Show posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Show posts Menu

Messages - thecolorsblend

It's the appeal of esoterica. "Herpa derpa derp, did you know Bob Kane didn't ackchyually create Batman?"

As you say, the issue of credit was VERY hazy back then. Especially since comics were regarded as a fly by night industry that would probably be extinct by 1945 at the latest. That was conventional wisdom in the industry even at the time. Nobody was too worried with who got credit for what since comic book characters were not understood to be gigantic franchise in those days.

Bob Kane negotiated a deal with Vincent Sullivan to create "another Superman", he named and made an initial design for Batman (or Bat-Man, if that works better for anyone), he presented the beginning of his idea to Bill Finger, Bill Finger redesigned the character, Bob Kane then sold the character/concept to Sullivan and Kane then used Bill Finger in what history would probably consider a work for hire capacity.

I'm not trying to minimize Finger's massive contributions. I'm simply saying that Kane did a lot more than collect a paycheck.

Still, if we're going to take a warts and all look at Batman's history, can we start by acknowledging that Bill Finger was hardly a saint (or a victim) (or a martyr) in his own right? The Case Of The Chemical Syndicate was virtually plagiarized from The Shadow pulp 'Partners In Peril'. Bill Finger wrote that. But how much crap does he take for swiping someone else's work?

My point is that crediting solely Bob Kane for Batman's creation had considerable legal accuracy behind it. It might not have been "fair" by modern standards. But by legal standards, it made a lot of sense to give Kane sole credit. I have no problem with crediting Finger as co-creator. By all means, do it.

All I'm saying is we need to let go of the idea of Kane being a dastardly villain and Finger being a helpless victim.

Back in 2015, I started wondering what floodgates would be opened if Finger received co-creator credit. And sure enough, it looks like the floodgates have been coming open. Roy Thomas has been jockeying for co-creator credit for Wolverine now that Wolverine's other co-creators are dead and can't set the record straight. I'm sure there will be plenty more of this to come in the future.

My anticipation for this movie remains strong.
One thing that still isn't super clear is the Knightmare sequences. The other glimpses of the future can sort of be explained. But how does Bruce see the first Knightmare vision in BVS while he and Cyborg see it in ZSJL?

The most that I've been able to figure is that when Mother Box was dropped onto Superman's body, the Kryptonian AI says the future has taken root in the present. Whatever else that might mean, it seems that one byproduct of it is that Bruce occasionally gets glimpses of the Knightmare future in his dreams.

This is one of those plot points which we can be fairly certain would've addressed in subsequent films. But as it stands, it's not entirely clear now.
Graphic Novels / Re: A Death in the Family
Tue, 9 Apr 2024, 03:08
Quote from: Slash Man on Wed,  3 Apr  2024, 23:17As I'm always the skeptic, the one burning question is "where's Jim Starlin?" I'm not up to date on his personal life, but I don't believe he's retired yet
My understanding is that the Batman office and Starlin parted ways on some pretty bad terms with each other shortly after ADITF. Starlin mentioned some of that stuff in an interview at some point or another.

And I got the idea that at least on Starlin's side, those wounds went DEEP. Because apparently, and among other things, he had TONS of story ideas for where Batman could go following Jason's death. But after getting chased out of the Bat office, I got the idea that something broke inside of him.

Not to speak ill of the dead. But while Denny O'Neil did a LOT of good for Batman in his time, it sure looks like he left quite a lot of damage in his wake. The people who loved him back then seem to be loyal to this very day. But others, like Starlin (plus Alan Grant and somewhat Norm Breyfogle) had grudges that were never truly resolved.

Quote from: Slash Man on Wed,  3 Apr  2024, 23:17My first choice for art probably would have been Graham Nolan
Understandable. But Graham Nolan is probably persona non grata at DC these days. For that matter, you may as well add Chuck Dixon to that list too. Because anybody even remotely associated with Comicsgate (as Nolan and Dixon are) will probably never find mainstream comics work ever again.

And it's a crying shame too because creators like Dixon and Nolan don't exactly grow on trees. Bane didn't create himself, after all.

Also, at the rate things are going, it's probably just a matter of time until Kelley Jones gives up the pretense and announces that he's also Comicsgate through and through. He's been sympathetic enough to their cause that he may as well end the charade.

And anyway, Dixon and Nolan have both found plenty of lucrative Comicsgate work. Frankly, DC needs them a hell of a lot more than they need DC. I'm just describing the situation on the ground.
I've been reading a bunch of X-Men stuff lately. Obvious things. Claremont, Morrison and Whedon (in 616) and Millar (on Ultimate X-Men) and a bit of Hama (on Wolverine).

Frankly, I've developed a completely new appreciation for X-Men over the last couple of weeks. Such an amazingly rich tapestry. So many interesting characters and conflicts and storylines.

And artist after artist turning out some of the best work of their entire careers. The list is almost endless. Joe Madureira, John Byrne, Dave Cockrum, the Kuberts, Frank Quitely, all of the Image guys, etc.

Much respect to X-Men comics.
Great find. It's interesting to contrast Singer's apparent humility with the first X-Men as compared to almost critical mass ego he displayed in the run up to Days Of Future Past.

Then again, DOFP is a vastly superior film to the first X-Men. So, maybe Singer with an out of control ego makes for a great X-Men film?
Movies / Re: Matrix 4 Coming Soon
Tue, 9 Apr 2024, 02:42
Would've popped in sooner but I've been out of town on a work trip for the last week.

Anyway, there's a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth over the lack of Wachowski involvement in this. And, um, am I the only one who remembers people griping for the last twenty years about every single Matrix sequel that's ever been made?

But since we're on the subject anyway, I also seem to recall Star Wars fans getting called "toxic" for objecting to new Star Wars movies being made without George Lucas's involvement.

So, which is it? Do fans have the right to bemoan the original creator(s) choosing not to be involved? Or is it okay for fans to voice concerns and criticisms?

All I'm asking is that whatever standard we choose for this, let's at least make sure it gets applied evenly to everybody, mmkay? If Star Wars fans are evil for reacting like they did, then surely Matrix fans are as well, right? But if those Matrix fans are legit, then I have to wonder what anybody ever had against Star Wars fans.

Will Reeves and Moss return? I have no idea. But it seems to me like both of them need SOMEthing in their careers. I'm not prepared to discount their involvement. But if they refuse to participate, then I would attribute that to loyalty to the Wachowskis.
It could be that Stoltz is typecast in my mind as playing scumbag characters. Maybe that's why I've never been able to picture him as Wally. Guy Gardner, maybe. But not Wally.

Christian Slater as Zauriel is pretty inspired tho. Ditto Gina Gershon as Huntress. In fact, those are probably the two best choices in either article.
Stan Lee was a comic book visionary. But he was also frequently absolutely full of it. As much as I respect the man, there's simply no denying that he was part writer, part huckster, part professional self-promoter.

I, for one, have always been skeptical about X-Men as an allegory of anything, frankly. Or if Lee was telling the truth, if X-Men truly was allegory, then it's racist as hell.

But to the degree that I have to treat that seriously in order to argue the premise, the defining feature of X-Men is that they truly are superior to homo sapiens. They have powers and abilities that regular humans do not.

By any sane and objective standard, that makes them more than/better than humans, at least as far as their ability to survive and adapt to their environment is concerned.

So, if we apply that back to POC (or any other alphabet acronym you care to mention), the comparison falls apart. Most POC (or other alphabets) don't believe they're better than anyone else. Which is a good thing because they're not measurably better than or in any way superior to anyone else.

But, for example, Wolverine IS. He can survive virtually anything, not least of which being as much as two entire centuries of brutal combat and/or warfare, without a mark to show for it.

When people object to modern X-Men's woke tendencies, particularly what I know of the Krakoa era, I can totally see their point of view. I can also see where previous X-Men creators preferred understating the metaphor. Because there's SOME applicability (however imperfect) to civil rights issues. Some. But less than the progressive bunch want to say.

Thing is, previous creators also allowed others the interpretive flexibility to develop their own interpretations. Up to a certain point, I see the human/mutant struggle in X-Men as having very little metaphor going on at all. Rather, mankind realizes they're on the verge of being replaced. And so, they've decided (whether consciously or unconsciously) to persecute the genetically superior mutants out of existence while the numbers still favor humans. Because four or five generations of mutants will be virtually impossible to eliminate. But the first generation or two MIGHT be defeatable... if they're defeated early enough.

For me, what I always enjoyed about X-Men was the complicated morality (if that's even the word to use) at play in the comic books. In most other comic books, the morality is usually very clearly and very simplistically defined. Good Guys vs. Bad Guys. But the X-Men (eventually) didn't necessarily regard the Mutant Brotherhood as evil.

Rather, the differences between the two groups (Professor X and Magneto) were more philosophical and/or ideological in nature. Separation vs. integration. Because I've never found the comic book where Professor X disagrees with Magneto's thesis that mutants will eventually become the dominant lifeform on Planet Earth. Homo superior is the next step in human evolution. Afaik, Professor X and Magneto agree on that.

Their disagreement lies in how to respond to that reality. Should mutants attempt peaceful coexistence? Or should they build their own communities and/or overthrow the human race?

There are X-Men who utterly despise Mutant Brothers. But those are usually more personal rivalries. There's no love lost between Wolverine and Sabretooth. But their mutual enmity has nothing to do with which side of the debate they came down on and everything to do with their personal histories with each other.

Emma Frost was introduced as an X-Men villain but has been a member of the team since at least the Nineties. Characters can change sides. They can change their minds. Conflict in X-Men comic books isn't always Good Guys vs. Bad Guys. I mean, sometimes it is. But probably more often, conflict comes from differences of opinion or differences of methods rather than differences in morality.

For that reason, X-Men offers a level of literary sophistication that very few mainstream superhero comic books seem capable of matching.

If I seem rather animated about this subject, that would be because I've spent most of the past week reading bunches of X-Men comics. Claremont/Byrne, House Of M (and related tie-ins), the first several issues of Generation X, the first several issues of The New Mutants, etc.

Probably should've mentioned this sooner. But Cinema Wins did a video about this movie back in December. Very enjoyable.