|
Post by Mario Di Giacomo on Jun 11, 2011 12:37:54 GMT -8
(I edited your post because the picture didn't show.) I'm not all that fond of that period. The stories weren't bad, they thought big and OTT, and were creative, but I never warmed to the art. That's fair. For me, art has to be pretty bad to detract from a good story. (I had the hardest time with that photo for some reason…)
|
|
|
Post by Mario Di Giacomo on Jun 11, 2011 6:44:57 GMT -8
Right era, but I'm a bit more old school:
|
|
|
Post by Mario Di Giacomo on Jun 11, 2011 5:14:53 GMT -8
I've said this before, but hey, you gave me a venue. The biggest problem with the EU is that they've forgotten that the core concept of the OT is that it's a FAIRY TALE. It starts out with "Once upon a time" "A long, long time ago" and ends with (essentially) "and they lived happily ever after". But with very few exceptions, most of the stories that take place post-ROTJ (and pretty much ALL of the main storyline books), are showing that the characters didn't live happily ever after, at all. The government they helped set up collapsed, its successor is basically teetering on the edge of becoming another Empire, old friends (and their own children) have died, some after turning evil, and dark Force users are cropping up like weeds. The post-ROTJ SW universe sucks. It's not a place of heroes, but of petty politicals and disaster after disaster. I actually prefer the stories that take place well before the movies, that have unrelated characters. There, even if we know the goog guys might always win clean, at lest we know there's a happy ending of sorts. For example: (this is a long one. Three trailers combined)
|
|
|
Post by Mario Di Giacomo on Jun 10, 2011 10:54:48 GMT -8
The point isn't that the new teams aren't equally worthy of making a living.
It's that the current teams were let go despite the fact that they didn't do anything wrong.
|
|
|
Post by Mario Di Giacomo on Jun 10, 2011 8:37:33 GMT -8
I think, at the end of the day, what pisses me off the most isn't the wholesale ejection of history, but the way that the current creative teams have been treated.
Look at Gail Simone. Given BoP to relaunch, set up a new status quo and arch-enemy, and just when she starts getting momentum, she not only loses the book, but any chance at all of telling the story she pitched.
Or Chris Roberson. After the JMS fiasco, does an incredible job bringing fans back with his sly nods to past stories, and turns the Grounded storyline into something worth reading. And just as he's finally ready to tell HIS stories, and not just work around Straczynski's, he's kicked off the book, and not given ANY title in the DCnU as a consolation.
And there are other writers and artists (Bleeding Cool has a depressingly long list) who are suddenly out of work, not because they were doing a bad job, but because Johns someone in editorial decided that the comics line needed a revamp.
These creators did this for a living. The paycheck they earned for doing their best went to rent, bills, and groceries. And now, they are on the street.
All thanks to this bold "new" direction.
|
|
|
Post by Mario Di Giacomo on Jun 10, 2011 2:27:34 GMT -8
Here's the thing. There IS no "DC". There are three people tasked with making decisions at the executive level about DC Comics. One, Bob Harras, was the EiC of Marvel during the Dark Age, and the other two just happen to be the same creators who are in charge of the revamp.
DC Entertainment (and Warner Brothers above them) don't CARE about the comics. Just the potential for licensing characters. If the new direction fails, the movies & cartoons won't suffer.
|
|
|
Post by Mario Di Giacomo on Jun 9, 2011 16:36:08 GMT -8
So, despite the fact that DC is better at non-film adaptations (which never reflect the comics) they revamped the line so they'd be better at adaptations?
Oh, and as for being bad at films... what's the top-grossing superhero film again?
|
|
|
Post by Mario Di Giacomo on Jun 8, 2011 12:21:46 GMT -8
And reading all the news so far, only one conclusion can be reached: This is officially Geoff Johns' DC, no ifs, ands, Grant Morrisons or buts. The part that irks me the most about this reboot/vamp is that there's really no reason for it other than ego. It's not like readers were confused about continuity (the reason for Crisis) or the last reboot didn't make sense (the reason for Zero Hour). Nobody was saying "I want to get into DC, but the universe is too confusing for me". This is Geoff Johns & Jim Lee putting their stamp on the entire line, for no reason other than they can. This is Brand New D ayC. This is change for short-term sales, not for the benefit of the line in the long term. This is the return of the worst of the Dark Age of Comics. This is HEROES REBORN. And they even brought Leifeld along for the ride....
|
|
|
Post by Mario Di Giacomo on Jun 3, 2011 7:52:35 GMT -8
Why should someone who created an IP be treated differently from someone who builds a hotel chain? Because ideas are different than things. And that's the crux of our disagreement. For me, ideas are things of no more or less value than any other thing. And so long as the Hiltons (to stick with this example) get to keep their business empire until the xth generation, so long will I argue that the same should go for IP. Because otherwise, there is ABSOLUTELY NO POINT in creating IP, when you can start a construction business (or something else tangible) instead. Because in the latter case, at least your children and grandchildren will be allowed to keep it. The Hilton analogy is flawed, anyway. There's been some confusion on this thread between the patents and copyrights, and the rules are not the same. If I get an idea for a new kind of hotel, the law says I can profit from it exclusively for 20 years. Not lifetime plus 20 years... just 20 years. After that, anyone can build one. Copyright is a different beast entirely. It's about content, not form. Message, not medium. Indeed, the whole point of copyright is that it transcends the actual form of the work... a story is copyrighted in all possible forms, from carved in stone to telepathic meme-pulse (pat. pending). If a writer publishes a work, that means he wants it seen. But by keeping it under perpetual copyright, that means people who weren't even ALIVE when it was created have control over where and how it can be seen. Disney does it all the time, with their "Vault", and it means that the hard work all those artists put in will only be seen when some guy in a suit says so. And I just can't see that as the right thing. If I ever get published, I'm going to want it seen by as many people as possible. And, when I'm gone, I don't want some schmuck who just happens to be related to me to have the right to say "Well, I'm rich enough, so let's withdraw it from publication for a few years".
|
|
|
Post by Mario Di Giacomo on Jun 3, 2011 7:38:08 GMT -8
Why shouldn't he milk the franchise for all it's worth? At least he's making use of it. Would you rather the same thing gets done by some PD wankfesting fanficcer? Yes. Because you can easily disregard anything you don't like (for example, nearly every Sherlock Holmes pastiche I've read) if it's public domain. But when it's the owner of (someone else's) work that make "official" changes, it's different.
|
|
|
Post by Mario Di Giacomo on Jun 3, 2011 6:05:51 GMT -8
Speaking of offspring & copyrights...
Brian Herbert. Owns the copyrights to Dune, and not only milked the franchise for all it's worth, but has depicted, in universe, that the original books are a fictional account of what REALLY happened (which, of course, can be found in the books he did with KJA).
|
|
|
Post by Mario Di Giacomo on Jun 3, 2011 3:47:15 GMT -8
As to whether Americans would consider my system Communism, copyright in the US is already limited. The time limit just keeps being extended. No worries: The Congress shall have Power…
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
US Constitution, Article 1, Section 8.
|
|
|
Post by Mario Di Giacomo on Jun 3, 2011 3:28:12 GMT -8
Unlike our hypothetical Fred Malory, who ALSO did not create or produce anything, and only uses what others already produced to earn himself money, but happens to have a minuscule amount of genetic material from Sir Thomas Malory.
And, of course, he's not alone. If we assume a generation of 20 years, and at least two children per descendant per generation, and a period of 560 years for ease of mathematics, that gives us approximately 228 descendants, or 268 MILLION people who would all profit, having .000003% Malory genes each.
|
|
|
Post by Mario Di Giacomo on Jun 2, 2011 18:33:41 GMT -8
Yes, which is why I expect there to be even more problems down the line - their problems, their consequences. My schadenfreude
|
|
|
Post by Mario Di Giacomo on Jun 2, 2011 8:55:55 GMT -8
And no, not necessarily. If everyone of these heirs has the copyright, they can all produce their own reprints. As they all strive to make money with it, the quantity of A Christmas Carol alone might eventually crowd even Star Trek and Star Wars off the shelves. That's not entirely accurate. If there are 20 people who share a copyright (because their great grandfather wrote a book), then if ANY of the 20 publish a reprint, the other 19 get an even share of the profits, right off the top. So for every dollar made, everyone gets 5 cents. And, if your comment about veto is correct (I'm still not sure), then any of the 20 could veto the reprint, simply because the one doing the reprint ate the last piece of cheesecake at the family reunion.
|
|