zslane

Eternals has Celestials in it, which are elemental forces in the MCU, ergo Eternals is unambiguously an MCU movie. I get that it doesn't hew to the MCU formula like an Avengers movie does, but Guardians of the Galaxy stepped away from the usual formula (by featuring an entire team of C-level unknowns who did not get their own movies first before the team-up movie, and by making no mention of other MCU characters) and it was a big success. I think if Eternals flops it won't be because it is different from a typical MCU movie, but because it fails to pack enough fun surprises to generate that "you gotta see it" hype.

Eternals has Celestials in it, which are elemental forces in the MCU, ergo Eternals is unambiguously an MCU movie. I get that it doesn't hew to the MCU formula like an Avengers movie does, but Guardians of the Galaxy stepped away from the usual formula (by featuring an entire team of C-level unknowns who did not get their own movies first before the team-up movie, and by making no mention of other MCU characters) and it was a big success. I think if Eternals flops it won't be because it is different from a typical MCU movie, but because it fails to pack enough fun surprises to generate that "you gotta see it" hype.

Eternals has Celestials in it, which are elemental forces in the MCU, ergo Eternals is unambiguously an MCU movie. I get that it doesn't hew to the MCU formula like an Avengers movie does, but Guardians of the Galaxy stepped away from the usual formula (by featuring an entire team of C-level unknowns who did not get their own movies first before the team-up movie, and by making no mention of other MCU characters) and it was a big success. I think if Eternals flops it won't be because it is different from a typical MCU movie, but because it fails to pack enough fun surprises to generate that "you gotta see it" hype.

I haven't seen a really good DC movie since Wonder Woman. The new Batman movie will do very well financially, that much I am sure, but I remain unconvinced that it will turn out to be a good movie on par with Wonder Woman. And by "good" I mean good story, good pacing, consistent tone, characters that make sense and have an arc, etc. The visuals look pretty amazing, but Zack Snyder has demonstrated repeatedly that stunning visuals alone do not make for a good movie.

Well said. As an illustrator and graphic designer who does work for hire, I'm quite okay with the agreement that my employer (or their clients) own and control work I do on the job in exchange for a steady paycheck (and health insurance). I entered that agreement with eyes open, and could have chosen instead to create art on my own time and be responsible for all the costs, marketing, and so forth if I wanted sole ownership and control. Admittedly I've never created IP that became a major element of popular culture like Mickey Mouse or Superman did, but it's not as if comic book companies yanked those early writers and artists off the streets and impressed them into servitude against their will.

That concept is often referred to as "work for hire".  Let's say DC Comics hires me to write a new series, and I create a brand-new Superhero.  I'm working for them.  They own the fruits of my creativity.  And I get paid whatever we agreed that I get paid for writing that series.
 
Who got the better deal?
 
Well, if I created, say, Cyborg, the I'd say they got the better deal.  But if I created Brother Power, the Geek?  Not so much.  I have chosen the low-risk approach, trading away the potential benefits if I create a real winner to still get paid if my work does not sell.
 
Maybe I really think my creation has potential.  I can always self-publish and reap all the rewards.  But I also pay all the costs, and take all the risks.  If it doesn't sell, I may be writing for DC for a long time after to pay off my creditors.  And don't think DC Comics will be promoting my indie creation with their house ads!

If I were ever to write a campaign setting for the Hero System, I'd use the Plot Point Campaign structure. I think this structure can be adopted for any system, and I'd like to see it become the preferred approach for all future Hero System campaign settings, regardless of who authors them.

My take on this is that if a creators makes something that is profitable, they should be able to profit from it but that at some point something crosses over from being a "product" to being "culture" and I don't think someone should be able to own culture.
 
If we could keep copyright forever, then someone would own King Arthur, Gilgamesh, and the Pied Piper.  I don't think that it would be good for us as a society if we had to pay someone a nickel every time we referred to a Shakespeare character by name.  It is *good* that western civilization has a core group of characters that we all can use.
 
If you accept that Walt Disney created Mickey Mouse, well, he has been dead for 50+ years.  How long do the people who took over his corporation need to profit from his legacy?  At what point do they need to profit from their own work?  Should Mickey still be owned by a corporation in 2200?  2300?  By that logic there is not "common culture", just the various slices of a pie owned by various people.  Should Bach's descendant's still get royalties because they happened to have a famous ancestor?
 
At some point, for common culture to keep working, Mickey Mouse, Superman, Captain America, and the Ghostbusters need to become public domain.  Opinions vary as to when that should be, but ownership can't be perpetual.

Awards like Emmys, Oscars, Golden Globes, and Grammys are won as much on the basis of politics and PR campaigns as they are on merit. This is not surprising since judging such creative endeavors is so subjective, and when there is no clear winner on the basis of merit, voters have to decide on some other basis, which is when the politics and other factors prevail. For instance, an actor who is regarded as "due" an award, having lost many times in the past, will get the nod even if their performance that year wasn't the best by some easily agreed-upon metric. Or maybe the voting body is given a mandate to promote diversity when "in doubt" over any particular category.
 

Softcover 4e BBB is full of win.

Awards like Emmys, Oscars, Golden Globes, and Grammys are won as much on the basis of politics and PR campaigns as they are on merit. This is not surprising since judging such creative endeavors is so subjective, and when there is no clear winner on the basis of merit, voters have to decide on some other basis, which is when the politics and other factors prevail. For instance, an actor who is regarded as "due" an award, having lost many times in the past, will get the nod even if their performance that year wasn't the best by some easily agreed-upon metric. Or maybe the voting body is given a mandate to promote diversity when "in doubt" over any particular category.
 

Only "serious Dramas, with lots of impassioned Dialogue get those awards.  Martin Scorcese's declaration that Superhero films aren't "Cinema" applies here, as the Hollywood elites consider them just Money making pablum for the masses.

Second Hand Lions is full of pulpy adventure in its flashback sequences.
 
League of Extraordinary Gentlemen
The RDJ Sherlock Holmes films maybe?
Captain America: The First Avenger
Spectre (1977 tv movie)...very pulpy even though it doesn't take place in the pulp era

Or a Mysterio from another universe.

At least DC solved that problem by having reboots so frequently no one knows if a given character is still supposed to be dead or not! 😆
(I kid, but I was very glad to see Ma & Pa Kent return with the one at the end of Doomsday Clock.)

Sure. This does happen and it is obviously a very real thing, but in the grand scheme of our species, not very common. Now imagine how it feels to the people who knew you for 40-50 years. It would seem completely unexpected, out of left field, and hard to fathom. That's exactly how long-time comic book readers feel when hit with the same thing about beloved characters they've known for decades. The difference is that your experience, while very authentic, has never been part of the superhero genre before, and so readers are not prepared for a sudden dose of "sexual identity realism" injected into their comic books. It is supremely jarring, and it feels less like an attempt at verisimilitude and more like a desperate bid to gain enough contemporary social relevance to keep the printing machines running.

Change is necessary for good drama. There is no character arc if the character never changes. But comic books are like soap operas where change is designed to happen so slowly as to be imperceptible. And I think there's huge a difference between organic character development and out-of-the-blue revelations that make readers go, "Huh?" Ben Grimm can be revealed as Jewish if it is consistent with his background, consistent with his behavior, consistent with his dialog, and has any point of relevance to the ongoing stories of the Fantastic Four. If it isn't consistent, then it feels like an entirely different person has suddenly inhabited the body. And if there is no narrative relevance, then it is just a meaningless bullet point in the "Backstory" portion of his character sheet. As I said, there's nothing wrong with introducing these character details if they are done well and done for a purpose other than to check off boxes on a corporate diversity agenda.

I think it makes more sense to say that when it comes to superheroes in the comics, being 100% straight is the assumed default unless clearly and unequivocally shown otherwise. This is, after all, the genre and medium that didn't put any focus on sexual identity for its first couple of decades (and why would it? it's not relevant), and then was made even more squeaky clean by the imposition of the comics code in the 1950s. It is only relatively recently that issues of sexual identity have been directly addressed in mainstream superhero comics. And it wasn't something that became an editorial agenda until a few years ago. So I'd argue that the burden of proof falls on showing an unshakably non-straight character with zero hetero inclinations, since 100% straight has been the assumed default for over eighty years.

That would only help her case if the two movies were considered "comparables" by the industry. They are action/adventure movies, yes, but one is a superspy thriller with female leads and the other is an action comedy starring Ryan Reynolds. Moreover, in order for it to help her legal team in forming an argument, there would have to be some way to demonstrate that the two movies were equally "good" and therefore likely to draw equivalent box office returns. That would be impossible to demonstrate, and so I don't think that argument will get very far.

I think a lot of that comes from parenting. Quill never knew his father, and his mother died young. He was broken from grief, and he longed for paternal approval, and allowed a group of space pirates to lead him around, taking on their values.
 
Cha Cha was deeply loved by his family, and learned that his life was one of integrity and service to others. It's no wonder that he transformed those around him.

I'm not in touch with recent comics history enough to recall that, but regardless, I disagree with that criticism. Creating new characters to fill "inclusivity niches" and broaden diversity is exactly the right approach, IMO. Anyone who criticizes that is basically against any kind of diversity in comics at all. And I call BS on them.

Most if not all of the legal arguments fall in Disney's favor on this one. In addition to being free from any "plain" (i.e., real) breach of contract claim, as pointed out by Variety, Disney can also invoke force majeure and put the whole thing to rest. ScarJo's team wants it to remain public because shaming Disney through the trades and social media is really the only tactic available to them. When you don't have any real legal ground to stand on, you make shrill accusations of misogyny or sexism or racism or whatever, and then hope all the unions stand together and strike when the next contract renewals comes up.

There's organic character development, planned from the start, where such background details are revealed little by little as readers get to know the character, and then there's sudden (from the reader's perspective) changes piled on in order to check off a box from an editorial diversity agenda. I feel that if the word comes down from corporate HQ that there suddenly needs to be more diversity in the company's line of comics, the superior approach is to create fresh new characters that meet those diversification needs. Gender bending, race bending, and out-of-the-blue sexual identity reveals are lazy, transparent, and usually dismissive of the existing character history in a way almost guaranteed to piss of long-time readers.

I'm not in touch with recent comics history enough to recall that, but regardless, I disagree with that criticism. Creating new characters to fill "inclusivity niches" and broaden diversity is exactly the right approach, IMO. Anyone who criticizes that is basically against any kind of diversity in comics at all. And I call BS on them.

I'm not in touch with recent comics history enough to recall that, but regardless, I disagree with that criticism. Creating new characters to fill "inclusivity niches" and broaden diversity is exactly the right approach, IMO. Anyone who criticizes that is basically against any kind of diversity in comics at all. And I call BS on them.