09-14-2013, 08:39 PM | #76 | |
時の彼方へ
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Lafayette, Indiana
Posts: 20,578
|
Quote:
BTW: I'm not saying that I am for this policy. I don't really have strong feelings one way or another about it, but I personally would lean towards marriage for any character who'd been written to have a long-time romantic partner. (Like Superman and Lois Lane.) And I certainly don't have any objections to a LGBT superhero getting married. I'm just saying that I think I can see where they are coming from artistically. When you marry a character off, you really do shackle him/her down. You close a whole lotta doors that other writers may have wanted to explore. And while there's always alternate universe shit to consider, that's exactly how they and we both see it: shit.
__________________
|
|
09-14-2013, 09:40 PM | #77 |
The Path of Now & Forever
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 5,304
|
I also don't believe DC necessarily did it due to gay rights either. It just so happens that this situation involved a lesbian character. But to first allow the entire situation, have several issues where the characters propose and accept TWICE, and then say "No, she's not getting married even though you've devoted over a year to this and the future of this character" is really stupid about DC's involvement. And it's fairly evident from all the other departures from DC in the years since the new reboot that it's not a handful of editors, but the entire company's structure and upper management.
As for the issue of marriage, I don't think it has to do with the whole "James Bond" issue. Superheroes aren't going out there and nail every hot piece of ass they find. If anything, most superheroes have difficulty maintaining a love life. But when the writers are able to evolve past that point and create two characters who work together to make their relationship work despite the horrible things involved with superhero work, it feels extremely stupid to shoot it down. Luke Cage and Jessica Jones were married after meeting in the Avengers. They continue to be Avengers and have had a daughter together. Marvel then continued by having a special mini-event where they had to find a super-nanny for their baby. The problem with this isn't that Luke Cage can't be the sexual stud a large muscular black man can be, but rather, this child now puts an age on him. If the child is five years old, Luke Cage is now 5 years and 9 months older than before his baby was even thought up. So when she's 10 and Luke still looks like he's in his 30s when she was born in his 30s, it creates issues with the readers that the hero hasn't aged at all. A hero can't be classic and kept around for the next 50 years when this living symbol of the hero's age is breaking his character. Luke Cage and Jessica Jones is a nice sign that Marvel is willing to step forward with their characters into a different stage of life along with their aging readers. Unfortunately this very problem is completely ignored by DC when they decided to allow Bruce to conceive a son with Talia in the previous DC Universe, then reboot the universe to make Bruce like 20 years younger, but still maintain his son who is a young teenager. What? Bruce went from like 50 to 30 and we're supposed to still somehow believe he has a son in his teens. It would mean he himself would have had been a teenager when he shacked up with Talia... I guess it's possible... still dumb though. His son was killed off pretty quickly soon after the reboot (in the first story arc I think). The other problem is that Batwoman being a lesbian wouldn't even be able to have a child with her partner in the traditional sense, so there wouldn't really be a clock issue of allowing her to get married. It feels like the comic companies keep thinking their readers are teens who wouldn't connect with a more adult storyline. While it is somewhat true, the constantly rising mature content of comics (extreme violence, grim/dark tones, sex) contradict who they want as their target market. And the fact that some of their characters are in fact targeted at older audiences or at least more mature audiences who would understand something like marriage. It gives off the impression that the comic companies just don't want to allow their characters to mature and can't find a balance between mature readers and possible new young readers and end up alienating the older one. |
09-16-2013, 04:17 AM | #78 |
Banned
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 14,729
|
In fairness the most popular super heroes are difficult to do marriage with. It's a justified fear I think.
|
09-17-2013, 02:16 PM | #79 |
The Path of Now & Forever
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 5,304
|
Saying it's difficult without citing examples isn't really a justification. It just further emphasizes that comic executives still this that comics are kids' stuff. I honestly could have had seen the marriage between Batwoman and Maggie Sawyer to work out.
A) Batwoman is Batwoman. Sure she's being blackmailed by an evil anti-metahuman government group, but she's still Batwoman. B) Maggie is a Homicide Detective. One of Gotham's finest. Hmmmm. I wonder if this would work out in any way to create both adventure and drama for their relationship. Hell, even if it ended in divorce, it still probably would have been a good story to follow. And how do we really know it would have been difficult to do if they don't ever try. Before hearing of this entire debacle, I did read Batwoman to see how DC would handle the character. As a media where any LGBT character can easily be done wrong, it ended up nice to see it wasn't. Aside from a stupid story arc involving mythological creatures and Wonder Woman, it was actually really good. Then WHAMMO! Let's cancel the big upcoming story. Even if it is difficult to do a marriage with superheroes, to have had green flagged it months in advanced, then in the last moment pull the plug and tell everyone in creative, "We don't want married off heroes," is an absolute disaster for people who have devoted countless hours into the continuation. It's like the staff at 3DRealms working on Duke Nukem Forever. Work on stage. Get the thumbs up. Finish the entire level. Show it to management, "The whole thing is wrong. Start all over again!" Actions like that completely demoralizes the staff to the point of outright giving up. Which is why so many DC creative staff members have left. Titles and creative which left: Static Shock - John Rozum (Left out of writing decisions for the entire comic and pretty much insulted the entire time) Superman - Andy Diggle (Left before he started) Superman - George Perez (DC could not answer basic questions about the rebooted universe) Grifter, Deathstroke, Hawkman - Rob Liefeld ("Massive indecision, last minute and I mean LAST minute changes that alter everything. Editor pissing contests... No thanx") Earth 2 - James Robinson (Head Writer and creator of the entire Earth 2 universe, no reasons cited despite having told people during interviews he had big plans) Batwoman - J.H. Williams III and W. Haden Blackman (Again, citing last minute decision to stop a long planned marriage) That's 8 titles which lost their writers/artists all because of horrible decision making from DC Editors. Kori Gotcha even cited terrible tracking of their own stories as a huge problem with the New 52 about a year ago. Now it's exploded beyond fan outrage and into writer's outrage. Not sure how long DC can last when so much of their creative staff (especially the good ones) have left. EDIT: You know what Kush, now after sitting for a bit, your post bothers me even more. Not pushing the envelope is how things become stagnant and die. If humans didn't push forward we'd still be living in the Stone Age. Comics are arguably a dying media and has been dying for almost 20 years now. With New 52 being a 'fresh start', by completely shutting down the idea of something new like a superhero getting married is like going against their own reasoning for resetting. THERE'S NOTHING NEW. ITS JUST CONFUSION NOW! Last edited by Loki; 09-17-2013 at 02:25 PM. |
09-17-2013, 04:11 PM | #80 |
Banned
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 14,729
|
Yeah I was simply acknowledging a potential point of view of theirs as opposed to saying they were right (they probably aren't but I can't honestly say I know too much about current Batwoman). I generally agree with your essay there.
|
09-21-2013, 04:53 PM | #81 | |
The Path of Now & Forever
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 5,304
|
Quote:
Yes, Iron Man lost a lot of popularity during Civil War. It was during the Bush administration and as we all know, America wasn't very happy with the state of the nation. Iron Man lead the way with the Pro-Government stance and while it should have had been ambiguous who was in the right, it was pretty clear how readers felt about his stance, even if Bush wasn't the Marvel Universe President. It didn't help that Iron Man won the Civil War, which indirectly lead to Captain America's death, continued to get worse during the Skrull Invasion and then insanely worse that Iron Man's Pro Registration stance allowed Norman Osborn to use it to bring in the Dark Reign where Registered Supervillains posed as Superheroes and the actual heroes became outlaws. Iron Man has since been slowly rebuilding himself in the comic universe and enjoyed some pretty good popularity in movies. |
|
09-21-2013, 04:56 PM | #82 |
時の彼方へ
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Lafayette, Indiana
Posts: 20,578
|
I'd be interested to hear you address Concept's primary challenge, which was that Civil War period proved an unpopular comic series. I had always thought fans loved it, even if it may have made them learn to hate heroes they'd once loved (as you're expressing that many fans did with Iron Man). Granted, I would've thought Civil War'd have made Iron Man more popular too, but that was more a secondary challenge from Concept, the primary one being that the entire experiment was a failed one.
I remember back in college seeing Civil War posters everywhere and people online were all "this is fuckin' amazing T_T" and drawing fanart and fan comics that had to do with the series. I don't think I've ever caught wind of any fan love quite so big as I did that back around '06, '07.
__________________
|
09-21-2013, 05:28 PM | #83 |
The Path of Now & Forever
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 5,304
|
The only revolutionary moment which wowed myself and my friends was Spider-Man revealing himself to the public. Spider-Man had kept his secret identity for pretty much 40 some-odd years (real time), went from poor teenager to poor adult to married man and now came out and told the world his secret. This was the pivotal point in Spider-Man's and Marvel's history.
This was then ERASED FROM ALL HISTORY by a storyline pretty much right after Civil War. So yeah, Civil War wasn't that popular, especially with hindsight. The only hallmark moment was quickly negated, Captain America was dead, many popular superheroes were still outlaws, and everyone understood the Superhuman Registration Act and use of the Negative Zone as a prison was a mirror for the Patriot Act and the use of Guantanamo Bay, which are pretty dark subjects about the US Policy during the Bush Administration. |
09-21-2013, 05:34 PM | #84 | ||
Archbishop of Banterbury
|
Quote:
__________________
Quote:
|
||
09-21-2013, 05:41 PM | #85 | |
時の彼方へ
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Lafayette, Indiana
Posts: 20,578
|
Quote:
__________________
|
|
09-21-2013, 05:52 PM | #86 |
The Path of Now & Forever
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 5,304
|
There was definitely hype for it prior to and during the Civil War. But that's not the same as The Matrix and The Matrix 2. I think a closer analogy would be Neon Genesis Evangelion and then how the fanbase ended up hating the entire series despite enjoying most of it because of the final two episodes.
|
09-23-2013, 04:54 AM | #87 |
Banned
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 14,729
|
I enjoyed Civil War, I thought it was a good idea for a big event even if they did spectacularly cock it up.
|
09-28-2013, 02:01 PM | #89 |
Banned
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 14,729
|
Watched the new SHIELD series opener through the good fortune of it being on TV as I walked in. I wasn't particularly impressed, it's derivative, predictable and unsubtle, which makes sense as so was Avengers. Though, I'm a harsh critic and will likely never watch it again so that's not a particularly important opinion.
Better than Iron Man 2, though. |
10-31-2013, 06:26 PM | #90 |
Primordial Fishbeast
|
So I was looking up stuff following watching the new Thor film earlier, and saw that the next Avengers film (Age of Ultron) is to have Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch in it.
Can someone with greater understanding than I tell me how this is possible? I thought that Fox had all the rights to X-Men and their characters, rendering their appearance in MCU content impossible. Same for Spidey and Sony but obviously there's a less massive cast there. |
10-31-2013, 07:00 PM | #92 |
Primordial Fishbeast
|
Ah, alright. Good to know, cheers.
|
10-31-2013, 07:03 PM | #93 |
時の彼方へ
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Lafayette, Indiana
Posts: 20,578
|
That's a pretty powerful list though. Guess I'll defer to your judgment and spoiler tag my response ...
Spoiler: show Yeah. Pretty much that last mention alone is a huge boon for Fox but a huge blow for Disney-Marvel.
__________________
|
10-31-2013, 07:04 PM | #94 |
Mrow?
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Camping the White Market
Posts: 6,938
|
I only spoilered it because of length, but yeah, that last one is important. They basically needed those rights in order to have Wolverine's origin story introduced at all, since that character does play even a minor role in it. Even if they never make the screen or are mentioned, they are part of the same series of experiments that Wolverine was, so... yeah. Whether they plan to do anything beyond that is up to them, though they'll obviously need to acquire more rights to do so.
Colossus was in X-3, and I think even X-2. |
10-31-2013, 07:05 PM | #95 |
Primordial Fishbeast
|
Yeah 'Deadpool' was in the Wolverine Origin film. Ryan Reynolds is a huge fan and says he wants to do another film more faithful to the character (which I can't wait for).
|
10-31-2013, 07:09 PM | #96 | |
Marsh Badge
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,739
|
Quote:
ed: beaten
__________________
Fizzy Bubbles: Karmas
|
|
10-31-2013, 07:10 PM | #97 |
時の彼方へ
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Lafayette, Indiana
Posts: 20,578
|
Wait, what? Ryan Reynolds is both Deadpool and Hal Jordan? O_o
__________________
|
10-31-2013, 07:11 PM | #99 |
Primordial Fishbeast
|
Yeah I also laughed when that happened.
|
10-31-2013, 07:12 PM | #100 |
Banned
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 14,729
|
Whilst he should have been wearing the costume, I actually didn't mind the Ryan Reynolds Deadpool purely from the perspective of his performance. Everything else about that Deadpool was awful, but he was good within it.
|
Lower Navigation | ||||||
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
Thread Tools | |
|
|