, Jesus calls himself Lucifer and says he will give Lucifer to whoever is victorious and fights for him to the death. Lucifer is used to refer to angels more than once as well. Ironically, the fall and war in heaven are themselves extrabiblical. They are never mentioned in the Bible and are creations of the same things which made the character Lucifer. The idea of a semi-powerful evil being made by God who could challenge him, despite his omnipotence and absolute power, for dominance in Judaism and its derived religions is an invention. If the Bible is to be interpreted literally, without extrabiblical texts other than studies such as midrash, God has no great singular enemy, but rather competing forces which exist to tempt humanity away from him, a constant shit test unless it's to be believed that other religions have some rightness to them or that failing the shit test could yield a positive outcome, which is made clear as not the case since both testaments make it abundant that the only way to be happy is to become Jewish (OT) or accept Christ's contract (NT) once you know about either. Of course, Vivzie doesn't consider these things. She wants the alternative interpretation of Satan/Lucifer dualism which has been popular with witches, pagans, and gnostics for centuries. There are plenty of things that can be done with that, but she doesn't want to do anything unique. >>42626 Brapfags destroy DC.

>>42828 >and Book of Enoch <Stopped reading there NO ONE considereds Enoch to be canon, for the same reason NO ONE considers the Book of Thomas to be canon.

>>42829 He specifically referred to it as "extrabiblical," which is the same as saying it's non-canon. You're getting triggered after being given a trigger warning.

>>42826 >Here's your mature and thought provoking cartoon, bro >>42828 >Brapfags destroy DC. Considering it's run by jews, that means they snuck in another fetish besides farts: Masochism, because of the gas chambers.

>>42845 >retards will still defend gunn despite all those photos existing and all the creepy pedophillic jokes he made on twitter >retards will still insist he'll save DC it's all so tiring.

>>42809 Before I properly address your reply I just want to thank you for mentioning so many important points. The gradual decline of disney (and american pop culture overall) is something that few can see and even fewer can mention. It feels practically verboten to acknowledge that underlying rot even now but it's certainly worth highlighting. Ultimately it was unavoidable sadly. With walt dying when he did, the company being handed down to his idiot son in law, and all his children (all adoptive, none blood related) inheriting his empire only to grow up to be spoiled entitled rich californians there was no hope for a brighter future. I fear the same fate will eventually befall seuss's legacy (but one could argue it already has) and the cases of bill waterson or even the tolkiens are much more timely and worrying. Either way the damage is done, I just pray the company's ultimate demise comes sooner rather than later. I've had my fill of seeing beloved series set ablaze by the usual suspects. Having said as much everything I just mentioned brings me to the topic of the public domain. Something which I've considered starting a thread about ever since first showing up here. With regards to capeshit I suspect even big names like Batman, Superman, the justice society, etc lapsing wont do much to move the needle. The likes of Plastic Man and the other Quality comics heroes, Captain Marvel along with the rest of the Fawcett pantheon, and nearly the entirety of Charlton's Action Heroes line up along with many other big name character libraries have been in the public domain for decades now but little has been done with them. That isnt to say nothing's been done with them (we have dynamite's project superpowers and ac comics' femforce among other love letter titles to celebrate) , but even those works are very niche. Capeshit as it stands currently is on already thin ice. After all the abuse hollywood has subjected the genre to my greatest fear is that it can never recover. So by the time the likes of Captain America, Superman, and Batman all begin to lapse they'll be seen as old hat anyways, and the shrinking niche of diehard fans will be the only ones bothering to make fan works with these characters will weebshit continues to dominate. It really seems as though the medium is past the point of no return now, but I could just be paranoid. FWIW I have my own payload of needlessly complex and overly-involved ideas for many of these characters but Im a novice hack with no experience in publishing to get my stories or work out there. >Baleman War on Terror allegories, Raimi Spiderman 9-11 I can see how obnoxious film critics could make those leaps but those movies still feel especially divorced from the real world events they premired alongside, atleast to me. The most tangible connection that could be made is with Hardy's Bane and Occupy Wall Street, but even Ledger's Joker kind of scratched that itch before he did. Even the military gear point some anons have mentioned previously comes off as a little farfetched when you take into consideration just how much gadgets are baked into the batman mythos. He's a billionaire waging a war on crime. It just makes sense for a blockbuster batman to go all in on a riot cop angle at that point. As for Raimi-Man, at a certain point it seemed nigh impossible to escape 9-11 imagery. Even with sony cutting the twin towers out of the trailers and final cut of the movie, considering what a traumatizing event it was, it was going to remain in people's minds regardless. Maybe it was just the right time for that sort of a movie too. That might also be why Superman Returns ended up sucking so hard despite looking so right for the time. People wanted that "everythingzxs going to be alright" feeling from their escapist entertainment, and returns delivered super-NTR with a side of plane-lifting and kryptonite island tossing.

>>42846 I always found it strange how much publicity there was about Gunn when the only thing that he did that was successful was the Sooby Doo movies. >>42847 > People wanted that "everythingzxs going to be alright" feeling from their escapist entertainment, and returns delivered super-NTR with a side of plane-lifting and kryptonite island tossing. Wasn't that the message of Spoder-Man 2? Also I thought Supes Returns flopped because all the media could talk about was how the actor and director were literally gay for each other, and it was so progressive to have a Gay Superman.

>>42852 to this day Im insistent in my belief that his scooby doo duology are the only good films he's ever made. I hate everything else he's ever put out. more over I'll never grasp the appeal of his GOTG films and consider them some of the worst of the pre-endgame era of MCU films (which is saying alot considering the number of stinkers they had back then). >Wasn't that the message of Spoder-Man 2? Yes. That's why I made the connection there. It's one of the many reasons I find that the raimi trilogy has aged so well. As for superman returns, i think it's just riddled with a number of problems. Moody Supermen just dont sell well. Leaning on the Reeves legacy didnt help the film either, it ended up feeling more convoluted. Now it's got all the Singer baggage. Its a shame because I still think it had the coolest superman costume.

>>42853 >more over I'll never grasp the appeal of his GOTG films It's basically Marvel's equivalent of Firefly.

>>42742 >I can't decide if it's hubris or nigh malicious incompetence Considering the triggerwoman for it, Kathleen Kennedy, and how she sabotaged the few actually-successful "successful with normalfags" projects like The Mandalorian because of womanly spite? Both. The ideologues want to be hailed as the new face of quality, they truly do, but cannot accept that a demographic (white males) that their college indoctrination has conditioned them to consider the devil is a large fraction. Put another way, they feel entitled to success. If only they acknowledged their privilege and bought the slop to atone for their crime of being born better than Tyrone, rather than having the gall to have self-respect in the face of insults and lambast them for having no respect for anyone before they took the helm.

>>42306 >>42825 Its funny because people used to say he was "true to the source material" when he changes shit all the time.

>>42861 He wasn't even true to the source for anything Guardians of the Galaxy. At most just had references to comic material but everything was a reinvention character, looks, & importance wise.

>>42853 >>42856 Also Boomer Tune soundtrack, you have no idea how many older people went to see them because it had songs they recognized.

>>42762 >quiet whimper In that case should be more like a fart in the wind

>>42846 A clear case of indoctrinated faggots who'll defend anyone as long they're spewing the same ideals as (((them))), Neil Gaiman must be so jealous after getting caught sexually assaulting his fans. >>42852 >did that was successful was the Sooby Doo movies. He also wrote Chainsaw Lollipop

The new "Your Friendly Neighborhood Spider-Man" trailer

>>42876 Couldn't make it all the way through because of all the rap.

>>42847 >I fear the same fate will eventually befall seuss's legacy (but one could argue it already has) Seuss was adamant about merchandising his work. He allowed some adaptations, but not merch. Now The Lorax sells cars. >or even the tolkiens JRR Tolkien raised an incredibly devoted son in Chrisopher. That man dedicated his entire life to his father's work. Then like one day after he died, his heirs signed off on letting Amazon make The Rings of Power. It's not a coincidence. He was vocal about even the Jackson films, and obviously would not allow the blatant and literal sacrilege that Amazon put out. They literally were waiting for him to die, just like how Amy Pascal was waiting for Harold Raimis to die so she could do her feminist Ghostbusters movie. >The likes of Plastic Man and the other Quality comics heroes, Captain Marvel along with the rest of the Fawcett pantheon, and nearly the entirety of Charlton's Action Heroes line up along with many other big name character libraries have been in the public domain for decades now but little has been done with them. That's because, while you could make the legal case that they are public domain, Warner Bros. disagrees with you. You might win, but do you have the money to fight Warner Bros. in court? Plus, while some of those characters are among my favorites, casuals just want Batman stories. The sad thing is that the hardcore nerds are usually so nerdy that they would want to use elements from all throughout the character's history, meaning many elements that won't be public domain for a long time. Soon we can use Superman, then Batman, then Robin, Joker, and Catwoman, but Nightwing? Jason Todd? Tim Drake? Gonna be a while before those things are public domain. Still, once the public domain opens up, it will allow at least some competition. Once WB and Disney have to compete, once audiences are allowed to see that pretty much anyone can write a better Batman story, hopefully it encourages WB to just hire the people who want to write a better Batman story, instead of the ones who just want to destroy Batman because he represents white males or whatever. >Batman war on terror I could almost be convinced of it. Almost. Batman literally spies on everyone's cell phones in order to save the day. Lucius Fox explicitly calls him out on it and the movie specifically makes a moral quandary out of it. But then Batman uses the tool to save the day and destroys it. Don't worry, guys. The Patriot Act will go away once we beat the terrorists. And Bane doing Occupy Wall Street is honestly quite explicit. >>42852 >>42872 >I always found it strange how much publicity there was about Gunn when the only thing that he did that was successful was the Sooby Doo movies. You guys never heard of Guardians of the Galaxy? I also think the guy is massively overrated, but those two movies are why. Not that I'll watch any of his movies ever again. He supports blacklisting people like Roseanne, so I'll support blacklisting him. He also won't stop putting his cringey politics in shit. I don't need a show about The Creature Commandos to open with a bit about incels hating Wonder Woman or whatever. He doesn't want nerds to watch his superhero movies? Deal. Wasn't that the message of Spoder-Man 2? Also I thought Supes Returns flopped because all the media could talk about was how the actor and director were literally gay for each other, and it was so progressive to have a Gay Superman. I never heard about that at the time. Brandon Routh is married and I never heard rumors he was gay. However, at the time it was a big deal that Superman Returns was the most expensive movie ever made due to about 15 years in development hell, including paying Tim Burton ludicrous amounts of money only to not actually have him make the movie. Kevin Smith was already after making the story famous before Superman Returns was actually being filmed, and there was the whole thing with Nic Cage at one point being Superman. People these days don't put it together, but that was technically the movie that became Superman Returns, which resulted in it costing like $600 million on paper, which was absurd at the time. And once a movie becomes known as a Waterworld-tier overbudget mess, it's usually hard to make that movie succeed. The whole discussion becomes about how it's so expensive, but that money isn't even on the screen. And then the movie needs to make like a billion 2006 dollars just to break even. Yeah right. Plus, the movie is about Superman cucking Cyclops. Probably not the most appealing plot for most audiences. >>42853 >the pre-endgame era of MCU films (which is saying alot considering the number of stinkers they had back then). This phrasing implies they had more stinkers then than now. I'm sure that's not what you meant.

>>42847 >>42880 As far as public domain characters, there's already everything from John Carter to Zorro. We don't need DC and Marvel when we already have their predecessors. >You guys never heard of Guardians of the Galaxy? I meant even prior to Guardians.

>>42881 Yeah but most of those characters stopped being relevant to the public a while before they entered the public domain. I think Batman will be the first one that is still actually a major media property that casuals love at the time that it enters the public domain. Note that while I personally fucking love Superman, I think casuals haven't really given a fuck about him since the '80s. Yeah, WB keeps pushing movies and TV shows, but we all know casuals don't care much. It's Batman they really care about. Let's see how hard WB sabotages Batman in the next decade, before anyone else is allowed to use him.

>>42882 >most of those characters stopped being relevant to the public So? You could revive them for a "new generation" and make them cool and popular again. There's a reason why Pedowood keeps cycling films about or an adaptation of Robin Hood, Tarzan, King Arthur, Snow White, Sherlock Holmes, Treasure Island, A Christmas Carol, Hamlet, Frankenstein, etc. >Note that while I personally fucking love Superman, I think casuals haven't really given a fuck about him since the '80s. I'm more interested in a series about Clark Kent, reporter for the Daily Planet. And, no, I'm not watching Smallville. >It's Batman they really care about. Funnily enough, I don't think normalfags have given as much of a damn about Batman for the past decade as other people think. After the thrilling conclusions provided in TDKR and Arkham Knight, it seems interest in him just died out. Not to mention the then-decade old DCAU already being concluded. The only really "popular" thing that people can point to since is how much of a hit Joker was, but even that was a Batman film without Batman. You can argue how "successful" BVS and The Batman are, but they still pale in comparison to the Nolan trilogy that made over a billion in 2008/2012.

>>42880 >Goyim of the Gaylaxy Didn't the first one have mixed reviews because it took a huge shit on the source? But then not many remember their appearance in Marvel vs Capcom.

>>42883 >>42883 >So? You could revive them for a "new generation" and make them cool and popular again. Go ahead and try. Disney's tried plenty of times, such as about a decade ago with John Carter and The Lone Ranger. Now, regardless of how you feel those attempts were mismanaged, the point is that it's harder than a property that is still currently hot. >I'm more interested in a series about Clark Kent, reporter for the Daily Planet. And, no, I'm not watching Smallville. Smallville isn't about that anyway. Well, it sort of becomes about that in the last two seasons, after the show jumped the shark. But honestly I think it became better after it jumped the shark. It gets pretty good in those last two seasons. But either way, just go watch Lois & Clark: The New Adventures of Superman. But personally I really love Smallville and do recommend it. It drags in Seasons 4-8, but 1-3 are a good family sci-fi show, and 9-10 are actually good DC autism. 4-8 still have their moments, too, but admittedly it gets dragged down by too much teen drama. >I don't think normalfags have given as much of a damn about Batman for the past decade as other people think. Interesting thought. Maybe Batman isn't as big as he was just over ten years ago, but I think normalfags still care quite a bit. Those Afleck and Pattinson movies were shit, but normalfags seemed to not say Afleck was the reason they were bad, and they seem to like the Pattinson movie.

>>42880 Regarding the seuss and tolkien situations, I've always thought the only real way to win in these battles of copyright would be not playing the game at all. If I was a creator on the level of any of those great men I would write it into my will that my works be released into the public domain upon my death. Atleast then all derivative works can forever remain seperate from my own. Think of all the stories written about Dracula over the years, or the long legacy of unofficial Don Quixote sequels, they all exist yet none will ever be held in the same regard as the seminal works of their original authors. Yes, that wont stop these devious actors from vandalizing my work but the real fans and the grander public at large will always be capable of distinguishing between the genuine article, its earnest adaptions, and the dogshit which comes about to capitalize on name recognition or to shill political talking points. There's been over a thousand adaptions of Romeo and Juliet since Shakespeare first wrote it, yet no one will ever recognize either the garden gnome or "new yorican" versions as the definitive incarnations of the story or characters. >That's because, while you could make the legal case that they are public domain, Warner Bros. disagrees with you. You might win, but do you have the money to fight Warner Bros. in court? Plus, while some of those characters are among my favorites, casuals just want Batman stories. >The sad thing is that the hardcore nerds are usually so nerdy that they would want to use elements from all throughout the character's history, meaning many elements that won't be public domain for a long time There's alot to unpack on this front from my end. While I recognize the point you're making about the might of these corporations, you're failing to recognize their waning power. WB-Discovery's top priorities these days are their biggest name characters (their Harry Potters, Scooby Doos, Batman, and so on). They're hemoraging money and taking massive losses across the board. They ultimately lack the interest or time to go after John Doe for publishing the new adventures of Plastic Man and Phantom Lady indie comic. Add to that the massive legal grey zone made possible by the widespread adoption of the internet, and realistically speaking, we have more opportunity now than any of our creative predecessors ever had. We simply lack their talent and devotion (but that's part in parcel for a cultural dark age). Think of all the unofficial and unlicensed fan works cluttering the net. Short of either a Nintendo or a Mattel property, you can get away with alot. Considering the legal status of all the aforementioned golden and silver agers doubly so. Ultimately it is good to remain alert about potential ramifications, but the time to do this stuff is now. (I say as much being a lazy shit in anycase). As for what the people want, I get it. As a lonely autistic fuck who's stupidly passionate about golden and silver age capeshitters, it's pretty much impossible to get the average person to get invested in characters as old and or older than their grandparents. It is a blessing as much as it is a curse, but really it should be our devotion to these characters which drive us to create new derivative works with them and serve to keep them alive for future generations. We should seek to be the Peter Jacksons and Sam Raimis to the overlooked characters whom never got the luxury of such quality adaptions. Limitations with what can be done with certain characters shouldnt scare us away from using them, but rather embolden us to devise of creative means to work around the problems. In saying all this I'm very tempted to share some of my art and explain a few of my ideas to you guys just to fully illustrate all that I have in mind, but it's an autistic rabbit hole of concepts to get into right now and already this post is overstuffed as is. Maybe I can elaborate in a future reply. >literally spies on everyone's cell phones in order to save the day. Lucius Fox explicitly calls him out on it and the movie specifically makes a moral quandary out of it. But then Batman uses the tool to save the day and destroys it. Don't worry, guys. The Patriot Act will go away once we beat the terrorists Fuck I really have to revisit the bale trilogy one of these days. Keatonfag that I am I generally ignored them at the time and only really appreciated them for their aesthetics. TDKR is the only one of the three I have a good memory of. It was such a wild ride its the only installment I really enjoyed.

>>42880 There are alot of reasons why Returns sucks, but it's always going to especially sting because it had so much going for it. It had Singer hot off the heels of the then best two capeshit films of all time, it had the perfect look for the character at the time, the effects still look amazing even now, and the cast was about as perfect as could be. But it fails colossally in its story. I mean, this is what a billion dollar superman movie turns out to be? Super-NTR?! All the great stories they could have adapted, all the writers they could have pulled to help write the story, and we settled on Super-NTR, an island of kryptonite, and yet another Luthor scheme. It's sad. There will never be a day that passes where I dont find myself wishing they had just made a Burton Superman film. Superman is a character who's been perpetually bogged down by his past successes. It becomes harder and harder to produce the next iteration of a character like that when seemingly the best version has already been done. You see as much with the more recent adaptions of Spiderman and the TMNT. Granted alot of that is the result of Hollywood bloat, disconnect from the source material, marketing, and a hundred other critical factors but if we are to keep these legacy properties around I believe it to be critical to make each incarnation distinct. You can really see that work best in characters like Batman, Godzilla, and James Bond, however Superman is locked in this unfortunate limbo where these hollywood types either push for the character to be too different from what the public knows or push for him to be too much like what the public has already seen. Cavil's Superman best expemplifies this conundrum. Snyder wants this Moore-Miracleman styled tortured super-jesus but also wants to homage components of Chris Reeves' version, Singer was so cowardly he just outright connected Returns to the Reeves films, but Burton seemed to have the right compromise in mind to make that work. Dial up the extremes of the Clark and Superman dynamic to eleven and play up the outsider deal in a very stereotypically 1990's Burton way. It really could have worked. Now Im not as gung ho about all the death of superman elements they wanted to bake into the movie, but I'd have happily taken robo-spider braniac and the polar bear guardians of the fortress of solitude along with all the other goofy shit. We still talk about the Schumacher Batman films for similar reasons! Unfortunately it didnt happen and now all we can do is muse on what could have been. What irks me however is the insistence on beating the dead horse. DC is simply so directionless nowadays that they'll jingle any memberberry they can infront of their dwindling audience just to ensure even a few minutes of attention. It's beyond pathetic.

>>42899 >but Burton seemed to have the right compromise in mind to make that work Am I the only person in the world who didn't find Tim Burton to be a "cinematic genius"? The guy is talented, I just don't care for a lot of his movies.

>>42905 No I like Burton but even I can acknowledge he's not perfect. His Planet of the Apes is miscast with Mark Walberg & plays into the ape aspects too much leading to comedic results. I'm one of the few who doesn't care for his killer rubber suit Batman. Beetlejuice Beetlejuice was a mess of a script combining several scripts into one with unsatisfying results. His Alice in Wonderland is downright terrible.

Coin. Operated boy. Im waiting for your show.

>>42898 >Think of all the unofficial and unlicensed fan works cluttering the net. Short of either a Nintendo or a Mattel property, you can get away with alot. Considering the legal status of all the aforementioned golden and silver agers doubly so. Ultimately it is good to remain alert about potential ramifications, but the time to do this stuff is now. (I say as much being a lazy shit in anycase). Go ahead and try to sell a Blue Beetle fan comic. DC feels strongly enough about their ownership of the property that they put out a movie about it like a year ago. I freaking love Ted Kord. I would love to make an animated series based on Steve Ditko's original stories. I'm aware of the argument as to why those stories are public domain. Now go try to hire an animation studio to do it. See what happens. Plus, while I love Ditko's Ted Kord stories, a big part of what I love about Ted Kord is his later place in the DCU. Ditko only wrote like six stories with the character. Then later writers did all the stuff with the JLI and Booster Gold, and that stuff is great. And to either pretend it doesn't exist, or come up with some legally distinct version of Booster to be Ted's new buddy, defeats the point. You might as well just create a legally distinct version of Ted Kord himself. Hell, the original Blue Beetle was, by the creators' admission, just a legally distinct version of The Green Hornet. >>42899 We still haven't even gotten a Superman movie with Brainiac in it. There is so much Superman material that they haven't bothered with in the movies. Lots of new things that could be done. But yes, tonally, casuals, including the studio bigwigs, are too busy seeing Superman as a Jesus who turns water into cash to just see the series as what it is, which is a sci-fi comic book series. Now, Gunn might change that a bit, but we'll see. I also don't think the tone Gunn brings to all his movies is what Superman is all about, either. >>42905 >>42906 >I just don't care for a lot of his movies. >don't >present tense This is why you're misunderstanding things. Now imagine that it's 1995. This man is known for Pee Wee's Big Adventure, Beetlejuice, Batman, Edward Scissorhands, Batman Returns, The Nightmare Before Christmas (and you think he directed it because Disney slapped his name all over it and Coraline isn't out yet), and Ed Wood. Batman Begins wasn't out yet, and even if you liked Batman Forever, Burton produced it, yet didn't direct it. It's easy to give him credit for what it gets right but give Schumacher credit for what it gets wrong. This is before Planet of the Apes. This is before Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. This is before Alice in Wonderland. This is before all those other movies that he did later that nobody remembers. To basically everyone in 1995, Tim Burton was an unquestioned cinematic genius. And even through the later '90s, as his films got a little less praise, people still liked them. Maybe nobody says Mars Attacks or Sleepy Hollow is their favorite movie, but they aren't disliked or even controversial. Planet of the Apes was controversial because people couldn't believe they just watched a bad Tim Burton movie. That's how beloved he was in the '90s.

>>42910 >You might as well just create a legally distinct version of Ted Kord himself. Hell, the original Blue Beetle was, by the creators' admission, just a legally distinct version of The Green Hornet. So why not do that? That's one of the biggest issues I keep coming back in regards to a lot of fanworks. Or people waiting DEMANDING for something to become public domain. Just make something original. Takes the parts you like about something, establish a world and universe with said characters, and Bob's your uncle. No, it's not going to be the "same" because it's your characters, meaning that your series will live/die based on how you treat it. >But yes, tonally, casuals, including the studio bigwigs, are too busy seeing Superman as a Jesus who turns water into cash to just see the series as what it is, which is a sci-fi comic book series. <I see Clark's place in the world as being similar to John McClain. In that he's saving the world NOT because it's the "Right thing to do", but because he loves his home (Earth) and he's the only one who can do it. And if someone else was there to do it, he would rather spend his time living life as a regular person.

>>42912 >So why not do that? Well you could, but the thing with comics autism is that the big time fans want to do things that are very specific with the specific histories and relationships of the characters and worlds. Geoff Johns made a living doing this. His Green Lantern is cool specifically because it's about taking old concepts and tying them together and drawing attention and adding depth to concepts that were always there but never really focused on. It just wouldn't be the same if he just made a legally distinct version. The same goes for a lot of beloved comics stories. And there's also the simple fact that the characters and concepts do mean something. Superman is Superman and all those copies of him aren't. Superman carries connotations that the others do not. You can change his name to Ubermensch or Overman and even if those things are technically just alternate translations, the connotations are different.

>>42913 >Superman is Superman and all those copies of him aren't. Except Superman isn't even Superman. Majority of the aspects people tied to Supes like the flying, the laser eyes, the ice breath, and even his power coming from the Sun wasn't part of the original character when he appeared in 1938. What you're obsessing over is fanfiction. Officially licensed and produced fanfiction, but still fanfiction none the less.

>>42913 >>42914 In addition to this, if the "history" is so important, then why don't you make your own history for your "Not-Superman"? Make your own origin story, how he grew up, the people he meets, the powers that he had, the adventures he goes on, etc.? Build up a character and universe around him that allows for you to tell the stories that you want. And if you're going to fire back, "Well, no one will care because he doesn't have the near century of marketing attached to him," then give the fuck up! You'll never be able to ever make anything as you're not a creative, you're a leech. You're only able to survive by living off of other people's works, which make you no better than the people who work at these companies. And at that point, you need to quit bitching about you "would" do if you were in charge of the character, or what these companies "could" do if they actually cared about making money.

>>42914 A character is not limited to only their first appearance & concepts. That would be retarded. >>42910 I don't see what you're trying to argue here.

>>42914 Does that mean any Batman that refuses to kill people is fanfiction?

>>42918 Pretty much. The fanfiction can take on an identity of it's own that's more "popular" than the work it's based on. Kind of like how people associate James Bond with suave MI6 agent with all the fancy gadgets and always gets the girl because of the films, rather than the original novelistic character who's smart-ass pretty boy paper-pusher who's thrown into a dangerous world that he doesn't fully understand.

>>42920 This autism will keep you from ever enjoying anything. Capeshit characters are not characters who stay as a singular concept, for better or worse. Now while not every change is good, change itself is good. Characters need to evolve & progress throughout the narrative. This is true in any format. By this logic, only the concept art of any character is the TRUE character despite having nothing to them.

>>42922 >Capeshit characters are not characters who stay as a singular concept Why not? Look at capeshit media like The Incredibles or The Greatest American Hero or Viewtiful Joe. They seem pretty rigid in how their characters are established and treated. INB4 "those are not based on a comic, so they don't count". >Now while not every change is good, change itself is good. No, it's not. "Changing" something "just because" is never good. >Characters need to evolve & progress throughout the narrative. No, they don't. Look at series like Halo or Sonic or Walker TR or Hercules TLJ or TF&TF dozens of other shows/films/games/etc. that have protagonist(s) who's character never actually changes at any point throughout the story. Ironically it's material that forces characters to change, like House or Sliders or God of War that end up becoming material that's hated and reviled by everyone because it's not longer a story about the characters they liked. One show that infamously did this and immediately flopped was Wise Guys. It's also a reason why people hated the SW prequels for so long, with how Lucas turned Vader from this brooding bad-ass into a whiny angsty teen. A character is just a vehicle who exists to tell a story, with no definitive answer as to "what" character is the best for every story. There are some stories that are better told with "static", and others that are better told with "dynamic" characters. If you story is one long winded saga about seeing a character's growth, perhaps a dynamic character would be best. However if you story is a serial "Villain of the week" narrative, it's best that you stick with a static character. This is not "always" the case, but it works as a general rule.

>>42923 Because adding new ideas is how you keep them from completely being the exact same thing for ever. It's a marketing gimmick more then a progression of writing since capeshit is still stagnant. You're missing the point. In a story, characters NEED to change. Yes they fucking do. You're talking about complete radical changes. I'm talking about the basics of just letting a character change naturally.

>>42924 >Because adding new ideas is how you keep them from completely being the exact same thing for ever What's wrong with that? >In a story, characters NEED to change. No, they do not. >You're talking about complete radical changes. In the fifth season of The Fall Guy, the show was single handily tanked by them adding Nedra Volz to the cast for five of the season's 22 episodes. Nothing else changed about the show except that one aspect.

>>42925 Stagnation is bad & boring. That's why comic books are they way they are. They refuse to end or let characters permanently change. You're retarded if you legitimately think this. This is the basics of storytelling. They have progression. Characters learn & grow with the story. They do not stay in the same spots forever. That's again NOT what I'm fucking talking about. You're citing an example of adding a character. Not changing a character.

>>42926 >Stagnation is bad & boring >Stagnation <syn DEPRESSION 3, recession, slump (C)1996 Zane Publishing, Inc. and Merriam-Webster, Incorporated. All rights reserved I agree. However a product seeing success without changing anything is not stagnation. >That's why comic books are they way they are. No, they're not. This is why American comics books are. The Asian and European comics operate on an entirely different business model from their American counterpart, and have been surpassing their American counterparts since the 1990's. >This is the basics of storytelling. They have progression. Characters learn & grow with the story. They do not stay in the same spots forever. No, that's a choice of how the creator chooses to tell his story. It's not a requirement. The Hobbit begins and ends with Bilbo Baggins living in The Shire. The first several books of Harry Potter begin and end with Harry living with the Dursleys. Every episode of Star Trek begins and ends with them searching for something new and undiscovered. Every Batman story begins and ends with Bruce brooding over his parents death and swearing to clean up the streets of Gotham. Both of the Escape From films and every episode of The A-Team begin and end with "our heroes" on the run and hated by everyone in authority. Every episode of Power Rangers/Super Sentai/[Insert 1970's mecha anime]/[Insert 1990's mahou shoujo] begins and end with the big bad swearing that they'll "one day" defeat the heroes. Any generic harem anime/manga begins and ends with the protagonist being Average Joe not knowing what to do with his life. A lot of stories are a lot more static than you think. And with a lot of these stories, when they finally "do" change the status quo, it's usually to indicate the end of the series. And stories are designed to eventually come to an end. They exist as a momentary pleasure. They're not like real life where the "tale" continues on until the end of time. But like I said, that is still a choice. Stories can choose to have dynamic characters who actively change and grow as opposed to stories with static characters where the only "difference" between each of the escapades is what peril or problem the protagonist has to solve this week. >You're citing an example of adding a character. Not changing a character. If you want an example of a series ruining itself by changing the character, the first example I can think of is Captain America: Civil War. Where you have Tony Stark, who was strongly against developing weapons in the first Iron Man, heel turning to be for the government controlling the weapons. And this is after SHIELD was exposed as being taken over by Hydra. Not to mention all the other retcons in that movie, like how AoU was about them "saving everyone", only for it to be revealed in CA:CW that they "didn't save anyone". Another example character change is the entire Rambo franchise. Where the point of the first film is about Rambo being "damaged goods" as a result of his career in Vietnam, only for every other film in the series to be about somehow finding a way to throw him back into the same meatgrinder that broke him in the first place. As an example of a "story's character" changing instead of the characters themselves, you have TF&TF franchise transition from being a story about elite street racing criminals become a story about espionage and shadow organizations.

>>42927 What? ASIAN & EUROPEAN COMIC BOOKS ACTUALLY FUCKING PROGRESS! You're legitimately an idiot if you can't understand what character progression is or how a character needs to change with the times to be more than their base concept. This is not comparable to having a formula to telling a story. Yes changing CAN be bad. Not all changes are good. Never said they were. Let's refocus & go back to what this was all about. Ignore everything else. Just focus on this. If capeshit characters specifically never changed from their original versions then Batman would just be a generic gun toting vigilante. There would be no Alfred, Gordon, Robin, Batgirl, Batcave, or other varieties of bat gadgets. If Superman stayed the same as his original then we'd lose out on the Daily Planet cast like Jimmy Olsen who wasn't made in the comics first. Not as dramatic as a shift BUT Superman would be missing most of his iconic powers that people have known him for for decades. Put is you limit the characters & rob them completely of too much that defines the image of them.

>>42928 >ASIAN & EUROPEAN COMIC BOOKS ACTUALLY FUCKING PROGRESS! So has Caesar given up trying to conquer Gaul, and can Goku finally have a peaceful life of being harassed by Chi-Chi all day? >or how a character needs to change with the times to be more than their base concept Except whenever they've done that to characters in the past, like Felix the Cat, and Oswald the Lucky Rabbit, and Flash Gordon, and Knight Rider, and even Charlie fucking Brown, it ruins the charm and appeal of the original series. This constant push towards "endless progression" has caused nothing but devastation in it's wake because it creates this mindset that you constantly have to "out do" something that is ALREADY "perfect". Which always results in eventually developing a nihilistic and cynical attitude that they only way to "progress further" is to destroy everything that came before. That you cannot build where something already exists, so you need to destroy the existing structure in order to build something "new". And it's a wonder why we have to replace Batman with a woman or Captain America with a nigger, despite their already being several Batwomen and several black American heroes with everything from Steel to Obama Superman. >Yes changing CAN be bad. Not all changes are good. Here's a novel idea then, let's not change something just because we "can" change something. >If capeshit characters specifically never changed from their original versions then Batman would just be a generic gun toting vigilante. There would be no Alfred, Gordon, Robin, Batgirl, Batcave, or other varieties of bat gadgets. If Superman stayed the same as his original then we'd lose out on the Daily Planet cast like Jimmy Olsen who wasn't made in the comics first. Not as dramatic as a shift BUT Superman would be missing most of his iconic powers that people have known him for for decades. I don't see the problem. >Put is you limit the characters & rob them completely of too much that defines the image of them. Again, I don't see the problem. Is it more important for a creative to be accurate to who a character is or to cater to "people's whims" in order to make the "character" that they "think" they "want"? Consider the fact that almost every single depiction of Superman has been mostly shit or hamfisted for the past 20 years, and that's with trying to make the version of the character that "exists in people's heads". Perhaps this is just my autism but, how about they simply make the version of Superman who appeared in 1938 and has gone on to become a known character worldwide? Stop pushing out a story with new gimmicks and characters and just return to the formula that worked in the first place. They're already losing insane amounts of money developing each and everyone of these flops, so they literally have nothing else to lose by cutting it out with all that "progress" that appears to be doing them no favors.

>>42929 Asterix is an exception because it's a comedy. Comedies more often than not do not progress. Though they probably should too. Dragon Ball actively progresses. Goku literally keeps getting stronger with new powers. They fight new villains all the time. It's not stagnant. All of what you said again can be summed up with everything I've already said. Going in circles does no good if you can't understand this basic explanation.

>>42930 >All of what you said again can be summed up with everything I've already said. How? This entire argument started because you're declaring that it's "impossible" for someone to come out with a "Not-Superman" character and series despite the fact that Superman already IS "Not-Superman" and hasn't been for a long time.

>>42931 No this started with me saying that characters need to change. Especially capeshit ones. They have a problem where these companies want to keep things going forever so in their minds the characters can never progress because that means actually ending them. But they need to progress because stagnation is boring. It kills interest fast. There's no stakes if nothing changes. These aren't comedic cartoon books. These are serious comic books the companies want us to take seriously but can't do the simple effort of just having characters actually have any permanent change to the status quo. You're advocating not just for characters never changing but going even further by saying the only "true" versions of these characters are their original versions. Which is just ridiculous & incredibly limiting. There is literally no other way I can put this any clearer. Stop being so fucking autistic.

>>42932 >You're advocating not just for characters never changing but going even further by saying the only "true" versions of these characters are their original versions. If you "have" to "change" the character in order to keep selling magazines, why not make an entirely new character so that you don't piss off the people who liked the original character?

>>42933 Again, in your mind you act like I'm advocating for radically changing the character's completely ala the 80s or 90s with a whole new costume & moniker. I am literally just saying- no forget it. You're not getting it.

>>42934 >in your mind you act like I'm advocating for radically changing the character's completely No, even "subtle" changes. Because you are changing the character into something different than people previously wanted.

>>42935 You're completely idiotic.

>>42936 Okay, how? Every other business, media, and even non-American comic understands this concept. That you give customers the thing that made your company successful in the first place. And if you want to give them something different, even if it's only "superficially" different, you take that concept and start it under a different title/brand/division/company. You don't tell your established customers to go pound salt because you're going to appeal to a "new" and "wider" demographic. Every single company that has done that, especially for the past 30 years, has done nothing but hemorrhage money as they alienate their legacy customers with products they don't want nor ever asked for and cannot attract newer customers because those people have their personal favorites already established. If you think this is just blowing smoke, consider the fact that Hamburger University is a real fucking place that you have to attend if you want to open a fucking McDonalds. If the damn burgerflippers are that autistic about how you need to operate the most popular fast-food chain on the planet, what does that say about how other companies need to act?

The Leader leaks from Captain Falcon Brave New World are true.

>>42938 Even more.

>>42939 >>42938 How did they seriously mess up the Leader? Honestly all they had to do is give the actor a rubber head and a decent scifi suit, but no they instead cgi the shit like an airheads commercial.

>>42954 Don't expect anyone to get any sort of comic inspired suits.

>>42957 They've never done villain suits or tried to make the villains look like what they're supposed to. >Baron Zemo wears his purple mask once in Civil War >Scorpion is just a guy with a scorpion tattooed on his neck (to be fair this is Sony, but still) >The Wrecking Crew are just four random guys who robbed an Asgardian construction worker, they didn't even make the guy who was black in the comics black, that's how little they cared. >The entire song and dance surrounding the Mandarin because of Disney and Marvel shitting their pants about "Muh yellow peril, we don't want to piss off China or Twitter"

>>42958 I know & it sucks.

>>42910 >make a blue beetle comic The charlton neo guys did that likw 5 years ago and saw no consequence

>>42912 Big bang comics has been doing pastiches for decades and still they've remained largely niche. My larger point is there's a lack of creatives willing to create these sort of esrnest love letter capeshit projects. We have a massive payload of PD heroes to play with and we can pastiche the ones we cant use, but ultimately none of us do as much.

>>42910 I wanted to highlight the point you made about Dan Garrett (mostly because of my autistic love for the bwetle legacy). Garrett started out as a swipe of the green hornet but eventually became a superman clone before becoming a shazam/thor type until the charlton editor wanted him reimagined for a 1960's bat-mania audience, thats how we got Ted. I understand being upset about all the JLU and Booster stuff, but hey you could just have Captain Atom or even The Question play that role. Something else that always pops into mind with Dan is his forgotten sidekick, Sparky. Sparky is this lost aspect of the Beetle legacy. I've designed countless costumes for an adult Sparky and like to think he became the Blue Beetle of Britain.

>>42914 Superman is what the public imagines him to be. Superman isn't just the character on the page, he's our idea of what that character is. And he certainly isn't just the character that appeared in Action Comics #1. What you're arguing isn't refuting my point, it's supporting it. The history of the character is important. By drawing attention to all the elements that the public understands to be Superman, but were not in Action Comics #1, you're just showing that it's the amalgamation of the elements of the character's history, at least the ones that the audience cares about, that make up what the character is. >What you're obsessing over is fanfiction. Officially licensed and produced fanfiction, but still fanfiction none the less. I don't care, so long as it's good. But for the record, many of the things you point out were actually introduced by Seigel, who continued writing Superman stories until the '60s. But others were introduced by other creators, and that's fine. I don't care if it was done by Seigel and Schuster, or Swan, or Moore, or Jergens, or Johns, or dozens of other writers and artists who have contributed to good Superman stories. The point is they're good, and some of them are good specifically because they stood on the shoulders of giants to make good stories that built on previous ones. >>42915 >In addition to this, if the "history" is so important, then why don't you make your own history for your "Not-Superman"? Because the history is important. You answered your own question. It's important, so you can't just swap it out and expect it to have the same effect. >Make your own origin story, how he grew up, the people he meets, the powers that he had, the adventures he goes on, etc.? Build up a character and universe around him that allows for you to tell the stories that you want. Because maybe the stories are specifically based on elements from previous stories. Again, look at Geoff Johns' Green Lantern for an example. It wouldn't be nearly as cool if it wasn't for the fact that Sinestro and Star Sapphire were pre-existing characters. Even Atrocitus is made significantly cooler by the fact that he was from a single previous story. And Johns didn't come up with it all by himself. Previous writers already took Broome's concepts like Star Sapphire and the Zamarons and tied them in more deeply with the Guardians and other Green Lantern concepts, and made them a lot more interesting. These concepts building and growing in complexity over time adds depth and meaning. >Make your own origin story, how he grew up, the people he meets, the powers that he had, the adventures he goes on, etc.? Build up a character and universe around him that allows for you to tell the stories that you want. You're thinking like a businessman instead of a creative. It's not about if other people care. It's about the fact that there are stories that cannot be told in the same way without the histories. Not even just the literal histories, though those are important. It's also the history in the public consciousness. Because yes, Superman can be alternately translated as Ubermensch or Overman, but those words all carry very different connotations. Because while some hateful saboteurs have wormed their way into legally controlling the character and trying to destroy what he stands for, they can't fully defeat the fact that Superman represents Truth, Justice, and The American Way. The fact that he represents those things (and more) is specifically why they target him. These characters and their histories are not just money printing machines. They actually mean something. Do you understand that Dracula is only about 30 years older than Mickey Mouse? But since Disney wasn't changing copyright law to keep Dracula out of the public domain, anybody has been able to do whatever they want with Dracula for a long time. And we got good movies and bad movies, and good comics and bad comics, and good video games and bad video games. But I like Nosferatu, and I like Blade, and I like Castlevania, and I do think each of those things would be damaged if they weren't using Dracula as a foundational text. In fact, Nosferatu, despite trying to skirt copyright law, failed, and was ordered to be destroyed. And yes, the story is remarkably similar to Stoker's novel, so much so that many prints of the film just change the characters' names to those of the characters they're obviously supposed to be. No, I don't think that means the film should have been destroyed. I'm glad it survived, because it's a good movie and I'm glad that I've been able to watch it. I'm glad that Marv Wolfman was able to write a pretty awesome Dracula comic after the novel entered the public domain, and from that he introduced other cool related concepts, like Blade. And would Castlevania really be better if Dracula wasn't in it? I don't think so. I don't think you decry that series being literally just video game fanfiction of a novel from the 1890s, because it's a good video game fanfiction. And that novel became public domain before the game was made, so you and everyone else are fine with it. You don't go after people doing stuff about Dracula, or Frankenstein, or Sherlock Holmes, or Hercules, or Thor, or tons of other pre-existing works. Because some of those fanfictions that came later are good. >>42916 I was making at least three different points. One is that even if Blue Beetle should legally be public domain, not only would Warner Bros. fight you in court over it (and drain you unless you have infinite cash), but many of the elements that modern audiences like about Blue Beetle, even Ted Kord specifically, are definitely still under the copyright of DC Comics, and to lack those elements would impact the stories you could tell quite significantly. Charlton Ted Kord is quite a different character from DC Ted Kord, even if only because so much was added to his history in stories published by DC. My second point was about how there could be a lot of different Superman movies that could be good and we haven't seen yet, but I don't know if I trust James Gunn to make them. A third point was about how Tim Burton was the man in the '90s, and it's hard really remember how awesome he was then while also knowing how badly he sucks now. >>42922 You're both wrong. Fanfiction is fine, and change can be okay, but change isn't necessary. Some beloved characters do not change very much. Goku changes colors sometimes but he never really changes his personality. And that's fine. He's one of the most beloved characters in the world. Static characters are fine, and dynamic characters are fine. It all depends on what story you have to tell with them. >>42923 I've been arguing against some of your other posts, but I just want to say that I agree with you here. Well I do think The Incredibles and The Greatest American Hero and Viewtiful Joe are not good comparisons, because they don't have that many entries in their respective series, but your overall point about dynamic characters not being inherently better than static characters is correct. It all depends on the stories. >>42924 There are over 900 English language Sonic comics, and Sonic's character barely changes at all throughout all of them. Okay, something like 180 of those are the UK comics which were a different continuity, and Sonic was kind of an asshole in that continuity, so we can discount those. There are like 700 American Sonic comics, and he acts almost exactly the same in all of them, barring a couple of instances of bad writing. And that's fine. A lot of the comics are still good. In fact, the best ones are the ones where he is acting the same as the majority of the time, because that's the role the character is supposed to play. But I understand you're trying to talk about things like Superman gaining new powers over time, and more elements being added to his history. Or maybe you mean things like Robin growing up and new Robins showing up. Sure, I agree that a lot of those changes are good. But that doesn't mean change is necessary. It's perfectly possible to tell new stories with the characters changing very little or not at all. It's a perfectly valid style of storytelling. >>42926 But many characters do change. I thought you were pointing this out. There are four main Robins that have all grown into pretty different roles. That said, not all characters need to do this. There are many great stories that focus on static characters. >>42927 >The Hobbit begins and ends with Bilbo Baggins living in The Shire. Bad example. Bilbo changes greatly throughout his adventure. He becomes a leader to his friends, and an adventurous weirdo when he gets back. He gets home, but he's not the same. The Lord of the Rings makes a point of saying that after he got back he always acted weird, now wandering off and hanging out with dwarves and stuff. The same point is made in that story, where the very final line is Sam saying "I'm back." The point is that it's absurd to think you could go through an adventure like that and just "go back." Frodo essentially metaphorically kills himself because even after he gets home he can never really get over what he's been through. >The first several books of Harry Potter begin and end with Harry living with the Dursleys. Yeah but he changes immensely. Then it's essentially cosmic irony that he is forced to go back to the Dursleys and pretend he's the same as before. And after a few entries, he can no longer pretend. Episodic TV is a whole different beast, built upon static characters. Interestingly, the Star Trek films are essentially about characters who previously changed finding their ways back to who they used to be. Spock sort of became a bit more human over the course of the TV series, but then he goes full Vulcan before the first movie. Then in that movie his arc is about rediscovering his humanity. Then due to the events of III he basically forgets it again and in IV he has to re-learn it again. Meanwhile, Kirk is on his own path of regression, as he hates having a desk job and wants to become a Captain again. But I still say this is an example of character growth. It's just growth backwards. And it kind of repeats for Spock. But the character is changing, even if it's in the same way multiple times.

[Expand Post]

Batman has also changed a bit since his first appearance. As mentioned, he killed a couple of people in very early appearances. His personality changes as he is influenced by Robin, and then as Robin grows up, and when the next Robin dies and he becomes more edgy again, which becomes a plot point in the story that Tim Drake recognizes and uses to become the third Robin. Now, I realize that the fact that he keeps getting new Robins shows a lack of change, but within the story itself, his personality fluctuates. Also, there are some Batman stories where he marries Catwoman and retires and dies. Sometimes other things happen. >Civil War and Age of Ultron Yeah but Age of Ultron was lame so I don't mind Civil War fixing some things. Like it really bugged me that at the end of Iron Man 3, Tony basically says he's gonna stop being Iron Man. Then in Avengers 2 he's just Iron Man again. Then in Civil War they at least reference it and say Pepper left him over it. Then later I guess they got back together. But I can accept they got back together more easily than I can accept one movie ending with him not being Iron Man anymore, and the next movie just having him be Iron Man again with no explanation. >Rambo Yeah, all the movies after the first really miss the point of the first, or completely contradict it, even. They kind of have their own thing going on where it's about how he's damaged, but he can at least take what he's become and make something out of it. He can either "live for nothing or die for something." But yeah, the entire premise of the series changes after the first one.

>>42929 >Felix the Cat But his bag of tricks is pretty iconic, and that's from the '50s TV series. >I don't see the problem. Jimmy Olsen is the coolest. That's the problem. >Consider the fact that almost every single depiction of Superman has been mostly shit or hamfisted for the past 20 years, and that's with trying to make the version of the character that "exists in people's heads". Yeah but I blame the fact that the execs and the people they hire don't actually fucking know or care about Superman at all. They're going too vague and not looking at the specific histories. The reason certain elements filter out to the wider public consciousness is because specific stories are good, but they're too stupid to just adapt those stories faithfully. Then again, I can also think of good original elements from that era. Lionel Luthor was cool as hell, and he's an original character from an adaptation from about 20 years ago. That show's version of Lex and Pa Kent were also the best ones. But I think it's important that Clark Kent does act pretty accurate, and though they add a bit with Pa Kent being a bit overprotective, and Lex has a different backstory (and his original backstory was given to Lionel), they do stick to the important parts of the characters. On the other hand, they changed Lana Lang entirely and ruined her. That version of Lana fucking sucks. And Chloe Sullivan sucks too. So some changes were good, some were bad. >Perhaps this is just my autism but, how about they simply make the version of Superman who appeared in 1938 and has gone on to become a known character worldwide? Because the version from 1938 isn't the one who became known worldwide. The version that became known worldwide can fly and shoot x-ray beams out of his eyes, and he works at the Daily Planet with Perry White and Jimmy Olsen, and he fights Lex Luthor (who is a bald guy) and Brainiac and General Zod and Bizarro and Mr. Mxyzptlk and Metallo and Parasite. He was raised by Ma and Pa Kent in Smallville, Kansas, and he lives in Metropolis, not Cleveland. He gets his powers from a yellow sun. He's friends with Batman and a member of the Justice League of America. Now, some of these elements are more iconic than others, partially because some of them have never been adapted to a movie, or at least not well, but I'd argue that all of those things are pretty core elements of the character, and none of them existed in Action Comics #1. I'd argue that Superman is more than a strong guy who jumps hard and simps for Lois Lane. Those things are important, but there is a lot more that was added over time that I would say is a legitimate part of the character now. >They're already losing insane amounts of money developing each and everyone of these flops, so they literally have nothing else to lose by cutting it out with all that "progress" that appears to be doing them no favors. I don't think the problem with Batman v Superman or Justice League was new elements being shoved in for the sake of change. That can be a problem, but in these movies, the problem was just a retarded director who didn't understand the source material, and a studio that also didn't understand the source material but was determined to make their own Avengers franchise (without understanding that, either). >>42930 >Goku literally keeps getting stronger with new powers. I don't think this is meaningful change at all. I fucking love Dragon Ball, but how strong Goku is doesn't matter. It's literally a case of the writer saying "this guy is stronger than the last guy. But don't worry, because Goku got stronger too." How strong Goku is doesn't change the nature of the story. It's not the same as a character changing so that he would make different decisions than he would in the past. Maybe you could argue Goku changes a tiny bit over time, but really not very much. He sort of changes when he stops being a student and becomes a master, and he tries to train Gohan and then later Goten and Trunks, and then later Uub. Except none of those changes actually stick. Gohan wins one fight and then stops following Goku's training, so Goku tries to train Goten and Trunks, but that doesn't work either, so he tries to train Uub, and the story ends and never shows it. Except in GT, where it does show it, and Goku's training didn't work there either, and Uub is a completely worthless character, and Goku literally regresses into being a kid again, and it doesn't even matter because he never really changed as a person since he was a kid. And then the story ended. And then they brought back Dragon Ball as even more of a cash grab, and not only did Goku continue to not change (it even takes place between other chapters, and we know Goku is the same guy in both those chapters), but he even got turned back into a kid AGAIN. Because this is a series where the protagonist doesn't really change, so he can get turned back into a kid multiple fucking times. >They fight new villains all the time. It's not stagnant. I also don't think fighting new villains is enough to say a story is changing. Star Trek only has a single recurring villain in the original series, and I don't think the reappearance of Harry Mudd is what means that show doesn't change over its three seasons. >>42931 >it's "impossible" for someone to come out with a "Not-Superman" character and series Plenty of people have done it, but those characters are not Superman. The Sentry is not Superman. Hyperion is not Superman. Omni-Man is not Superman. They're all based on Superman, but they're not the same. Superman is Superman, including the elements that appeared after his first appearance, because of his history. It's because of the core elements of the story that can't really be changed without changing the character significantly. It's even because of the less important elements that are still part of the history. For the big-time nerds, adaptations of Superman aren't even really Superman, because they don't have the same history. They might be good, but it's not the same. They're not the same guy. Barry Allen and Jay Garrick aren't the same guy. Kal-El and Kal-L are not the same guy. Superman from the comics is not the same guy as Superman from the radio show, or from the movies, or from the many different TV series. I like many of those other guys, but they're not the same guy. That said, the fact that they're still allowed to have very similar backstories and supporting characters and names and costumes does help. It's not any one of those elements, it's all of them combined. You can change Superman's suit and he'd still be the same guy, but you can't give the suit to a new guy and act like it's still Superman. You can make a new guy with most of the same history, and the suit, and the name, and it will be closer, but it still won't be exactly the same without the elements of the history that are missing now. And sometimes there are stories that specifically rely on very specific elements of history, and of symbolism which is made and informed by that history. >>42935 Some changes fit with what came before. Some don't. This is an important difference. Everyone was okay with Superman having a son, Jon Kent, because it fit with his history and role. Not so much when DC aged up Jon and turned him gay, because that wasn't something that came naturally from the story and fit with what came before, it was hamfisted political messaging. Big difference. At the same time, some new character having a son is not the same as Superman having a son. Superman having a son is a completely different story than anyone else having a son because he's Superman. Of course "Superman has a son" is a totally different story than "a guy has a son." >>42973 Cool. Gotta look that up. It's not quite the same without being able to reference the JLI or Booster Gold, but still cool. >>42974 Because nobody cares about those characters anymore, if they ever did in the first place. It's a very different matter from a character like Batman becoming public domain, since Batman is having majorly popular releases right now, and will be public domain in like nine years. Of course, it's still complicated by many elements of Batman that people love not becoming public domain until later. Mark my words, but Warner Bros. is gonna try to sue some guy for having Batman drive a car, or live in a cave, since that stuff didn't happen until a year or two after his first appearance. >>42975 You're conflating Dan Garret and Dan Garrett. They're two separate characters. Garret changed over time, yes, but Ted wasn't preceded immediately by him, he was preceded by Dan Garrett. Garret was a cop, Garrett was an archeologist. Garrett died and passed on his magical scarab to Ted Kord. Garret never had a magical scarab. Garrett was Chalrton's attempt to reboot the series for the Silver Age, but it didn't work, so like six issues later they retooled it again as Ted Kord, and that sort of worked but not really, as their entire superhero line folded soon after. As far as I know, Garret is straight up not canon to any later versions, except for one Post-Charlton, Pre-DC story where they retconned both Dans to be the same guy reincarnated, but right after that, DC bought the Charlton characters and put them in the Crisis on Infinite Earths, and never referenced that one Garret story, or any of his other stories, ever again. >I understand being upset about all the JLU and Booster stuff, but hey you could just have Captain Atom or even The Question play that role. It's just not the same. The Question and Ted Kord have their own relationship, and it is interesting, but it's not the same as the relationships Kord has with any of the JLI, especially Booster. Now, this all calls to mind Watchmen, and how it's loosely based on the Charlton Comics characters, and it's widely regarded as a masterpiece, so much so that it's significantly influenced the later portrayals of the characters, especially Blue Beetle. But I think it's very significant that Dan Garrett, Ted Kord, and Vic Sage each only starred in a few stories up to that point. They were not actually successful at Charlton. Garrett was a complete failure of a reboot and got killed off and replaced almost right away. Kord and Sage were well known among comics nerds due to being created by Steve Ditko, and their stories are great, but they only had a few stories each and were quickly cancelled as well. So Alan Moore was going to basically do completely new stuff with them anyway. He was treating them are nearly blank slates, failures of characters that DC was tasking him with retooling for the '80s. But then DC said he was changing them too much, so he made Watchmen instead. This is not the same as something like Geoff Johns' Green Lantern, or even Grant Morrison's Batman. It's not that Moore was really taking a bunch of specific elements from old Charlton stories and doing stuff with that, he was doing new stuff with the Charlton characters because that's what management asked him to do. But he went too far, made it too new, so they asked him to not tie it into the Charlton characters at all.

>>42999 >>43000 I ain't reading all that.

>>42999 >It's about the fact that there are stories that cannot be told in the same way without the histories. Not even just the literal histories, though those are important. It's also the history in the public consciousness. I'm calling bullshit because the Japanese NEVER seem to have this problem with the thousands of fantasy manga and anime that deal with the "generic" concept of a hero fighting and defeating the demon king. A concept started by the Dragon Quest video games, which has spawned innumerable tropes. And has gotten to the point that there are hundreds of series in the past decade alone that just start right at the end to pick up the story concepts in play and run somewhere else. If the public is already "in" on the joke, then you do not need to waste the time explaining it. Just continue on without an issue. >Because while some hateful saboteurs have wormed their way into legally controlling the character and trying to destroy what he stands for, they can't fully defeat the fact that Superman represents Truth, Justice, and The American Way. The fact that he represents those things (and more) is specifically why they target him. These characters and their histories are not just money printing machines. They actually mean something. No, they don't. Superman, Batham, Spoder-Man, Spawn, every single one of these characters are just scribbles on a page. They don't "mean" anything. They're just exist as power fantasies and escapist adventures. They can be well written and tell fascinating and thought-provoking stories, but that doesn't escape the fact that it's just a fictional character at the end of the day. None of them are real, and that's a bigger issue than anything else. That majority of people today find fiction to be more "real" than reality, and to such an extent that they take random quotes out of media and treat them as if it's just as "important" as real person. One I often hear people repeat is the Yoda quote from ESB "Do or do not, there is no try". Which, okay, yes, it is a great quote, it's something worth thinking about, but are you really going to let the guiding force in your life be a little green muppet from a story about space wizards fighting Nazis? Being that this material is fiction, you can make these characters say whatever you want, it can be something childish or the character expressing their unsolicited opinions on Isreal, but the reality that you have to keep coming back to is that these characters exist for one purpose: TO PROVIDE ENTERTAINMENT. So what is Superman's purpose: to entertain or to "represent" America? And if you're not being entertained, why don't we look somewhere else? >In fact, Nosferatu, despite trying to skirt copyright law, failed, and was ordered to be destroyed You keep bringing up Nosferatu as an "example" copyright issues when the reality of the situation is that Nosferatu had nothing to do with Dracula other than the premise. It was a completely separate story based on completely separate concepts with completely different origins: https://invidio.us/watch?v=a9xI1BErmnU No different than Stoker having copied the ideas for Dracula from Varney the Vampire. And probably furthering my argument that the ideas matter more than the character. The banning and censorship of Nosferatu only happened because of Stoker's widow being vengeful bitch desperate for cash, and ordering the destruction of the film as revenge for Prana-Films being unable to pay the "ransom money" she wanted because they had already spent everything making the film. >And would Castlevania really be better if Dracula wasn't in it? You mean replaced it with a generic vampire? Nothing would change. In fact, I actually get tired of vampire fiction having to find a way to "tie" itself back to Dracula instead of being it's own thing. Perhaps the most eye-rolling part of Rosario + Vampire. >You don't go after people doing stuff about Dracula, or Frankenstein, or Sherlock Holmes, or Hercules, or Thor, or tons of other pre-existing works. Because some of those fanfictions that came later are good. And some are terrible, like Thor: Ragnarok and Dracula 2000. And, as I just said, I actually do get tired of them constantly hauling these characters out of storage instead of making their own original characters. >Bad example. I'll give you that. >>43000 >But his bag of tricks is pretty iconic, and that's from the '50s TV series. That was the third attempt to reboot him. The first attempt was when Pat Sullivan was still alive and trying to make the shorts more like Disney's popular Merry Melodies series in order to retain viewership. The second attempt was a decade later under Burt Gillett, a former Sullivan and Disney staffer, and canned the series after three films. The series in the 50's was the third reboot of the character and happened after a two decade hiatus. Not counting the comics. >Yeah but I blame the fact that the execs and the people they hire don't actually fucking know or care about Superman at all. Perhaps that's an indication that we should all move on. If nothing else, so that he can at least be put to rest. >The version that became known worldwide can fly and shoot x-ray beams out of his eyes, and he works at the Daily Planet with Perry White and Jimmy Olsen, and he fights Lex Luthor (who is a bald guy) and Brainiac and General Zod and Bizarro and Mr. Mxyzptlk and Metallo and Parasite. He was raised by Ma and Pa Kent in Smallville, Kansas, and he lives in Metropolis, not Cleveland. He gets his powers from a yellow sun. He's friends with Batman and a member of the Justice League of America. Can you name ANY of the adaptions in the past 20 years that have managed to include all those elements without fucking it up? >but I'd argue that all of those things are pretty core elements of the character, and none of them existed in Action Comics #1. I'd argue that Superman is more than a strong guy who jumps hard and simps for Lois Lane. Those things are important, but there is a lot more that was added over time that I would say is a legitimate part of the character now. You're missing the point. Why not start from square one and try to actually build things up properly? The only reason the MCU became a juggernaut in the first place was them taking the time to actually make the movies. Same thing with the DCAU. Stop trying to include "everything" all at once and actually give some time to lay a foundation for a story and characters. >Omni-Man is not Superman. You sure it isn't because Invincible is a shit series by default? >You can make a new guy with most of the same history, and the suit, and the name, and it will be closer, but it still won't be exactly the same without the elements of the history that are missing now. Does it actually matter as long as you can tell a decent story with you're "Not-Superman" character?

>>43002 >are you really going to let the guiding force in your life be a little green muppet from a story about space wizards fighting Nazis? Would it make you feel any better if they attributed the quote to the person who wrote the dialogue rather than Yoda?

>>43004 >>43002 The whole point of fiction is to inspire through fantasy. Teaching lessons. If the quote inspired you then it's doing it's job as more than just mindless entertainment.

>>43002 >And has gotten to the point that there are hundreds of series in the past decade alone that just start right at the end Name ten that aren't Frieren. >but are you really going to let the guiding force in your life be a little green muppet from a story about space wizards fighting Nazis? Hehehe, people actively take inspiration from worse these days. Worse media, worse characters, worse statements. There's probably one or two shitty things that guide and inspire me that I can't think of right now. >So what is Superman's purpose: to entertain or to "represent" America? Who says it can't be both? What started as one became the other through a stroke of luck on the writers part that Supes became a cultural icon. Although for WB his purpose is to be a street whore for money. >Perhaps that's an indication that we should all move on <Corpo being retarded means we should all bury the memory of a defining part of modern Americana >Does it actually matter as long as you can tell a decent story with you're "Not-Superman" character You underestimate the power of autism. His autism specifically.

>>43002 >I'm calling bullshit because the Japanese NEVER seem to have this problem with the thousands of fantasy manga and anime that deal with the "generic" concept of a hero fighting and defeating the demon king. That's not true. Some do want to continue with the specific elements of a specific pre-existing work. You may or may not like them, but Japan is no stranger to fanfiction, or doujin, which are simply more accepted there, to the degree that the creators sometimes get hired to work on official entries. Dragon Ball is one of the biggest franchises in the damn world, currently run by an ascended doujin creator, and while I wouldn't argue Dragon Ball Super is the greatest thing ever, he does specifically do stories specifically building on previous elements that the original author mentioned but didn't focus on, like how the Moro arc actually dealt with the fact that Mr. Buu is basically the Daikaioshin and South Kaioshin merged. Pretty cool fanfiction concept, even if the execution was pretty meh in the end. >every single one of these characters are just scribbles on a page. They don't "mean" anything. Now who is the one against art? Yes, characters do mean something. Especially characters that have become iconic and part of the wider pop culture. >they take random quotes out of media and treat them as if it's just as "important" as real person. And when that media is by something you accept as culturally significant, you accept it. Of course you wouldn't want me to compare George Lucas to William Shakespeare, but you don't care when people quote lines from Hamlet or Othello. The specific line you complain about Yoda saying was by a real person, and his name was George Lucas. Say he's not as good if you want, but the principle remains the same. People quote from fictional characters and always have. Hell, Socrates may have been a fictional character, as well as many other people from that far back (and further) in history. But it doesn't matter who said an idea. What matters is the idea itself. It doesn't matter if the author expresses the idea through a fictional character. Plato expressed many ideas through the character of Socrates. Those ideas are still just as valid as if he expressed them in another manner. >these characters exist for one purpose: TO PROVIDE ENTERTAINMENT. This is a false dichotomy. Characters can exist for many purposes, and entertainment is but one. You can argue it's the most important purpose, and I may agree, but well written stories, fiction or non-fiction, are both entertaining and enlightening. Of course, some bad actors take this as an invitation to do bad propaganda, but the problem with that is that it is neither entertaining nor enlightening, as much as they may claim it's the latter. >No different than Stoker having copied the ideas for Dracula from Varney the Vampire. And probably furthering my argument that the ideas matter more than the character. The story and characters of Nosferatu are so similar to Dracula that it's blatantly transparent which characters are which, even with their names changed. But fine, we could use tons of other examples. Many of Shakespeare's most famous works are adaptations of earlier works. But does that disqualify Romeo & Juliet from being legitimate literature? Obviously not. It's literally a fanfiction adaptation of a pre-existing story. But it's well done, and that's what matters. It also doesn't matter that it's Romeo, a fictional character, who says "a rose by any other name would smell as sweet." The idea is still legitimate, and it was expressed elegantly in that play. >You mean replaced it with a generic vampire? Nothing would change. I disagree. While obviously Castlevania isn't the most story-heavy series out there, I think it's cool that it's Dracula, and that it uses elements like Alucard (and since Son of Dracula is still under copyright, I'm glad Universal didn't care enough to sue). Bloodlines tying in more directly to the original novel is also pretty neat. While the plot isn't the most important thing here, I do think it adds a bit, and the overall work would suffer a bit if it had to change for legalistic reasons. >And some are terrible, like Thor: Ragnarok and Dracula 2000. Yeah, but I don't care. I'd rather have both Dracula 2000 and Nosferatu than neither. I enjoy all sorts of very different adaptations of Dracula. Tons are fucking garbage, but I'd rather take the good with the bad instead of just having none of them. >That was the third attempt to reboot him. That's adding to my point, not refuting it. It's not the original version. It's not even close. And while we're at it, the version of Felix everyone thinks of is not at all the version in the earliest cartoons. The earliest appearances of Felix look totally different from the design that became iconic. >Perhaps that's an indication that we should all move on. If nothing else, so that he can at least be put to rest. It wouldn't be a problem if the character and concepts weren't monopolized by a corporation. If everyone could just compete to make their own products with the concepts, then we'd get good ones with the bad, and the bad would be rightly ignored, while the good ones could still be enjoyed. >Can you name ANY of the adaptions in the past 20 years that have managed to include all those elements without fucking it up? No. But I wouldn't expect one adaptation to do all of them. Like one movie couldn't use all those villains, but could do a couple. These are elements introduced over decades of comics. But I kind of like Smallville. It did most of the elements well, but admittedly fucked up Lana Lang, Mister Mxyzptlk, and sort of Jimmy Olsen and Parasite. Okay, there are like three seasons in the middle that were pretty lame, but it got good again by the end. >The only reason the MCU became a juggernaut in the first place was them taking the time to actually make the movies. Same thing with the DCAU. Stop trying to include "everything" all at once and actually give some time to lay a foundation for a story and characters. I'm not disagreeing with any of this. It's kind of my point. If someone would adapt things correctly, like the Pre-Endgame MCU, or the DCAU, or like many anime adaptations of manga, then things would be a lot better. >You sure it isn't because Invincible is a shit series by default? Just for the record, I don't like Invincible either. I have gotten pretty into Squadron Supreme recently (for another example of a series about "not-Superman"), but I think Invincible sucks. >Does it actually matter as long as you can tell a decent story with you're "Not-Superman" character? I didn't say you can't tell A good story with that character, but you can't tell ALL good stories with that character. There are certain stories that would rely specifically on elements very specific to the real character and not a copy. It's a shame to let legalistic bullshit stop those stories from being told. Art shouldn't be restricted like that.

>>43007 >Name ten that aren't Frieren. Never heard of that but there's Helk, The Devil is a Part Timer, Maoyu, Maou Kyoudai, This Time I will Definately Be Happy!, Daimaou no Off, Don't Cry Maou-chan, The Another World Demon King's Successor, Uchi no Maou ga Tenshi de tsurai, and I Couldn't Become a Hero, So I Reluctantly Decided to Get a Job. I tried to limit myself to manga and not include onshots like Maou to Yuusha and Yuusha Goikkou no Kaerimichi, or hentai like Tensei Maou and Maou-gun no Moto Kanbu ga Yuusha ni Makete Mesu ni Sareru Hanashi >Who says it can't be both? Because if it's to represent America, then the purpose of the material is to preach, which no one finds entertaining. >>43008 > Especially characters that have become iconic and part of the wider pop culture. Except those characters were not designed with that concept in mind. The characters were designed for the purposes of making money by selling fantastical stories to people. >And when that media is by something you accept as culturally significant, you accept it. Can you rephrase that? >Of course you wouldn't want me to compare George Lucas to William Shakespeare, but you don't care when people quote lines from Hamlet or Othello. I never heard anyone quote Shakespeare for any purposes out of the blue. >The specific line you complain about Yoda saying was by a real person, and his name was George Lucas. Okay. And the context of that line is to tell a story for a movie about space wizards in order to sell toys. >People quote from fictional characters and always have. And the people that tend to do that turn out to be absolute pricks because they do not exist in reality. I can understand someone using scenes or quotes from a movie to explain a concept in Layman's terms, but to just quote a character and use THAT as the basis for your argument tells me everything I need to know about your personality. >But it doesn't matter who said an idea. Yes, it does. >What matters is the idea itself. It doesn't matter if the author expresses the idea through a fictional character. Yes, it does. To put it another way, fiction exists as a hypothesis, reality and history exists as the experiment. Do you rely upon the hypothesis or the experiment when creating your view of the world? >Those ideas are still just as valid as if he expressed them in another manner. No, they're not. If you're going to run with that logic, then we need to achieve absolute zero or the world is going to be underwater like we see in Waterworld and Trancers, if it's not already past the point of return like in The Day After Tomorrow. And stop all development of robots so we can prevent a robot takeover like we see in The Terminator and I, Robot. Oh, and while we're at it, also consider stop making fictional characters because Cool World and Who Framed Roger Rabbit shows that cartoon characters can come alive and kill people. Do you not see how retarded this gets? >but well written stories, fiction or non-fiction, are both entertaining and enlightening It is impossible for fiction to be "enlightening" because it exists as a fantasy at the end of the day. You can argue that material like the 1970's series Emergency! had a positive effect on people's awareness and treatment in regards to medical and rescue services that they previously didn't know about, but the show's purpose was to entertain at the end of the day. Compare that to similar series like the currently ongoing Chicago franchise under NBC or Disney's 9-1-1 franchise who's goal is to preach to the view, to "enlighten", that "these people care". That's not to mention instances of people treating media like 1979 film The China Syndrome as actual "fact" regarding what happens if a nuclear reactor melts down when there's nothing actually scientific about the movie whatsoever. If you want to know why schools since the 90's have shoved literally retarded and autistic children into classrooms, blame Forest Gump as you had a bunch of parents that saw that movie and were inspired, were "enlightened", to believe that their mentally challenged child who needed real help to learn was just as capable as a regular kid in going to public school. The only "enlightening" thing media can actually do is make me get off my ass and do my own research if I'm interested enough in the subject. That's it. >The story and characters of Nosferatu are so similar to Dracula that it's blatantly transparent which characters are which, even with their names changed. It's not the same story. Nosferatu is heavily invested in Germanic and Slavic folk lore, unlike Dracula just copying from Varney and adding a "European invasion" aspect. However if we're to ignore that, you're proving my point that the ideas and concepts matter, not the characters. >Many of Shakespeare's most famous works are adaptations of earlier works. But does that disqualify Romeo & Juliet from being legitimate literature? Again, you're proving my point that the ideas matter in regards to the story, not the characters. Also which is a better story: West Side Story or Romeo + Juliet? >I do think it adds a bit, and the overall work would suffer a bit if it had to change for legalistic reasons. Why? It's just a name. >It wouldn't be a problem if the character and concepts weren't monopolized by a corporation Except they're not. The concept of an superpowered baby crashing to Earth is not a monopolized concept. We've seen it in everything from parodied in Megamind to James Gunn doing his own "Evil Supes" story with Brightburn to even Disney's version of Hercules. The idea of an invulnerable strongman coming to save the day has been done in everything from Tarzan to John Carter to David Dunn (Unbreakable) to Hego (Kim Possible) to Mr. Incredible to Samaritan/Nemesis (Yes, I recently saw that, it was a good movie). Take the concepts and do your own thing. > If everyone could just compete to make their own products with the concepts, then we'd get good ones with the bad, and the bad would be rightly ignored, while the good ones could still be enjoyed. But you can do that right now. >I didn't say you can't tell A good story with that character, but you can't tell ALL good stories with that character Then you make another new character to tell the stories that you couldn't with that character. And then make another character because you're still limited by the previous two characters, and so one. Or default to what Osamu Tezuka did, which was have the "characters" exist as tropes: https://infogalactic.com/info/Osamu_Tezuka%27s_Star_System >There are certain stories that would rely specifically on elements very specific to the real character and not a copy After a certain point, does that honestly matter? There's only so much "important" detail one must consider before you're just beginning to waste your time. >Art shouldn't be restricted like that. Art thrives because of restrictions, not the lack there of. If you cannot use Superman, then you make your own Superman "except with Blackjack and hookers".

>>43007 <Name ten that aren't Frieren >anon proceeds to do so I bet you really thought that was a gotcha, didn't you?

Full body look at The Leader in Captain Falcon.

>>43013 1000 years in MSpaint

>>43014 Jimmy Negatron!

>>43000 >>43000 Making Garet and Garett out to be distinct characters is spilitting hairs. They're different versions of the same guy, except the Fox Features original was a cop and the Charlton iteration was an archeologist/egyptologist, and for the record Charlton's run with the Blue Beetle wasnt a failure, they were just cheap and continued to reprint the stories Ditko had already provided them before relegating Ted to a back up in their Captain Atom title. Really after a certain point all the Charlton Action Heroes would appear in Space Adventures for whatever reason. Ted was still very popular, arguably their biggest capeshit success, but ultimately that success was still very niche. You have to remember Charlton was as low rung a comic publisher as you could be back in the day. They'ed print any material they could get their hands on just to keep the presses running and avoid wasting ink. >far as I know, Garret is straight up not canon to any later versions, except for one Post-Charlton, Pre-DC story where they retconned both Dans to be the same guy reincarnated Sounds like Bill Black's Sentinels of Justice. Probably one of the best uses of the characters outside of their tenure at charlton. I still resent DC for buying them out, because just like they've done with all their other acquisitions, at best they've sat on them for the last 40 years. With the alternative being more edgy crap like the Morrison series or Watchmen itself. Anyways the reality that the action heroes are free to use means we should use them. In fact, alot of Ditko's charlton contributions are PD. So when I spotted this one great fan art teaming up all of Ditko's biggest name characters, it inspired me to do the same with what was availible to me. Crazy to think Ditko produced 2 seperate Dr Strange clones for two different low rung publishers (charlton's Dr Graves and ACG's Mark Midnight, who later went onto be pastiched by Moore himself in the 1963 miniseries as "Johnny Beyond"). Ultimately this is a shrinking market catering to an evermore niche audience. We're at a point where transformers comics are outselling the entirety of DC's output these days. Maybe there's some truth to your claims regarding the popularity of these characters, but if we dont try to move the needle nothing will change. Atleast Austin Mcconnell and Spikeytortoise are giving things the old college try. God knows project superpowers is all but dead these days.

>>43009 >Except those characters were not designed with that concept in mind. That doesn't matter. They still have come to mean something. I've had teachers like you who told me the works of Dickens wasn't a real artist because he was working for a page rate. Of course so is practically every artist. Now is there a spectrum, where some things are more artistic than others? Maybe. But they're all art. That doesn't mean all art is good, but it's all art. And sometimes different readers can get different things out of the same art. Here's a quote... <Some people can read War and Peace and come away thinking it's a simple adventure story. Others can read the ingredients on a chewing gum wrapper and unlock the secrets of the universe. You know who said that? Lex Luthor, in Superman: The Movie. Don't like that it was from the mouth of a fictional character? Then attribute it to its writer, Mario Puzo, who also wrote The Godfather. Does The Godfather count as art to you? Or does it not since Puzo and everyone else involved got paid for it? >And when that media is by something you accept as culturally significant, you accept it. >Can you rephrase that? I understand we are talking about funnybooks and it's not typically considered high art, but I'm willing to bet that there is art you do respect. My point is that I don't think the source of the idea matters. What matters is the idea. Sometimes these funnybooks express interesting ideas in interesting ways. >I never heard anyone quote Shakespeare for any purposes out of the blue. I do. I use that "rose by any other name" line somewhat often. I've also found myself quoting "to be or not to be" and other parts of that soliloquy sometimes, in my more emo moments. Honestly, I quote Shakespeare somewhat often. Of course, I happen to be a high school English teacher. >Okay. And the context of that line is to tell a story for a movie about space wizards in order to sell toys. That's part of the context of the line. The other part of the context is to impart a message. I believe it was Aristotle that said stories are ways of conveying lessons. Some can take this too far and make their stories preachy and not entertaining, but of course the point of making it a story and not a lecture is to entertain and thus add additional forms of impact. There is point to all art. That's not to say all points are as important or correct, but there is something to learn from everything. See that Lex Luthor quote above. Also, I don't think what we can get out of a story is necessarily what the author intended, or consciously intended. "Death of the author" frequently gets taken too far as well, but I can get a lot out of reading Sonichu, even if it isn't at all what CWC intended. The man poured his retarded soul out, and we can learn a lot from it, even if he failed to learn anything from the various stories he is fictionalizing and conveying to us. >I can understand someone using scenes or quotes from a movie to explain a concept in Layman's terms, but to just quote a character and use THAT as the basis for your argument tells me everything I need to know about your personality. I agree that the fact that a quote has been said before doesn't make it more legitimate. The point of quoting other sources is because sometimes somebody already articulated an idea very effectively, and you might as well use that, and it's only right to cite your source (though sometimes this is done implicitly, if the line is so famous that it's expected that your audience knows the source). >Yes, it does. No it doesn't. If Person A and Person B both say the same idea, it's either correct or incorrect both times. 2+2 always equals 4, no matter who says it. I won't stand for someone coming to 8chan of all places and trying to argue for subjective reality. "Your truth" is bullshit. The truth is the truth regardless of who says it. >Yes, it does. To put it another way, fiction exists as a hypothesis, reality and history exists as the experiment. Do you rely upon the hypothesis or the experiment when creating your view of the world? Saying something isn't an experiment. And again, an author saying it in an interview doesn't make it more or less valid than writing it into a character's mouth. It's either a good or interesting idea or it is not. Some ideas can be retarded, or are just hypotheses and should be tested, but that has nothing to do with who says them. It's absolutely retarded to say that a character saying something is a hypothesis but the author saying it IRL is an experiment. It's so stupid that I don't think it's actually what you meant to say, and that you just didn't realize what a dumb analogy this was. >No, they're not. If you're going to run with that logic, then we need to achieve absolute zero or the world is going to be underwater like we see in Waterworld and Trancers I said they're just as valid as if he expressed them in another manner. If Kevin Costner came out and said that Waterworld is real, it wouldn't make it real. The idea would be just as valid no matter who says it or how. In that case, not valid. Of course, obviously the point of fiction is not to convince you it is literally real, it's to communicate other ideas in more elegant ways than just lecturing to you. Are all those ideas correct? No. They're be just as correct or incorrect if the author just said them out loud in a lecture though. Having a character say them doesn't make them any more or less correct than they would be otherwise. This is an absolutely insane claim for you to make. Again, it's so insane I'm pretty sure it's not what you intend to say, but you've dug yourself in to a ridiculous position and don't know how to get out. If Robert Zemeckis came out and said that he believes cartoon characters are real in another dimension, Chris Chan style, it wouldn't mean the idea is correct. It would be precisely as correct as it was when he directed Who Framed Roger Rabbit. Of course, he wasn't trying to convince you that Roger Rabbit was real. But the movie does contain other ideas I think Zemeckis probably does believe, such as things about dealing with grief and prejudice, with Eddie Valiant's character arc. Yes, it's a silly movie, but it has some ideas I bet Zemeckis thinks are legitimate. And maybe you disagree. But whether he says them through the movie or says them through a lecture, they're just as correct or incorrect either way. They don't suddenly become more correct if he comes out and just tells you the themes explicitly. >It is impossible for fiction to be "enlightening" because it exists as a fantasy at the end of the day. I know what site we are on, and I know how long I tend to rant about comic books, but dude, this is legitimately Rain Man-tier autistic. Whoops. Made an allusion. Now you'll complain that Dustin Hoffman has a completely different form of retardation in real life. >Examples of shows you don't like I agree that I also don't like their messages and (mostly) how they're expressed (often much too preachy, not good entertainment). The same ideas would be just as wrong if the writers just came out and lectured them to you directly. The fact that they tell them through stories doesn't make them any more or less correct. You must not realize that you're accidentally saying that if the writers of those modern SJW Chicago shows just came out and told you "white people are evil!" it would somehow be more correct than them telling it through their badly written stories. No, it would be just as stupid and incorrect. Maybe even more stupid since they wouldn't be able to obfuscate it with at least a slight layer of entertainment. At least then it might be a stupid idea expressed with a tinge of elegance. (Then again, those shows aren't very good, so maybe not.) >The only "enlightening" thing media can actually do is make me get off my ass and do my own research if I'm interested enough in the subject. That's it. There is a thing called philosophy. Sometimes you can get ideas that aren't about things you need to research. Now philosophies can be stupid, but when Yoda says "Do or do not, there is no try," he isn't making a statistical claim that nobody ever fails ever, he's just saying that confidence can sometimes increase your odds of success. The film said it in a much more elegant way, however. Not just with the dialogue, but the context. >Nosferatu is heavily invested in Germanic and Slavic folk lore, unlike Dracula Is Dracula not? A huge part of it is about Transylvanian folklore. What do you think makes Nosferatu more like that? Because it takes place in Germany? I don't think that alone changes much. That would be like me saying Dracula is heavily invested in English folklore just because it takes place in England. I don't recall the other elements that you're saying make it more invested in German and Slavic folklore. >However if we're to ignore that, you're proving my point that the ideas and concepts matter, not the characters. Nosferatu is straight up Dracula. They changed the name, but he's pretty damn similar. The plot is extremely similar barring a few aspects (which also get changed in other famous and official adaptations that are readily accepted as Dracula).

>Why? It's just a name. The name carries history and connotations. It's only one element, and changing just the name wouldn't change it entirely, I don't think it would completely ruin it, but it adds a bit. Juliet could be called something else because Romeo didn't fall in love with her because she was famous. She didn't have a long history that informed Romeo's view of her (in fact, when he learned her history, he loved her in spite of it, which was precisely the point). Dracula does have a long history that informs our view of him and why we like the character. Changing the name, like Nosferatu, changes a bit (but maybe not enough to not make it blatantly a ripoff). That said, Castlevania does also have Orlok show up as a boss, and he has slightly different connotations than Dracula (even if only slightly) and that makes it kind of cool. >Except they're not. Superman is more than each of the individual elements you mentioned. He's more than even the amalgamation of the elements you mentioned, because there are more elements involved. Each of the characters you mentioned is also meaningful in their own ways, as each is somewhat unique. Do you understand that DC publishes comic books based on tv shows based on comic books? Reading a comic about DCAU Superman or Batman '66 is different than reading about the mainstream versions. Even those characters, based on the comics characters, are different. To the fans who know the histories, the histories are important and unique stories can be told with those specific histories. Even the different versions of the characters carry different connotations. Kal-L is the original Superman, not the main Superman. The two have met and there are stories about how they're different. Jay Garrick is different than Barry Allen, despite both being The Flash, having the same powers. Wally West is also different, and his costume is nearly the same as Barry's. His origin story is extremely similar, too. But he's a totally different character and allows for totally different stories. >But you can do that right now. Not freely. Do certain stories with certain concepts and you get sued. >Then you make another new character to tell the stories that you couldn't with that character. Unless the stories you want to tell involve a specific character with a specific history and specific connotations. Again, there are stories that can be told with Jay Garrick and not Barry Allen, or Kal-L but not Kal-El, or Batman '66 but not Earth-One Batman, or DCAU Harley Quinn and not New Earth Harley Quinn. Batman Beyond is a great example of something that they've tried to get to work in the mainstream DCU many times, but it just doesn't work, because a big part of the appeal is how it ties in to specific elements of the DC Animated Universe specifically. >Or default to what Osamu Tezuka did, which was have the "characters" exist as tropes: Yeah, that's all well and good. I didn't say there weren't infinite ideas out there. But I did say that it's bullshit that some ideas can be limited by corporations buying the government so that they can sue you over telling a story. There are stories that can't be told because of this. Can you tell other stories? Yes. I never argued that. But there shouldn't be any stories that can't be told. Yet there are because of these laws. >After a certain point, does that honestly matter? There's only so much "important" detail one must consider before you're just beginning to waste your time. You're on a comics board right now. Comics have spent about 40 years now being turbo-autistic about very specific old continuity, making stories that are completely incomprehensible to normalfags. But they're fun for the autists who do learn enough to understand them. And it should be legal to write good stories like this, especially now that the corporations have been taken over by SJWs that hate what the characters and their histories represent (things like masculinity, America, and literally the very concept of heroism, which the SJWs were writing articles complaining about on Comics Alliance 15 years ago before they took over), and seek only to destroy them. If someone else has a good story to tell about the relationship between Ted Kord and Booster Gold that is specifically set between two particular issues of Justice League International, they should be able to publish it. If someone can put together their own Superman movie that actually understands the character, they should be allowed to do that without getting sued. Or maybe their stories would suck. But I don't care, because I can ignore them if they suck. Yet I could enjoy them if they were good. So we should be allowed to see them. >Art thrives because of restrictions, not the lack there of. If you cannot use Superman, then you make your own Superman "except with Blackjack and hookers". I sympathize with the idea that restrictions can help to make better art, but I think legalistic restrictions from corrupt corporations and governments aren't the types of restrictions we should embrace. Even then, all restrictions should be able to be ignored sometimes. I'd argue that sticking to canon is usually very important. It's a restriction that can be used to make great stories. But sometimes there are good stories that completely ignore canon. They should be allowed to be made too. All stories should be allowed to be made. Let the audience be the judge. >>43046 >Making Garet and Garett out to be distinct characters is spilitting hairs. They're different versions of the same guy, except the Fox Features original was a cop and the Charlton iteration was an archeologist/egyptologist There was also the whole thing where their origin stories and sources of their abilities were totally different. No later Blue Beetle stories ever reference the super-vitamins that Dan Garret used to take. The fact that Dan Garrett used the scarab to get powers is very important. >Charlton's run with Blue Beetle wasn't a failure They did several runs. Their initial run with Dan Garret apparently wasn't doing well enough, so they rebooted him as Dan Garrett, complete with new origin story and job, then that didn't take off, so they very quickly killed him off and replaced him with Ted Kord. The Ted Kord stuff is the stuff by Ditko, and it's excellent, and yeah it was that Charlton was quite mismanaged at the time that got it cancelled, but the point remains that Garret and Garrett are different, and Garrett wasn't even very successful in his own run, but is remembered because he was incorporated into Kord's backstory, while Garret (who was a much more successful character in is time) was not, and is thus now forgotten. I would commend an effort to try to do stuff with the Charlton Action Heroes. They're some of the more popular public domain characters out there. But that's largely because of what DC has done with them, including Watchmen, but also other stuff. Go and try to make your own Blue Beetle movie about Garret, Garrett, or Kord. You think they won't sue your ass? They just put out a Blue Beetle movie recently. You might be legally right, but you'd better be prepared to fight Warner Bros. in court over it. And they know this, and they bank on it. As for the other characters, like say Mark Midnight, if you read the stories and something in them really speaks to you and you think you have a story that could really say something specifically with that character, that's all well and good. Fewer people have ideas about those characters because fewer people care about them. Part of what makes a character mean something is their cultural impact, and certain characters had more than others. But then maybe something just speaks to you, and that's all well and good. One thing I actually don't like is when characters are re-used just for greed. Like when DC bought Charlton, their initial uses of the characters were not very much like the original versions at all. They all got heavily retooled. Captain Atom was retooled so heavily it basically became a whole different thing. The Question, while acclaimed, was practically a deliberate effort to insult Ditko's version. Blue Beetle was used as just a Spider-Man clone. But all that said, the DC versions also ended up becoming interesting over time. I like Ditko's Blue Beetle for a very different reason than DC's Blue Beetle, though I like both. So in the end, even though I don't like what DC did with the characters initially, I don't mind that the stories exist. I like that they exist. But I think that more should be allowed to exist. They shouldn't be monopolized by a corporation.

>>43049 There is a dogshit cheap indie movie featuring a black Dan Garett (golden age cop) made circa 2011 that tried to be a TASM mockbuster. Sure it was titled "Agent Beetle" but the point it can be done. Even Dynamite has their own version of Dan they've taken to calling "Big Blue" aswell as a new addition to the beetle mantle in "The Scarab" who was some sort of middle eastern war vet with a super suit. I also saw a book following the adventures of Dan's daughter once simply titled Beetle Girl. Just like with the original Billy Batson-Captain Marvel, you can use those characters and adapt their PD stories, you just cant use DC trademarks to advertise your product.

>>43048 >I've had teachers like you who told me the works of Dickens wasn't a real artist because he was working for a page rate. That's not how it works. Literally any activity can be considered a work "art". Japan even has an entire culture based around the artistic expression of just natural life and imperfection called 「侘寂」, which is where we get their renowned tea ceremonies and zen gardens. >And sometimes different readers can get different things out of the same art. I'm not denying that. What I'm saying is that art is not reality. Fictional characters are not real. They are tools that exist for the purposes of telling a story. Sometimes those stories can be childish and simple like Frog and Toad, other times they can be extremely complex narratives spanning entire galaxies such as the entire Warhammer 40k franchise. The problem at the end of the day is that they are not real. <And if you're going to argue that fictional characters are just as important as living breathing humans who lived, bled, and died on this planet so that others could survive; then I guess this scene from Duckman is the authoritative subject on how we should treat the Second Amendment. I mean, it even has James Madison. >My point is that I don't think the source of the idea matters. What matters is the idea. Sometimes these funnybooks express interesting ideas in interesting ways. Yes, they can, and I'm not going to deny that. I brought up the example of Emergency! earlier doing exact that with the show being the reason why it's common for rescue services to now have paramedic units. But that also shows the difference. A lot of people saw that show, then proceeded to look into the real world logistics behind how it would be possible to create such a unit in their own municipality, and then decided if the benefits outweighed the costs. Compare that to all the endless petitions, signed by millions of people, to get governments to fund the real world construction of a Mobile Suit or the Death Star for no other reason than "Just because". Even then, compare how, two months ago during the election, the Harris campaign put all their money behind hiring the Avengers actors to do a promo for her, meanwhile Trump didn't have to pay squat to have the "real world Avengers" of Elon Musk, RFK, Tulsi Gabbard, etc. backing him the entire way. >Spoiler I know. Looking forward to becoming a U.S. citizen without having to leave? >The other part of the context is to impart a message. Yeah, on Luke. >I believe it was Aristotle that said stories are ways of conveying lessons. I find history to be a better lesson than stories. >Some can take this too far and make their stories preachy and not entertaining, but of course the point of making it a story and not a lecture is to entertain and thus add additional forms of impact. Does the story exist AS the point, does the point exist to further narrative of the story, or does the story exist to help dramatize the point? The only example I think of a story doing the latter is The Richest Man In Babylon, where Clason spends an entire chapter explaining the real world historical contexts of Babylon, the people's mindsets, and what they achieved and that ties in to the fables he created. Meanwhile I don't see anyone making Superman stories for the purposes of making some grand statement or lesson about the world, unless you count Zack Snyder's films. >If Person A and Person B both say the same idea, it's either correct or incorrect both times. No, it's not. Socialists have done a fine job of proving just that when they take words like "democracy" and "social" to mean "democracy only for the enlightened" and "interacting with anything that exists". This isn't an argument of "objective truth", it's an argument of who is presenting the idea and why are they presenting it. >And again, an author saying it in an interview doesn't make it more or less valid than writing it into a character's mouth It does as it establishes the author's mindset behind the character's actions. For example, I wasted nearly two hours of my life watching Funny Games, came away wondering what Hell the point was behind everything that happened, and look up later to see the director of the film saying that there was NO point to the movie. And the moment I saw that, every ounce of intrigue I had regarding the "social commentary" and fourth wall breaking in the movie was rendered moot as the creator himself confirmed that it's just white noise. >It's so stupid that I don't think it's actually what you meant to say, and that you just didn't realize what a dumb analogy this was. Do you daydream? Wouldn't you rather be doing what you're doing in those daydreams? If so, what's stopping you? A lot of stories exist as daydreams of what could be, what could have been, or what something absolutely cannot be. They're a fiction so there's no limitation on what you can do in the story. Reality has limitations however as we live in an objective and practical world. That's what I mean by fiction being the hypothesis and reality being the experiment. >I said they're just as valid as if he expressed them in another manner. The film The Day After Tomorrow is based upon the Art Bell and Whitley Strieber's book The Coming Global Superstorm, where both guys unironically argue that the disasters, that you see in the film, will unironically and literally happen if we don't stop global warming. So which does a better job "expressing" the idea: a scientific book explaining their theories in detail or a Pedowood Blockbuster production? >obviously the point of fiction is not to convince you it is literally real Some people actually do that. That's the entire excuse behind why the 1619 Projects gets to produce literal fantasies about "black oppression" that never actually happened and get away with declaring it as being "historical fact". Not to mention all those Holohoax novels treated as "fact". And numerous other historically fictional works. >Yes, it's a silly movie, but it has some ideas I bet Zemeckis thinks are legitimate. Not in the way you would think. For example, the character of Jessica Rabbit. If your only experience with the character is through the movie, you think that she exists for the purposes of being a stereotypical femme fatale in a bog-standard mature noir story for nostalgic adults. However in a recent interview where Zemeckis talked about how a follow-up film is never going to happen under the current Yidsney admins, he also discussed that Jessica made that movie because it showed that you can have a mature story and characters for families of all ages without every having to sanitize or talk down to the kids in the audience. >You must not realize that you're accidentally saying that if the writers of those modern SJW Chicago shows just came out and told you "white people are evil!" it would somehow be more correct than them telling it through their badly written stories It certainly would alleviate the suspicions on if they're true believers or just that stupid. That's also the reason why I'm against hate speech laws on principle. It has nothing to do with someone shouting "Nigger" all day and it being "just a word", it has to do with the fact that I would rather people be honest than be afraid to express their true thoughts. That way I don't have to waste my time actually learning about a person before finding out that they're a genuine assholes that I need to avoid. Probably would still have to do that, just not as often. >Now philosophies can be stupid, but when Yoda says "Do or do not, there is no try," he isn't making a statistical claim that nobody ever fails ever, he's just saying that confidence can sometimes increase your odds of success. The think the fact that I can disagree about that being the "point" of the phrase in the context of the movie proves the argument that I'm making. Be honest, who is less ambiguous in the "point" behind a statement said: the fictional character Yoda or real life people like Jim Rohn and Matsuoka Shuzo? >The name carries history and connotations. How about you make your own history? That's what the Legacy of Kain series did. >To the fans who know the histories, the histories are important and unique stories can be told with those specific histories. To be honest, I used to be one of those guys, then I stopped caring because of how they kept taking series away from good writers, or throwing in shit writers. Hearing about what happened to the Ghost Rider comic series, where they originally meant to have Jesus be the literal Jesus before firing the series writer and his replacement changing the plot to have Jesus being a demon imposter, pretty much completed my long road of disenfranchisement towards American comics and a lot of modern iterations in general. And I haven't really looked back much since plunging myself into manga (Which are handled by the same creators from start to finish) or searching out the source material to a lot of modern material (Because I want to experience the original story, not someone's interpretation of it). You can talk about the long complicated histories made by a cavalcade of writers all you want and how that makes the characters more colorful in the possible stories one can create. I just have no interest in it because I just see someone else possibly coming in and shitting all over the hard work and effort you put in to "fix it". And I think your time would be better spent making something that you wholly own rather than something that you're effectively renting from a temperamental owner who can remove you for any petty reason they want. >Batman Beyond is a great example of something that they've tried to get to work in the mainstream DCU many times, but it just doesn't work, because a big part of the appeal is how it ties in to specific elements of the DC Animated Universe specifically. Or it could be because of the fact that it's depicting a future where Bruce eventually gives up the cowl, and it doesn't work since Batman has been constantly in print for nearly the past century and will likely still be in print a century from now unless something changes. >There are stories that can't be told because of this. Can you tell other stories? Yes. I never argued that. But there shouldn't be any stories that can't be told. Yet there are because of these laws. Those laws exist for your benefit too. Where you can write your own original shlock, make money off of it, and prevent other people from stealing your characters and story (For a limited time). I'm not saying the Copyright and the Legal system is perfect (It does need some serious reform), but don't try to bullshit me with how it's "limiting" your creativity. Even if copyright was reverted today to how it original was (Which was copyright expires after 20 years, which means anything made before 2005 is public domain), you'd still be bitching about "Muh restrictions" because you wouldn't be able to tell your Super-Sons /sm/ fanfiction as Damian Wayne and Chris Kent didn't exist until 2006. Just take what's available right now and make your own shit. Stop wasting your time on companies who are never going to hire you and hate your guts. If you want to write autistic stories about capeshit with complicated histories, how about you create own characters with their own complicated backstories, or create some stories using the characters already in the public domain? How about some autistic cross-over series about the Scarlet Pimpernel, Zorro, Spring-Heeled Jack, and Jimmie Dale all being initiates of some secret masked hero society. >I sympathize with the idea that restrictions can help to make better art, but I think legalistic restrictions from corrupt corporations and governments aren't the types of restrictions we should embrace. Why not?

>>43051 >That's not how it works. Literally any activity can be considered a work "art". Yes. We agree. My point is that it doesn't matter if it was made for profit, as practically all works are. Many of them are still good. Hell, Transformers is a straight up toy commercial, but I'll defend adamantly the artistic value of many Transformers stories. Are they children's stories? Yes. But Optimus Prime means something (as Hasbro learned when they saw the response to his fate in the original movie). Simon Furman in particular has written a lot of great stories with the series. Beast Wars has some really interesting stuff going on, especially regarding Dinobot. Beast Machines, if anything, tries to get a bit too lofty and forgets its toy commercial roots a bit too much (and thus also had toys that suffered and didn't match the show at all), and some of the biggest complaints are that its themes are too complex for the intended age group. Because Transformers is literally a toy commercial, but there is also art in there, and I'd even argue that there is a lot of good art in there. Same goes for GI Joe, whose Marvel series by Larry Hama was incredibly influential. Though I hate Bronies, I'm sure there is something in My Little Pony that is legitimately good art, despite being a toy commercial. You mention Warhammer, and all those novels are also just toy commercials. I could go on and on. >Fictional characters are not real. Nobody argued otherwise. You got from "an idea is just as legitimate not matter what form it's expressed in" to "fiction is real." The strawman at play is so bizarre that it doesn't even remotely resemble the actual point that was made. >fictional characters are just as important as living breathing humans Again, this doesn't even remotely resemble anything that was said in this conversation. The whole point of a strawman argument is that it needs to at least sort of resemble the actual argument, so that they can be confused. >ideas should be tested before being implemented No shit. Again, this is unrelated to the argument of if an idea somehow becomes more legitimate if said by an author directly or by a character the author wrote. >Spoiler I wish. I wish I had TDS so I could believe that his obvious hyperbole and negotiating tactics were literal. At least he is helping fix the immigration problems even outside his own country. Absolute hero. >Yeah, on Luke. You think the people making the movie weren't aware that it was going to have an audience? >I find history to be a better lesson than stories. History is a story. I know you mean you value nonfiction over fiction. I'm not arguing about that point, though. I'm saying fiction has value. Art has value. It is a valid and valuable form of communication. And you agree or you wouldn't be on a board set up to specifically discuss it. >Does the story exist AS the point, does the point exist to further narrative of the story, or does the story exist to help dramatize the point? You can only think of one example of the latter? There are tons. Unfortunately it's become most of modern media, as they've taken things that used to have more entertainment value and made them purely about pushing the message. Of course a good story has a balance, and a great one does both effectively. >Meanwhile I don't see anyone making Superman stories for the purposes of making some grand statement or lesson about the world, unless you count Zack Snyder's films. Again, there are tons. Superman has his share both of preachy bullshit as well as actual artistic works that happen to also effectively convey a message. Superman in particular really draws this type of "meaningful" story since he is so meaningful in American culture. Captain America gets it a lot, especially since his meaning is even more obvious, but Superman has been much more popular throughout most of their shared histories. For popular examples of Superman being used to represent things, look at The Death of Superman (and particularly the "World Without a Superman" part that comes immediately after), Kingdom Come, and Final Crisis (especially the "Superman Beyond" spinoff issues which are actually the most important issues, which helps to make the story terribly confusing, but good if you do read the whole thing). I also love Lex Luthor: Man of Steel. (It's not quite as possible, but as it's from the villain's point of view, a very significant point of the story is examining what Superman represents.) Again, I could go on and on. Superman in particular is really rife with this, to the point that it's honestly often a problem. >Socialists have done a fine job of proving just that when they take words like "democracy" and "social" to mean "democracy only for the enlightened" and "interacting with anything that exists". Then you're pointing out that they're actually presenting alternative ideas using the same words. They use Newspeak and expect normalfags to think they're speaking Oldspeak, in order to trick them. But the actual ideas being presented are different. The point still remains that an idea is either legitimate or not. The ideas you're complaining about are wrong when they're presented in Newspeak, and they'd be just as wrong if someone else presented them in Oldspeak. Some normalfags would just find it more obvious. Now, this brings up the point that fiction can be effectively used to make points in manipulative fashions. Some might say that's even the point. But I'm not about to discount all of art and its power to express meaning due to that. It can be manipulation, but it can also simply be effective communication. Of course these things are tricky, and some will try to take advantage of a blurry line between them to do one while saying they're doing the other, but in practice it's pretty easy to tell the difference. Propaganda is like pornography. I know it when I see it. But if you want to argue some people are stupid and don't know it when they see it? Well yeah I might agree. >It does as it establishes the author's mindset behind the character's actions. For example... So you didn't see a meaning, then asked, and got confirmed the author didn't intend one. Looks like you found the same meaning from both sources. And it isn't more or less legitimate either time. >That's what I mean by fiction being the hypothesis and reality being the experiment. Then what you're arguing isn't about fiction v nonfiction, it's about talk v action. Sure. That was never what I was arguing about, and I'm not about to argue against it now. >The film The Day After Tomorrow is based upon the Art Bell and Whitley Strieber's book The Coming Global Superstorm, where both guys unironically argue that the disasters, that you see in the film, will unironically and literally happen if we don't stop global warming. And you clearly don't think that the idea is any more legitimate in the book than it is in the film. You think it's an incorrect idea in the movie, and it doesn't suddenly become correct just because you read it in a nonfiction book. (Yes, an opinion book is still nonfiction, even if it's wrong. The point is that they're saying it out of their own mouths and not the mouths of characters.) >So which does a better job "expressing" the idea: a scientific book explaining their theories in detail or a Pedowood Blockbuster production? I haven't read the book, but probably the movie, because at least it has a modicum of entertainment value. Now you could argue it's manipulative, but it's getting the idea across somewhat effectively. Or maybe not, because everyone saw it as what it was, a Roland Emmerich film, and didn't really take it more seriously than Godzilla. >Some people actually do that.

[Expand Post]

You know what I mean. You mention things published as "nonfiction" that are lies. We're talking about Superman. Nobody writing Superman intends to actually make you believe there is an alien flying around saving people from disasters and supervillains. You're simply talking about liars, and that's my point. The ideas are wrong even if published as "nonfiction." They're either right or wrong, regardless of if said by a real guy or a fictional guy. >Roger Rabbit talk There. So there's another point the film expressed without the director having to just come out and say it. And he did come out and say it decades later, and the idea is just as correct or incorrect both times. Either he's right that you don't have to talk down to the kids, or he's wrong. Although ironically in this case, the fiction is precisely the "experiment" you were talking about, while him saying it in a nonfiction manner (an interview) would be more of a hypothesis. He had an idea he could just say. By putting it in the film, he put it into action and tested it. >It certainly would alleviate the suspicions on if they're true believers or just that stupid. I personally don't care about that anymore. But to stick to the point, you clearly agree with me that their ideas are stupid in the show, and they'd be just as stupid if they just stated them in interviews. It doesn't matter if a character says them or the writer says them under his own name. The ideas would be either right or wrong both times. >Be honest, who is less ambiguous in the "point" behind a statement said: the fictional character Yoda or real life people I never argued fiction was less ambiguous. Often (maybe always) making it more ambiguous is the point. But ambiguity has nothing to do with if it is correct or not. Stating an idea less ambiguously doesn't make it more correct. The idea's the same. It's just how it's expressed. >How about you make your own history? That's what the Legacy of Kain series did. That's what a lot of series did, but it's not what we're arguing about. We're arguing about if it's morally legitimate for corporations (or anyone, really) to ban the creation of certain works of art.

>longrunning comics (and other works by multiple authors) sometimes get fucked up No argument there. But sometimes the later authors are also good, or even make things better. Sometimes they take ways previous writers fucked things up and take the broken pieces and then make something better than before. Justice League International exists because corporate wouldn't let them use the members of the Justice League that people actually liked, so they were stuck with characters that DC was in the process of cancelling throughout their other series, like Booster Gold, Blue Beetle, Fire, Ice, etc.. So the creators went in a different direction with it and it became a fan favorite, and those characters that were previously failing to sell became fan favorites. JLI didn't sell the best either, but it at least stuck in the minds of fans, and years later got more popular with a more successful Booster Gold solo series, taking the character's history and turning a character that was originally a pretty significant failure into a much bigger (if still somewhat cult) success. Blue Beetle is another very similar case. DC kind of fucked up their initial attempt at Blue Beetle, after buying him, but JLI turned it around (even if it made him very different than Ditko's version) and made him a fan favorite, and later appearances in series like Booster Gold, or the series with the next Blue Beetle, made him even more popular. And I'd argue they did so because they included good stories. Yes, even Jaime Reyes, something near Patient Zero for "kill off white guy and replace him with anyone but a white guy," at least had a few good stories. (I also like the story where Ted dies. And I shouldn't keep mentioning Green Lantern, but it's the perfect example. Corporate saw Green Lantern failing and then did a rather unpopular move by making him a villain and replacing him with a new guy. Ten years later Geoff Johns comes around and is tasked with fixing it, and he didn't just fix it, he made the series more popular than it ever was. >manga (Which are handled by the same creators from start to finish) Well, sometimes they are. Not always. It's more common than American comics, but it's not like they don't have their cash cow franchises that they just keep going forever. >or searching out the source material to a lot of modern material (Because I want to experience the original story, not someone's interpretation of it). Yeah, I would usually recommend that, but I'd also recommend other stories that aren't by the original authors. I'd definitely recommend the original Hal Jordan Green Lantern stories, but I'd also recommend Geoff Johns' stuff. I'd recommend Lee and Kirby's X-Men, but a lot of people wouldn't, and would say to jump right to Giant-Sized X-Men, like 15 years later. I love everything Ditko did, but I would also strongly recommend Romita Sr's Spider-Man (and many other creators' later Spidey stories), and I've already mentioned that I appreciate much of what DC did with Blue Beetle and Question (even though, yes, they're quite different). >I just have no interest in it because I just see someone else possibly coming in and shitting all over the hard work and effort you put in to "fix it". Sometimes it's about the journey and not the destination. Or sometimes it's about the particular story you're reading and not some other story someone does later. Do you really think Dragon Ball GT or Super or Daima ruin the original manga? Do you really think any of the shit WB has been doing with Watchmen in the last decade ruins the original comic? When I'm reading old Justice League stories from the '70s, I might know in the back of my mind that some later writer said "actually, secretly, in the background of this story you're reading, Dr. Light raped Sue Dibny." But really, if I don't like that, it's easy to ignore. I actually like Identity Crisis though. I know a couple of years ago they did a story where they said that in one story from the '60s where Superman got captured by some pseudo-Soviet general, that Superman got buttraped while in the gulag. But I find it very easy to go back and read the original stories with what the specific author of those stories had in mind, and ignore sequels I don't like. On the other hand, if there are sequels I do like that I think add something good, I can remember them and they can add additional depth. Grant Morrison's Batman was good at this. It's a good run overall, and it's heavily about tying in to many old comics from throughout Batman's whole history. It makes reading those old comics even more interesting. >And I think your time would be better spent making something that you wholly own rather than something that you're effectively renting from a temperamental owner who can remove you for any petty reason they want. Sure. That's why so many creators go indie. The biggest example is of course the Image exodus of the '90s. But that isn't my point. My point is that there are certain stories that could exist that rely specifically on these specific characters and histories. Those stories should be allowed to be told. >Or it could be because of the fact that it's depicting a future where Bruce eventually gives up the cowl, Yeah but Batman will always be set in "The Present" and Beyond will always be set in "The Future." But one example of a problem is that Beyond doesn't really work if Damian Wayne exists. Return of the Joker, one of the most popular parts of Beyond, also relies heavily specifically on the DCAU version of Tim Drake. Sure, he's basically just Jason Todd, but their fates are very different and the movie relies upon that. You can't really reconcile the two easily. There are also more bits that tie in with Bruce Timm's fucking weird shipping of Bruce and Barbara, and other later stuff with later DCAU crossovers that tie into Beyond and people like it. The history of the whole DCAU is a big part of the appeal of Batman Beyond. It doesn't work the same if you try to swap out DCAU Bruce for New Earth Bruce. >Those laws exist for your benefit too. Where you can write your own original shlock, make money off of it, and prevent other people from stealing your characters and story (For a limited time). Give it a try and see what happens. There are very few cases where the average guy beats the corporation. Sometimes an already rich and famous guy wins, but we aren't all Harlan Ellison. But also, I don't care about other people using my characters. That isn't a threat to me. If you wanted to argue that copyright in regards to literally copying the work (as in reprinting the book) is something you want to defend, that would be a different argument. On a site where software piracy is so popular, you might have a hard time with that argument too, but at least it would be a different argument, and I can sympathize with at least a claim that it's less ridiculous than the claim that other people telling stories with characters you invented should be illegal. >you'd still be bitching about "Muh restrictions" because you wouldn't be able to tell your Super-Sons /sm/ fanfiction as Damian Wayne and Chris Kent didn't exist until 2006. While I take great offense to Jon Kent being made gay, I do think people should be allowed to publish those stories, if they so wish. The problem is that Warner Bros. monopolizes the creation of the stories, and then they decide that Jon Kent has to be gay now, always. >Just take what's available right now and make your own shit. I'm not saying not to do this. I'm saying it should be allowed to publish stories about whatever you want. >how about you create own characters with their own complicated backstories Because maybe the story in mind relies specifically on the history and the cultural significance of a figure that already exists. You're okay with characters being public domain, and I'm saying there is no moral difference between telling your own Zorro stories and your own Batman stories. There shouldn't be a legal difference, either. >Why not? Because I don't think state-enforced monopolies are good for the market. You might as well say that totalitarian governments are good for the people because they force the people to become more creative in ways to get around the government. It's literally what's happening here. You're saying people should become more creative in order to get around the government.

>>43063 >The strawman at play is so bizarre that it doesn't even remotely resemble the actual point that was made. Probably because it isn't a strawman? Where's the actual confusion coming from? >Again, this doesn't even remotely resemble anything that was said in this conversation. You were arguing that Superman represents American, and that we absolutely cannot "abandon" him because of how the people in charge of DC treat his character. >Again, this is unrelated to the argument of if an idea somehow becomes more legitimate if said by an author directly or by a character the author wrote. You are the only one trying to focus on that being that point. >You think the people making the movie weren't aware that it was going to have an audience? That absolutely did, which is why Yoda's phrase was not "intended" for the audience to be taken as a piece of philosophy. It was intended to advance a story about space wizards. >And you agree or you wouldn't be on a board set up to specifically discuss it. What's the actual point you're trying to make? This conversation has gone from an argument that I started that these character exist for the purposes of entertainment, and now, at least from what I'm understanding, you're arguing that we should treat these characters as just as valid as if they actually existed. I have not denied at any point in this conversation that art has value. What I HAVE denied is that art has the same value and place as history. >You can only think of one example of the latter? There are tons. Aside from probably Ayn Rand, who's entire philosophies exist within her fictional works, can you name anybody? Even Orwell's works are less a critique of Socialism and more him satirizing the Fabians about their utopia. >Again, I could go on and on. Superman in particular is really rife with this, to the point that it's honestly often a problem. So I was incorrect about my assertion earlier, as Superman "always" existed as a preachy character? If that's the case, how is it a surprise to anyone that the films reflect the comics exactly? >So you didn't see a meaning No, I saw material presented to me in a connected fashion for a narrative, was confused as to how they relate, and then told I had wasted my time and brain cells thinking about it as none of it actually matters. >You know what I mean. No, I don't. >Nobody writing Superman intends to actually make you believe there is an alien flying around saving people from disasters and supervillains. No, but they'll demand for me to believe that in a universe where an alien is flying around saving people from dinosaurs (Mentally read that wrong the first time) and supervillains that the "most powerful" thing he can do is hand his cape to some no-name nurse. And the most traumatic thing that happened in his life was being raped by a Rooskie. >But ambiguity has nothing to do with if it is correct or not. Yes, it does. >Stating an idea less ambiguously doesn't make it more correct. The idea's the same. It's just how it's expressed. No, it's not. The more ambiguous a statement is expressed, the greater room for error in interpretation that can occur. Take a simple statement like "I want to be rich". What does that actually mean? In the most "basic" level it could mean someone with lots of money. But there's multiple paths towards having lots of money, such as starting a business, gambling, hoarding, etc. Even then, how long do you want to be "rich" for, a moment or for the rest of your life? Or even what kind of "richness" as you can also be "rich" in knowledge or have a "rich" relationship with your friends and family. All ambiguity does is give you a pass to never have to actually say anything or clarify your statement. >We're arguing about if it's morally legitimate for corporations (or anyone, really) to ban the creation of certain works of art. That isn't the argument. But if you want an answer to that argument: if the company/person owns a work, yes, they do have the right to restrict someone else utilizing their creation. >>43064 >But sometimes the later authors are also good, or even make things better. I don't care. I'm not going to waste my precious time having to wade through shit just to get to "the good stuff". Especially when all that "good stuff" was immediately undone the following month. >It's more common than American comics, but it's not like they don't have their cash cow franchises that they just keep going forever. Yes, "cash cows" like Haguregumo, Cooking Papa, Patalliro!, KochKame, Tsuribaka Nisshi, and Sunset on Third Street. Some of the longest running manga in existence. >Do you really think Dragon Ball GT or Super or Daima ruin the original manga? The original manga was "ruined" the moment they introduced aliens. >Do you really think any of the shit WB has been doing with Watchmen in the last decade ruins the original comic? Not Watchmen and WB, but that certainly has happened with several other series. Everything Yidsney did to the Star Wars franchise made me absolutely sick of anything have to do with the series to where I just dropped it for several years and refuse to touch any associated SW media. My parents, despite liking some of the MCU films, have zero desire to watch a single one after seeing the actors do that Harris campaign video. I didn't touch a Nintendo game for years after all the localization shenanigans Treehouse pulled on the 3DS and Wii U. So, yes, it is possible for something coming out today to ruin people's interest in material of the past. >My point is that there are certain stories that could exist that rely specifically on these specific characters and histories. Those stories should be allowed to be told. Then you have two options, either be hired by DC and pray that you actually get to write the stories that you want or shelve the idea and move onto something. Surely there's something you want to write using your OWN OCs. >But also, I don't care about other people using my characters. That isn't a threat to me. Almost every single time I've heard someone say that in regards to their material, they are almost always the FIRST people to began using the DMCA ban-hammer whenever someone begins making fanworks they don't like. So don't be surprised by my saying that I don't believe you. The only exception I've seen to this was Atari under Nolan Bushnell, but that could be explained by them being too busy getting the next game out the door than having the freedom to waste their time with lawsuits. >The problem is that Warner Bros. monopolizes the creation of the stories, and then they decide that Jon Kent has to be gay now, always. So make your own "Not Supersons" series. Both of the protagonists didn't exist 19 years ago, so there's really nothing being lost if you start from scratch and just carry forward the concept of two superhero kids being the bestest of friends and getting into dangerous shenanigans and adventures. >I'm saying it should be allowed to publish stories about whatever you want. And if you want to do that, spend the 300 million required to buy out WBD so that you can. Outside of that, give up and move on. >Because maybe the story in mind relies specifically on the history and the cultural significance of a figure that already exists.

[Expand Post]

Then stop wasting your time and obsess over characters that you can actually use. >Because I don't think state-enforced monopolies are good for the market. Why? Don't you want to be compensated for your work? If the answer is "No", why are you not already doing it? >You're saying people should become more creative in order to get around the government. Yes because that's how the system is works. The laws are the rules of the game, now figure out how to legally exploit them in order to attain your wealth.

>>43065 >Probably because it isn't a strawman? Where's the actual confusion coming from? The point I actually said and the point you are arguing against are completely unrelated. >You were arguing that Superman represents American, and that we absolutely cannot "abandon" him because of how the people in charge of DC treat his character. Superman represents many things, and a corporation shouldn't have a government-enforced monopoly over a piece of culture like that. Related to that, yes, the corporation hiring people who hate what he represents to do stories to deliberately undermine those things doesn't undo what he represents. They want it to, but it doesn't, and you shouldn't play along with them when it comes to that. >That absolutely did, which is why Yoda's phrase was not "intended" for the audience to be taken as a piece of philosophy. It was intended to advance a story about space wizards. They knew the audience was going to hear the line. Where is the logic in saying "they knew the audience was going to hear the line, and that's why they didn't intend for the audience to actually think about it"? It advances the story and also is a piece of philosophy. Most things in most stories are that, even when not intended by the author. A writer's philosophies inform his work even when unintended. Again, some people take this too far and then just make all work blatant propaganda, but that doesn't invalidate the fact that there are messages in art, but some are more subtle or more elegantly expressed. >you're arguing that we should treat these characters as just as valid as if they actually existed. I never said anything remotely close to that, and neither did anyone else. I said that it doesn't matter who speaks an idea. An idea's validity has nothing to do with the speaker. Reality is not subjective. Yes, this even applies to if a fictional character is the one to speak the idea. Someone still wrote it in real life, too, so no ideas are actually "from" a fictional character. There's always a real person behind them. But this shouldn't even be a point, because either way ideas' validity doesn't depend on the speaker. >What I HAVE denied is that art has the same value and place as history. I never said anything remotely against this idea. I don't know how you reached that point in an argument about copyright law. Saying that characters can represent ideas has nothing to do with any argument about history. >Aside from probably Ayn Rand, who's entire philosophies exist within her fictional works, can you name anybody? Even Orwell's works are less a critique of Socialism and more him satirizing the Fabians about their utopia. Basically all the blatant SJW propaganda that's come out in the last few years (and plenty before that, too). That's why it sucks so bad. It's all about their message with no thought to the artistry of it. >So I was incorrect about my assertion earlier, as Superman "always" existed as a preachy character? If that's the case, how is it a surprise to anyone that the films reflect the comics exactly? It's more that Superman has often had more philosophies more obviously attached to him because he quickly came to represent things in the wider culture. Most of his stories are still less blatant about that, and are pretty straight sci-fi action, but he does have his share of more preachy stuff, and more stuff that... well what's the good version of preachy? I listed a few in my last post that are about what Superman represents but are good. But there are bad examples too. You know who has it worse? Wonder Woman. It's way too common that she is treated as feminism incarnate, instead of a character, and thus she has relatively few good stories, as far too many are just propaganda (and since it's a stupid philosophy, they're not even good at being artistic about it). >No, I saw material presented to me in a connected fashion for a narrative, was confused as to how they relate, and then told I had wasted my time and brain cells thinking about it as none of it actually matters. So again, you didn't see a meaning, and the author agreed. The same message came from both the work and the author directly, and it was just as valid (or not) both times. >No, but they'll demand for me to believe (stupid bullshit) Yup. Some stories are bad, and sometimes the ideas they put forward are bad. Would those ideas be any more valid if the authors just came out and said them in an interview? No. They'd still be just as stupid. >Yes, it does. No, the idea remains the same. Ambiguity just has to do with how it's presented. If I hint at an idea or if I say it outright, it's the same idea. You're confusing the idea for the presentation. >The more ambiguous a statement is expressed, the greater room for error in interpretation that can occur. Yeah, but that doesn't have to do with the idea itself. What you're saying is that you can get different ideas out of it. Fine. And some of those ideas might be more valid than others. Fine. But each of those ideas would be just as valid (or not) if spoken without ambiguity by a person (in this case, probably the reader, but it could be anyone else, including the author). >if the company/person owns a work, yes, they do have the right to restrict someone else utilizing their creation. Depends on what you consider "the work." But in general I'd disagree. This is the main thing I've been arguing about the whole time. >I don't care. I'm not going to waste my precious time having to wade through shit just to get to "the good stuff". Especially when all that "good stuff" was immediately undone the following month. You don't have to. If you do, then I wouldn't argue it's "good stuff." A lot of times it summarizes the old stuff so you don't have to read it (but it is extra good if you did). Claremont's X-Men would be an example here. You don't have to read Lee and Kirby's if you don't want to, a lot of people don't think it's great (but it is Kirby, so it's still pretty good). If you don't want to read it, just skip to Giant Sized X-Men #1. You can still enjoy it, and a lot of people do. Other times later stuff recontextualizes it so the old stuff is now better in context, because it has a better payoff. Booster Gold Vol 1 is pretty boring on its own, but with the context of JLI and Booster Gold Vol 2, it becomes the first part of a story that does pay off later. (Again, I wouldn't say it's bad, but it gets better as the story picks up.) Other times retcons just do away with bad story elements (frequently other retcons) so you don't need to think about them anymore. Like that horrible fucking retcon where they said that Gwen Stacey fucked Norman Osborn and had his goblin babies during a brief period when she moved to England in the late '60s. Just a few years ago they retconned the retcon to make it so it was a lie the whole time. Good. Sometimes retcons can be good. Of course, everyone pretty much just ignored the Goblin babies thing anyway, because it was fucking stupid, but if you really just couldn't get it out of your mind, then fine, someone got rid of it. >Yes, "cash cows" like... >The original manga was "ruined" the moment they introduced aliens. So you acknowledge another example of a cash cow you clearly think went on too long.

[Expand Post]

>Star Wars I'll certainly never touch the new stuff after seeing the first movie Disney put out, but I'll still enjoy the originals just as much. I guess we're different in that way. I just don't watch the new shit, and commercials and shills for the new shit aren't enough to make me hate the old movies. >MCU Again, I can hardly even stand to watch Endgame because of Carol Danvers being in it, but everything up to Infinity War? Yeah I can watch those. I can understand hating actors for shit they do in real life, but it's not enough to make me not pirate and enjoy a movie from before they got that bad. Maybe I wouldn't pay for it, but I can enjoy it for free. >Nintendo Again, I think it's crazy to say you can't enjoy playing Super Mario Bros. 3 from like 1988 because of something some localizers on the other side of the world did 30 years later. I feel extremely strongly about all these issues, and hate the people involved, but I can still enjoy the work. I can still watch Ferris Bueller, and Matthew Broderick got away with killing two people. I don't care if the kid who played Mickey in The Little Rascals murdered his wife like 70 years later. He was a funny kid. I don't care if "Jeepers Creepers" is what the director's child victim said as he was getting raped, it's still an okay movie. >Surely there's something you want to write using your OWN OCs. Yeah but that's not what we're talking about in this conversation. It is just dodging the point about the morality of a government enforced monopoly on art or pieces of our culture. It's insane that there are any pieces of art that you aren't allowed to make. >Almost every single time I've heard someone say that in regards to their material, they are almost always the FIRST people to began using the DMCA ban-hammer whenever someone begins making fanworks they don't like. Well fuck those people. I don't understand the logic. People have made tons of stuff based on, say, Frankenstein. It doesn't threaten the original novel. The original will always exist. There are tons of Sherlock Holmes stories by Doyle, and then more by other people. The fact that there are Batman stories where he meets Holmes does not hurt Doyle's original stories. >Supersons They're informed by the specific histories of their worlds and related characters. Damian Wayne also did sort of exist going back to 1987, with an appearance even in Kingdom Come. His history goes to quite a while before his first major appearance, and of course it's all tied up with the wider history of Batman, especially regarding Ra's al Ghul. But you know what? All of this is secondary, because in the end, it's just absurd that a government gives a corporation a monopoly over certain ideas. >And if you want to do that, spend the 300 million required to buy out WBD so that you can. Outside of that, give up and move on. <Just let the corporation fuck you in the ass. Don't have the money to win? Don't even talk about it on the internet. Don't question corporations or government. >Then stop wasting your time and obsess over characters that you can actually use. >stop wasting your time <DrCoxAtAFuneral.jpg >Why? Don't you want to be compensated for your work? If the answer is "No", why are you not already doing it? You don't need a state enforced monopoly to be compensated for your work, you just need to make a product people want. Competition is better than monopoly, especially since we aren't even talking about the original purpose of copyright, being the actual copying of texts. I'm not even arguing about whether I should be able to print my own copies of specific DC comics and sell them. I think that's a second argument that could be had, but frankly it's a wholly different argument from saying "nobody can publish new stories with these ideas." >Yes because that's how the system is works. The laws are the rules of the game, now figure out how to legally exploit them in order to attain your wealth. >The system is always right. What are you doing on this site, of all places? If you're just gonna kiss government ass, maybe don't spend your time on a website that pretty much automatically gets you put on a watchlist.

>>43067 >Superman represents many things, and a corporation shouldn't have a government-enforced monopoly over a piece of culture like that. Then don't allow them. Make your own piece of culture. >It advances the story and also is a piece of philosophy. To be quite honest, I've been increasingly coming to the conclusion that philosophy is a waste of time. >An idea's validity has nothing to do with the speaker. Yes, it does. What's the purpose behind the speaker saying it? >Someone still wrote it in real life, too, so no ideas are actually "from" a fictional character. Yes, they are. >There's always a real person behind them. So a "real person" (Frank Oz) is talking to another "real person" (Mark Hamill) in order to teach him to use magic in order to raise a spaceship out of a swamp? >I never said anything remotely against this idea. This entire argument has been about you trying to declare that fictional characters and stories have just as much "meaning" and influence as events that actually happened and people that actually existed. And, no, history is not a "story". A story implies there's a beginning and an end. History doesn't end, and the jury is still out on where things began. >Basically all the blatant SJW propaganda that's come out in the last few years (and plenty before that, too). No, they exist to prove a point. It's why they waste so much time on oppression narratives and tropes. >Most of his stories are still less blatant about that, and are pretty straight sci-fi action Does Supes exist to push a message or to tell a story? > and more stuff that... well what's the good version of preachy? There is none. >I listed a few in my last post that are about what Superman represents but are good I've never read a single one of these but here seems to be the short of them: <The series where Superman is killed <The series where Superman allows violence to overrun the world <The series where Superman has a midlife crisis <And the series where the guy angry with Superman because he caused him to lose all his hair actually has "deeper" motivations in that he's trying to "save" people from someone who has never expressed nor performed any harm or ill intent towards anyone That isn't really as powerful as you think it is. >If I hint at an idea or if I say it outright, it's the same idea. No, it's not. A "hint" is just a vague description. It doesn't actually steer people towards the point you're making. >You're confusing the idea for the presentation. Probably because the presentation is just as important as the idea. >Yeah, but that doesn't have to do with the idea itself. Yes, it does. If the idea is left ambiguous, it gives the person the ability "change" what the idea is if they don't like your interpretation or conclusion. Or just to make you look "stupid" because the person refused to actually explain themselves. Let me give you example: what do you think of if I say the word python? Did you think of: Monty language Nordic mag snake Colt gun If you didn't, then you're an idiot. >A lot of times it summarizes the old stuff In my experience with comics, they never do or just outright tell you to read the previous stuff (Which then tells you to read other previous stuff). And the few times I do get invested, they retcon all the important bits and show me that all I did was waste my time as none of it matters and can be changed with the flick of a pen. You keep talking about how there are "better" comics out there, how about series that have NONE (As in absolutely devoid of all this cross-series cross-universe autism bullshit that no one actually cares about, forget even making sense of) and can just tell a straight story from beginning to end? >So you acknowledge another example of a cash cow you clearly think went on too long. It's not that the series went on "too long". I do like some parts from the Z Saga (Mostly anything having to do with specifically Gohan), but everything took a nosedive in quality starting with Raditz. >It's insane that there are any pieces of art that you aren't allowed to make. You can make them as much as you want, you just don't own them. An open secret about copyright is that any fanwork you make automatically becomes property of the rights holders. Meaning that Sega owns all those Sonic fangames, all those Genshin Impact fanfictions belong to miHoYo, Disney owns all the Squirrel Girl lewds, etc. And they don't have to pay you a dime for it. >People have made tons of stuff based on, say, Frankenstein. It doesn't threaten the original novel. The original will always exist. There are tons of Sherlock Holmes stories by Doyle, and then more by other people. Because people placed great importance on those original stories and preserving them every way they can to the point that any fanfiction based off of them can never be considered "better" than the original (Even if it is of a better quality). >Don't have the money to win? Why don't you find a way to get the money so that you can win? >You don't need a state enforced monopoly to be compensated for your work That is true. Worst Koreas solution to vidya piracy was turning every game into an MMO. >you just need to make a product people want And when your product is pirated, or just stripped of it's assets and rebranded as something else, what do you do then? >Competition is better than monopoly But competition does happen through the creation of monopolies. By you creating a product that only you can produce. And the success of that product then entices other people to either creation something similar but different enough to be considered original or create a product for a market that you're not appealing to. That's also why copyright used to be so brief, as it enticed flash-in-the-pan ideas where you can milk as much as you can out of an idea before you have to get off your duff and actually make something new.

[Expand Post]

>especially since we aren't even talking about the original purpose of copyright, being the actual copying of texts. I'm not talking about European copyright, I'm talking about American copyright. >What are you doing on this site I first came for the lewds and the hilarity, and just never left.

These blocks of text are autistic and cluttering. Have a care for other anons reading who aren't part of your spat.

>>43068 >>43067 >>43065 >>43063 >>43051 Have sex Incels

>>43071 Incel is not a name.

Why is the spic board more active, is it because beaners have nothing better to do with their lives?

>>43159 because they have less options of image boards

>>43159 It was a whole site & they weren't divided by an exodus.

Castlevania Nocturne S2 Trailer

>>43167 Looks fucking gay

>>43168 correct, you can thank konami for allowing their ip to be adapted by that faggot pajeet Adi Shankar

Neil Gaiman's now a rapist, by his own rules of believing all women, & allegedly made a woman he anal raped lick her own shit off his cock.

>>43172 Considering we're talking about a perverted jew who supports flooding other countries with rapefugees, I'm immediately siding with the women on this one. Even though I strongly believe in "innocent until proven guilty," I can't for the life of me see these being false accusations. It seems way too in character for someone like Neil.

>>43185 LOL

Win or Lose, this trailer is full of beans.

>>43203 Pixar really doesn't make films for children anymore huh.

Owl house creator Dana Terrace is now working with GLITCH/Gooseworkx on a new show. And it's more "what if cute thing was actually horror". https://archive.ph/KtXQS

>>43205 Here's the teaser. I expect even more animated pilots like this being released on YouTube later this year.

Marvel Comics Exec Editor Confirms Ben Reilly Heel Turn Was Done In Order To Prop Up Miles Morales And Spider-Gwen: “There Really Isn’t A Whole Lot Of Room On Stage For Yet Another Middle-Of-The-Road Spider Character” https://archive.is/0wjwq

>>43205 >>43207 I don't get it.

>>43210 It's supposed to be a teaser to get people excited anon, but since people just swallow up anything, you can put up a picture of an asshole and you'd have tiktok retards clapping, claiming it to be avant garde.

>>43208 >even they call miles morales miles morales and not spiderman Lmao

>>43208 Man fuck Marvel. NOBODY likes Miles Morales. I'm guessing too most of Spider Gwen's fanbase is entirely because of aesthetic reasons and they're probably constantly confusing her and Gwenpool.

>>43227 It's extra frustrating because there's literally no reason to not have Ben Reilly just work in another city like Kaine did.

>>43015 For a second I thought that was the "I wanna shout the N-word Cortex" meme. >>43086 Unless he's assuming that the opposite of SuperCell is Incel.

>>43205 im so tired of this wanna be perfect blue bullshit. its the worst aspect of these sorts of creatives, the derivative weebery. honestly the only reason I saw this trailer was because I wrongfully assumed it to be a revival of Princess Gwenevere and the Jewel Riders.

>>43204 they havent for the better part of the last 10 years. UP was the end, by the time they warmed upto sequels it was all over.

>>43203 What is it with modern animation and emasculated males? The internal dialogue of Lizzie McGuire had more bite than this.

>>43211 Cultural decay and the fact that Indie shit has the lowest bar in the medium, don't be harsh on the 30 year olds who are biting more they can chew.

>>43248 cultural marxism and misandry

>>43254 If anything we should be harsher on these people but the "animation community" only knows how to consume and clap like seals for more. We're already seeing the usual outpour of premptive ballsucking of the trailer, "this is the future of indie animation guise!!1!1".

>>43254 >>43256 >>43255 I hate how they tarnished the word "indie", like the commies does for centuries, which suppose to be about in-house independent with no or low budget and no mainstream influence. The best description for those so called indie faggots would be CLIQUE

>>43258 this. all the indie darlings are basically extensions of hollywood as their talent pool flees for greener pastures (internet successes) and the old studios crumble and rot away. Shit like Big Lez or Tamers' Sonic Undergroud series are more indicative of true indies. Atleast those have gotten the attention they deserve.

>>43274 >Tamers' Sonic Undergroud series That's also dead in the water, he's gone full ponyshow now.

New official footage of Your Friendly Neighborhood Spider-man. Wow it looks even worse in actual quality. Animation & voice acting is lifeless. The background characters are all stiff as boards when the CG should make it easier to tweak them to y'know actually animate. Horrible. Also a reminder this is supposed to be Nico Minoru. A character from The Runaways. A series made in the 2000s. Why they're sticking her in here when she isn't even from the same generation as Peter Parker is beyond me. Even worse when they've retconned her as a lesbian in the comics. Are they just that stubborn they won't put a redhead Mary Jane as the love interest?

>>43276 >Even worse when they've retconned her as a lesbian in the comics. Wow, one of the few comics I ACTUALLY followed for a little while. Which makes me ask FUCKING WHY even more when the series already HAD a lesbian on the team by the name of Karolina Dean, with her Hella transgender love-interest Xavin. And this was a thing since 2005!=

>>43277 Every girl that joins the Runaways becomes a lesbian. It's apparently a rule or something

>>43277 Yeah & that's who they shipped Nico with in the revival comics. For no reason. >>43278 Molly & the rose girl were safe but she got adopted by gay dads off screen.

>>43275 explain

an image of Moose Toys' TADC toys has leaked from the London Toy Fair

>>43297 =TO LATE!!!=

>>43297 I want it.

>>43298 >For the first time in 30 years <Bootleg companies have finally conceived Garry's Mod/Half Life's plastic crap

>>43306 the first two images in anon's poat are officially licensed skibbidi merchandise. its the stuff in the 3rd pic that is a content farm showcase of chinese made unofficial garbage. you can tell as much from the terrible paint application and gummy sculpts. in anycase this is the new normal of 2025. with nickelodeon dipping their toes in the water and releasing their next big baby show program exclusively on youtube, expect to see more "indie darlings" like skibidi see release.

>>43311 Skibidi Toilet is actually indie for all I know. Not sure how much that really means with it using stolen existing assets though.

>>43296 If you've not seen the latest video Tamers posted they've all been MLP related after a surge of interested from a SUxMLP crossover video he made. Now, if you were to look at his most popular vids you can see the pony stuff is getting 10 or 20 times views than SU. In one of his latest premieres, someone asked him to never stop doing MLP videos to which he replied "I won't" Not even including a "bitch" so his autistic larp is slowly decaying. If you go to his xitter, you can see him engaging with MLP artists day in and day out without an ounce of the usual larp he does. So yeah, don't expect any SU content for a while, or ever, as he coattails MLP stuff.

>>43315 >look away for about a year and everything goes to total shit every fucking time. the neo-brony meme is tiring.

>>43312 well apparently the guy behind it cleared things out with valve's lawyers so theyre entirely cool with it

>>43298 >>43306 >>43311 >>43312 >>43319 That reminds me, who is Mr. Beast? Walking around stores lately, I see Mr. Beast branded lunches, candies, toys (In the same aisle as the Skibidi toys), and even TV shows.

>>43320 Some eceleb who does clickbait publicity stunts who kids love for whatever reason. Basically a slightly lesser Pewdiepie, as far as I know - might be implicated in some tranny-pedo scandal, but you'd have to look some dramamonger site like Pigfood Josh's Kiwifarms for details.

Supahman

>>43051 Man, Duckman is just so damn good. Just picked it up after years of putting it away, for every meh episode there's like ten more that are fantastic under every possible aspect.

it wasnt intentional cus i was just screencapping all the thumbnails of yters making the same dumb face but all the guys have thier hands on thier chins

>>43342 Trannies will do it to hide their jaw and adam's apple, other simply think it makes them look smarter.

IDK how many anons here will be familiar with them, but Nacelle's released the trailer for their new Roboforce animated series. It will be a Tubi exclusive (seems like alot of kids shows are these days) and the trailer features some of the other acquired licenses. The animation looks very rough. Youtube Kids tier at times. Obligatory brown strong womyn doesnt interest me in the least but hopefully everything else will be cool. >Biker Mice, Sectaurs, Garloo Their preview comic came out some months back now. With the toys headed to clearance I wonder how this show will be recieved. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4PIl3IZWVso&embeds_referring_euri=https%3A%2F%2Ftoynewsi.com%2F&source_ve_path=MjM4NTE

>>43350 Cheap animation like you said. That promotional image looks like shit. There's no reason it should be that overlaid filter on 3D models shit.

>>43356 I just grabbed one of the random promo pics for the comic. Pic related was the cover. I agree it does look like ass. I'm hoping the writing of the show is atleast good in anycase. The comic was ok.

>>43357 That image looks better but we're sure as hell not even getting that kind of quality. What's even the point? Who is this for if not adult collectors with nostalgia? Then why put so little effort into it?

>>43358 It's too early to say but I expect I'll end up preferring the comic set up to the shared universe over whatever route the show takes, which just seems to be random occasional cameos. The real point was to appeal to kids and adults alike by packaging up all these old properties. The toys have been out for a year or two already. It's evident their priority was the adult collector, but I also get the sense they were hoping to hook some kids along the way. Just seems like they dragged their feet a little. The roboforce and sectaurs figures spent the last 8 months shelfwarming in walmart until they released this show, many of them are already moving to clearance. >Then why put so little effort into it? Cost-effectiveness? Hard to say really. I can stomach shit visuals if the writing is atleast upto snuff but I feel weary after seeing the trailer.

So not only is Captain America Brave New World going to fail because it's NOT about Captain America but Falcon using his name & shield. A movie people already hated in the comics. But now Anthony Mackie has further pushed people away with his comments saying that he doesn't think Captain America should represent America. Not understanding that what he sees him as IS supposed to be representing America in it's IDEALS! That's what Captain America is. A representation of the ideals of America without being blindly loyal to the government just because they're in charge. Like this is basic stuff people still don't understand because they never touched a comic & Marvel has not helped getting people to actually read them.

>>43363 AMEN. Mackie's just an actor doing what he was taught to do. He works and lives in the world of Hollywood. That town calls patriotism NATIONALISM. Mackie was in another country. He assumed what most of social media does, that people think America is bad. Meanwhile... people around the World love America and American culture. That doesn't mean they don't love their own country or even want to come here. People love what Captain America stands for. The idea that Captain America can be replaced, is a turn off. That it's a moniker anyone can have. When comics were good, they took on this issue. I couldn't read the full story line, but they explored this with US Agent, who at first was a replacement Captain America. I heard they did it with Bucky too. This is just a very loud, very resourceful and a very SMALL group of people who dislike America. They want to destroy our culture and destroy our heroes. it's not going to work. I remember when America Fuck Yeah was meant to e a joke and a parody. Today that song is a fucking anthem.

>>43364 I've heard good things about the Bucky Cap series. Even then it took Cap actually dying from the controversial aftermath of Civil War to even do it BUT at least Bucky replacing him actually makes sense. He actually has a long history with Steve Rogers, he's peak human, he's got a metal arm enhancement, & it was a redeem him post Winter Soldier brain scrambling. The same thing applies to MCU Bucky. He was & still is the most obvious choice between him & Falcon. But of course they didn't go that route JUST because Bucky is not black. So Marvel just needed to have their soapbox social commentary instead even though no one had a problem with Falcon because of his race. He's just not Steve Rogers in any way shape or form. It makes no sense to give him the shield. Hell they even accidentally made the MCU US Agent actually not even more likeable but more rational that Captain Falcon.

>>42136 (OP) Since comics were one the first things to fall to this mental illness, I genuinely believe that this new versions would have more "neutral" (not 2000s edgy) stories and not being all about propaganda.

>>43364 >This is just a very loud, very resourceful and a very SMALL group of people who dislike America Unfortunately, they are not very small. "700,000 members spread across 148 countries" 20 years ago, much bigger now. https://www.wrongkindofgreen.org/2017/07/27/avaaz-the-globes-largest-most-powerful-behavioural-change-network-part-i/

>>43369 Too bad only Ultimate Spider-man isn't edgy or propaganda. Absolute Batman is an absolute joke with the kind of shit in the first issue alone. Batman as big as Bane but just being a city architect is hilariously stupid.