Hugh Neilson

I recall an old article by Stan Lee where he commented on fans who, whenever Marvel published a book that did not work out, accused them of "Letting down the fans", but whenever they published a hit, accused them of "Just grabbing the cash".
 
You can't have it both ways. "Fan service" is "customer service" is "giving the people what they want".

I recall an old article by Stan Lee where he commented on fans who, whenever Marvel published a book that did not work out, accused them of "Letting down the fans", but whenever they published a hit, accused them of "Just grabbing the cash".
 
You can't have it both ways. "Fan service" is "customer service" is "giving the people what they want".

I recall an old article by Stan Lee where he commented on fans who, whenever Marvel published a book that did not work out, accused them of "Letting down the fans", but whenever they published a hit, accused them of "Just grabbing the cash".
 
You can't have it both ways. "Fan service" is "customer service" is "giving the people what they want".

I recall an old article by Stan Lee where he commented on fans who, whenever Marvel published a book that did not work out, accused them of "Letting down the fans", but whenever they published a hit, accused them of "Just grabbing the cash".
 
You can't have it both ways. "Fan service" is "customer service" is "giving the people what they want".

Fixed that for you

How about "learn things that will be useful". For example:
 

Is that what PE taught us? Or did it teach the rules for team sports, how to jump over a high jump bar while keeping within the Olympic rules, etc.? Did it include nutrition and hygiene (some programs did have a Health component), also very important to staying healthy and strong? The benefits of education are not always provided by our systems of education.
 

That depends a lot on the program, and the professor. Too much of our education system teaches people to repeat pre-fab answers, to accept the information they are told without questioning and to do things the same way the last guy figured out they could be done, rather than teaching people to find their own answers, assess the information they receive to form their own conclusions and determine how best to do thing, and how to improve upon them.
 
That's not what is typically required to get that diploma. And I say that as a college graduate holding a professional designation.
 
Why do schools focus on teaching literature, rather than communication skills? Mathematical concepts rather than basic financial literacy? Is it prudent to graduate students who know Pythagorean Theory and the works of Shakespeare cold, but cannot figure out how damaging ongoing credit card debt is, and struggle to convey their thoughts in written form? Perhaps there is room for both in our education systems, but if we must focus on one rather than the other, due to limited time, why do we assume people will obtain life skills by osmosis, and focus on more theoretical areas?
 
On the other hand, if we believe that society as a whole benefits from every member attaining a certain level of education, should that level of education not be available to all, rather than being restricted by economics? Society has determined that we should all complete the high school curriculum, after which education is no longer available without question or charge. Perhaps that should change - but, again, such decisions carry costs. Or should those best qualified to teach freely donate their time in the interests of society, rather than choosing other ways to use their skills and talents. In our society, wealth IS a measuring stick - in large part because it enables the individual to ensure they, and those close to them, can benefit from those things we do not believe are appropriately made available to all within our society - whether education, medical care or anything else which comes with a price tag.
 
Every society has decided what services are provided to all, and which are available only to some. In capitalist societies, the "some" is largely measured in terms of wealth. Are there other options we would consider more equitable? Say, fixed funding for education, with the selection of who benefits and who does not being driven entirely by skills and aptitudes? That is, a meritocratic approach - if your kid is not smart enough to go to college, he or she goes into the "general labour pool"?
 
I don't see a perfect answer out there anywhere.

How did I miss that? Sorry!
 
 

[chorus]Don't do it[/chorus]
 
Too many men have failed before!

When you are explaining that it can't be done, please do so in a location not impeding those who are busy doing it.

This is the advantage of the MCU, to me - they can re-envision the characters and only the fanboys know. The movies have worked in large part because they did not enslave themselves to 50+ years of backstory.
 
However, the movie Mantis was a shrinking violet submissive, KOd so she could be rescued by the dumb jock - also a stereotype, but since it's a male stereotype with no ethnic connotations, it's not one anyone complains about.

For those who dislike the show that much, I recommend doing what I did with Arrow and Flash: stop watching. That decision has saved me many hours of time better spent on other things (some televised, some not). I continue to watch AoS because I like the MCU and, despite its flaws, I like (most of) its characters and I have fun watching the seasonal plots unfold.
 
As for this episode:
 
As usual, the best thing about the show/episode (for me) continues to be Fitz/Simmons. However...
 
 
 

To the "build the back story", there will be young kids in the theatre to watch Infinity War who did not see any of the prior MCU movies. They will love it. Maybe they will pursue the backstory. Maybe they won't.
 
Just like a young kid in the early '70s picked up an Avengers, or a JLA, comic on the newsstand and was fascinated by this already-existing world and all its characters, even if he didn't always know the backstory, or figure out exactly what was going on, or who was who.
 
Write good stories. Deliver them with good visuals (drawn or filmed). Make them a magical place. THAT will draw in the fans.

Yep.
 
The Internet:
 
"Oh my god. why does Hollywood keep doing the same thing over and over again... do they not have any original ideas anymore or the guts to change things up?"
 
Also the Internet:
 
"I can't believe they changed something.  You can't just change things in a series - those things are why people loved it in the first place.  They have no respect for their fanbase."

The comment was made on a news broadcast on election night many years ago, in all seriousness.

I don't think the issue is that it would be hard, but that it is not consistent with the vision for the book. Why not write up the Moorcock deities, the Flying Spaghetti Monster and the God Of Rear Service Entrances, while you're at it?
 
Mythic Hero is about bringing the real Deities of Myth to Hero, not fictional Deites.
 
It's not like Steve needs to pad the page count!

[sarcasm acknowledged & appreciated] Exactly. Financially-speaking, comparing comic books to movies is like comparing video games to tabletop gaming - they're so far apart they have basically nothing in common. Comic book movies are not made for comic book fans - period. Sorry.
 
"Questionable" in terms of there are intelligent grown-ass people who disagree on the matter. And right or wrong it is the kindof stuff that actually happens in the real world. Personally I happen to agree with your assessment - as do the writers of the comics for the most part. That's kindof the whole point of the series, and why they can't get superheroes to do it.
 
I get that it's not your taste - fine. It's not high on my list either. But you keep insisting the premise is fundamentally flawed and uninteresting, despite it having supported several decades worth of comics* and a major summer blockbuster.** As has been pointed out before, "not for me" does not automatically equal "fundamentally flawed and uninteresting."
 
 
* Which you insist on judging despite not having read.
** Which I insist on judging despite not having watched, so...
 
Well, he put the bow down because Coulson called him off. The scene would've played out the same if he'd used a gun; the bow just gave him an ounce of memorability. But yeah, glorified Easter egg is about it. IIRC, the reaction from my non-comic-reading friends was basically: the "I'm starting to root for this guy" line was kindof funny, not sure what was up with the bow & arrow [shrug].
 
Marvel's actually been pretty savvy about how & where the drop their eggs, sometimes because they have plans to use it later, sometimes just to see what kind of fan reaction it gets.
 
This.

The premise of drafting superpowered incarcerated villains has carried the comic series in many incarnations.
 
"I do not like the premise" is not the same as "the premise is deeply flawed and completely muddled to the point of unworkability"
 
While I assume the spread is just pocket change you'd pull out of your couch, for most of us the spread between $745M gross and $175 production costs is a pretty decent payoff, I think.
 
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=dc2016.htm
 
I suppose only $575 million of profits doesn't compare all that well to GotG, with its $773 million box office - $170 million budget = $603 million profits, but I'd probably be able to eke out a meagre existence off of either of those, assuming careful budgeting.
 
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=marvel2014a.htm

The premise of drafting superpowered incarcerated villains has carried the comic series in many incarnations.
 
"I do not like the premise" is not the same as "the premise is deeply flawed and completely muddled to the point of unworkability"
 
While I assume the spread is just pocket change you'd pull out of your couch, for most of us the spread between $745M gross and $175 production costs is a pretty decent payoff, I think.
 
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=dc2016.htm
 
I suppose only $575 million of profits doesn't compare all that well to GotG, with its $773 million box office - $170 million budget = $603 million profits, but I'd probably be able to eke out a meagre existence off of either of those, assuming careful budgeting.
 
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=marvel2014a.htm

The premise of drafting superpowered incarcerated villains has carried the comic series in many incarnations.
 
"I do not like the premise" is not the same as "the premise is deeply flawed and completely muddled to the point of unworkability"
 
While I assume the spread is just pocket change you'd pull out of your couch, for most of us the spread between $745M gross and $175 production costs is a pretty decent payoff, I think.
 
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=dc2016.htm
 
I suppose only $575 million of profits doesn't compare all that well to GotG, with its $773 million box office - $170 million budget = $603 million profits, but I'd probably be able to eke out a meagre existence off of either of those, assuming careful budgeting.
 
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=marvel2014a.htm

Wait a minute. Let me mull this over.
 
Marvel movies like Guardians of the Galaxy are great. GoTG had to introduce Star-Lord, Gamora, Rocket, Groot, Drax, Yondu, Ronan and Nebula (all of whom are featured in spots advertising GoTG 2), not counting more “bit players” like the Collector, Korath or the Nova Corp, or Thanos who was introduced earlier (limited audience familiarity).
 
But DC movies suck. Suicide Squad sucked because they tried to introduce too many characters all at once – Deadshot, Harley Quinn, El Diablo, Captain Boomerang, Killer Croc, Rick Flag, Amanda Waller and the Enchantress, not counting “bit players” like Slipknot and Enchantress’ brother (“Incubus”?), or the Joker (who is a much better known character than Thanos).
 
I am not seeing the huge difference in the cast which had to be introduced to the audience. And the background scenery in Suicide Squad, present-day Earth, needed a lot less introduction than an alien prison and far-flung alien worlds.
 
I think DC is getting judged to a different standard...

Why wasn't Shazam promoted more heavily by DC for the past 40 years? Because they didn't have the other media rights.
 
The new Peter Parker, and no Fantastic Four comic, decisions at Marvel can also be linked to making it harder for the other rights holders to align with the comics.
 
Doesn't really explain Sam Wilson Capt America, Jane Foster Thor, Amadaus Cho Hulk, Kate Bishop Haykeye or those two new Iron Men, though.
 
Explains a lot of GoTG though...
 
 
How long did I have to listen to "Marvel overpromotes mutants and X-Books" before the complaint they are downplaying Mutants in favour of Inhumans?
 
 
ch ch ch ch ch ch changes...

How far does one carry this? Can other nations impose gun control on the US, or prohibit their taxation on the basis of citizenship, rather than the residency basis used by most nations? Can the world as a whole decide "no more death penalty" on behalf of the world as a whole? The US has not even ben able to legislate many issues for the nation as a whole without individual states protesting. We've had similar issues in Canada.
 
Nations presently impose restrictions on who may enter their borders. Should we accept that all humans have the right to go anywhere they wish to go, and ban passport and entry visa requirements? Certainly, restricting the ability of people to seek employment wherever they wish is morally repugnant, isn't it?
 
Does one nation have the right to imprison its citizens for an act which is legal in another country (marijuana laws vary a lot around the world, as one pretty simplistic example). For that matter, I think we in North America have rejected the view that Rastafarians can smoke marijuana in accordance with their religious practices.
 
The theory that some rights should be universal seems reasonable, but how far it should go is pretty challenging.

I'm not sure what choice they really have, in that particular instance. I mean, if I had a cinematic universe that was literally making billions of dollars, I'd try to make the rest of my properties as cinematic-friendly as possible.

I don't think the issue is that it would be hard, but that it is not consistent with the vision for the book. Why not write up the Moorcock deities, the Flying Spaghetti Monster and the God Of Rear Service Entrances, while you're at it?
 
Mythic Hero is about bringing the real Deities of Myth to Hero, not fictional Deites.
 
It's not like Steve needs to pad the page count!

I don't think the issue is that it would be hard, but that it is not consistent with the vision for the book. Why not write up the Moorcock deities, the Flying Spaghetti Monster and the God Of Rear Service Entrances, while you're at it?
 
Mythic Hero is about bringing the real Deities of Myth to Hero, not fictional Deites.
 
It's not like Steve needs to pad the page count!