Once we saw what the industry could do with the right talent involved, it becomes a criticism of why they do not live up to the best of those standards. Technology has finally reached the point where what they can show on screen is near limitless.
So Green Lantern? Utterly failed its potential. (And I disagree that the direct-to-video animation had any impact on the movie. If anything it helped broaden the base audience to the character.)
Hal Jordan has a very well known origin, and a first movie has to include the following.
[snip]
Kilowog trains him.
Sinestro trains him. (optional)
[/ snip]
It's a bulletpoint list of what NEEDS to be in a GL movie. The movie had all of it. So did First Flight.
The biggest problem is that First Flight did it better. Batman Begins saved Joker for the Sequel, and GL tried to do the same with Sinestro.
If they had STARTED with Sinestro going evil and Hal fighting him, it would have been a better movie. Parrallax in all its forms has always sucked. I was glad for the retcon in rebirth, but they should have just buried it after that.
I've seen a LOT of people talking about how the movie needs a reboot, but I absolutely do NOT want that. We will JUST see the exact same bulletpoint list all over again. Use this as the springboard.... tell the origin in the opening in the opening credits... but then move on.
As for a criticism of standards... I don't really agree. SOME characters have always been held back to technical limitations. That's a given. But not all of them.
Story, plot, acting...
I'm really not going to break down every awful element of the film... there is plenty of that out there.
But on one point, I have to object:
If Jordan's origin is so well known (to you or anyone,) why would you assert Kilowog training him is a "need?" It never happened in his origin (until retconned) as Kilowog was first introduced to Jordan in the mid 80's, some 27 YEARS after his debut. Tomar-Re was the first other Green Lantern he ever encountered and Jordan was never portrayed as formally trained by any other GL until Emerald Dawn in the 90's.
Not to say Kilowog, "shouldn't" assume that role in an adaptation. But it's not a requirement of the story. It was ret-conned post-Crisis. Neither is Sinestro for that matter because in Jordan's origin, he never encountered him AS a Green Lantern... until that same ret-con.
Including them isn't the problem though, even if they are not necessarily absolute requirements to make the film good.
But the film absolutely failed to even be successful enough for DC not to abandon the sequel it set up. You may not want a reboot... but whatever the DCCU does with the character, you can be sure it won't be anymore a sequel than Incredible Hulk was to Ang Lee's Hulk.
Including a checklist of elements it ought to include doesn't mean they executed them well. They didn't. You've even detailed some ways they didn't yourself.
More than showcasing a list of elements we recognize from the comics, we should have seen better acting, better story, less plotholes, better graphics, better villains... maybe a face mask that didn't make Jordan look cross-eyed, etc... All stuff the industry had shown us it was capable of achieving... and didn't.
And the "biggest problem" of the film will never be that a straight-to-video cartoon did it better. That was irrelevant to the broader audience. I enjoyed First Flight and think it's among the more solid adaptations out there, but you're crediting it with far more influence than it merits.
And even if First Flight had not been as good as it was, the live action film would still be as bad as it is.
I'll always stand by that Green Lantern and Daredevil were awesome movies.
They were FLAWED movies... but as my two favorite heroes.... I still thoroughly enjoyed the movies.
YES... Flaws... Decisions that I wish I could have changed... but still very fun movies.
Green Lantern was a typical by-the-numbers origin story. Same as every other Superhero movie #1 is. When I plan out what I want there... It hit every bulltpoint that I would have expected.
The biggest issue with it, was that they had JUST released an animated version that told the same story, only better. As it was sci-fi and animation... And I hated the CGI costume... with passion. but that's pretty superficial.
Catwoman. Elektra. Batman and Robin. Blade Trinity. Ghost Rider 2. X3 STEEL!!!
These are what "I" consider to be SUCKY comic movies. Compared to them IM2 & 3, either Hulk, Pretty much ANY comic movie made after GR2 have been AWESOME flicks that I've been glad to add to the collection. Ant-man will blow these movies out of the water. I hate the character... but it will still be land high on this scale.
But REALLY, let's keep a solid grasp of where the bar is REALLY set. Just because movie #3 isn't 'as good' as the #2 which last year everyone was screaming was the greatest thing EVER!!!! does NOT mean that it 'sucks'.
In most sectors, sorry to say you stand alone in that assertion of Green Lantern... but to each their own on the point of subjective personal entertainment.
However I will say this... With the Dark Knight trilogy as a standard for DC films and the MCU as the standard for Marvel, everything previous to that point can be recognized effectively as a "developmental" stage and ought be held to standards that take the context of their time period into consideration. Most of those movies you think suck ARE tied to a period of time where getting it done was good enough because there was nothing else or not all that much better. Just "getting it done" should not be "good enough" any more.
Once we saw what the industry could do with the right talent involved, it becomes a criticism of why they do not live up to the best of those standards. Technology has finally reached the point where what they can show on screen is near limitless.
So Green Lantern? Utterly failed its potential. (And I disagree that the direct-to-video animation had any impact on the movie. If anything it helped broaden the base audience to the character.)
Man of Steel? Failed us.
And both failed in story and visualization, in the context of an industry capable of much better.
Dark Knight 3 was always going to be tough after the sensation the Joker brought to DK2... but even that maintained a standard that those two films failed, even if it didn't exceed itself. That trilogy holds as their best (and among the best) of recent years.
You named a number of PRE-MCU films you think suck, all fair, but my initial point stands: "no MCU has every achieved that level of ineptitude" exhibited by Green Lantern. Adding a list of a previous decade's films doesn't weaken that assertion.
And for the record... I HATE being disappointed by these films. GL is also one of my favorites from childhood. I don't "like" that the film failed us. I wanted better. All fans did. I wish DC would give us better. Their track record just isn't supporting that kind of faith in them. (Except where television is concerned... I've been very impressed with Arrow and expect Flash to be great as well...)
I wish Marvel's animated films/shows were as well-planned and high quality as <snip> DC's animated universe.
This is something I agree with, although much of the greatness of the latter is - from what I can tell - predominantly due to the foundation laid by Bruce Timm/Paul Dini (and the excellent work in laying the foundation with the team from Batman tAS, including Radomski, Kane, Finger, MacCurdy, and Ruegger*).
So basically the TAS people, to start with.
(I suppose there have been other successes, as well, but the DCAU seems to be the largest of them, from what I can tell?)
From what I can tell, Marvel's never really gotten that kind of team together: they've done some good stuff, too (at least I enjoyed it), but it's never quite developed into the DC-level stuff.
But yes: if there was an internally consistent, amazing set-up by Marvel that mimicked the DC one, I'd be over the moon.
(But mostly just because: "More awesome superhero stuff!" instead of "Down with DC/up with Marvel!" 'cause the DCAU is seriously awesome, and I am entirely uninterested in diminishing that.)
* I'm pretty sure there were different writers, but I don't recall them, at present. But add those folk, too.
The last solid animation from Marvel was Avengers:EMH.
Clean art with tight interpretations of classic and current popular comic stories.
What they replaced it with in Avengers Assemble is just a poorly written attempt to draw from the film's audience and to ill effect.
Can't ever deny DCAU its cred. Young Justice was an extraordinary followup but DC has yet to return to that level of excellence since.
DC's adaptations of classic stories to animation films often annoy me for the things that they change about the stories. Most of those changes appear driven by marketing more than any creative improvement to the stories.
Marvel's latest computer animated films are so much filler. No substance or story worth telling and just look so much like MTV Spider-man it hurts.
For those interested, Movie Bob has been doing a comprehensive series recapping all of Marvel's TV animation, breaking them down roughly by decade:
60s/70s | 80s | 90s(part I)
Part II of the 90's will come out this week.
(Regarding Ang Lee vs Ed Norton Hulk's: it's interesting to note that as critically panned as Lee's non-MCU Hulk was, Incredible only made $1.5 million more than it domestically. That's not a huge margin.)
While fair, I didn't mean "bomb" in the financial sense. I meant it in the "this is a terrible movie" sense.
When I think "bomb"... I think Green Lantern.
And no MCU has every achieved that level of ineptitude.
Any one of them might not be to everyone's personal liking or tastes... but none were as bad as that. ;)
Showed this to an industry reviewer and his take is that the report is not truly credible.
Of course, 10 months ago it was reported that Feige had said the Black Panther was "absolutely in development" and that they "have plans to bring him to life someday.”
So Stan's quote isn't really anymore informative than that.
To say "they're working on" could mean anything... at least as much as Feige already reportedly confirmed.
A world of vague certainties...
Honestly that could be ANY mainline Marvel character without their own film at this point. ^_^
Orthos wrote:
Given how surprised I've been by some of the Marvel movies being so much better than expected and some being so much worse, I've really given up any and all attempts to predict which will succeed and which will bomb until I've seen them.
Well... here's the thing: No movie in the MCU HAS "bombed." Each one has topped the box office on its opening weekend. Even The Incredible Hulk, which made the least amount of money of all of them domestically.
I'm not sure that shows are tracked outside of Nielson sets.
While it's conceivable that DVR and cable boxes report viewings, that's not something readily advertised by cable companies.
As Purple Knight Dragon corrected me above, I looked into it and yes, DVR views are tracked... but apparently only within homes already being tracked by Nielsen.
(That may add additional context to my previous example.)
Anything additional to that, by cable companies, etc..., would constitute a measure of privacy invasion... not that it matters, I'm willing to put SHIELD on with the sound down and leave the room (just in case they are tracking, but they're not tracking) since I watch it with my wife later on her schedule.
And I can't disagree that SHIELD will do well for a long time. That doesn't mean the challenge isn't present for them.
So if a Nielsen viewer watches Supernatural and DVRs SHIELD... that IS significant as a loss to ABC ratings.
How so? how is that calculation made? a lot of folks are moving to the net for their entertainment these days (network TV websites, Netflix, etc.)
It's kind of the same mechanic that makes opening weekend at the Box Office a big deal. Most views at first broadcast means more to them. Always has...
Yes they want second and delayed views that they can quantify too, but initial impact means more.
More "next day water-cooler talk", more saturation of the market, more exposure for their advertisers.
And, you're not wrong, web broadcast is becoming more constant as the norm, not to mention binge watching...etc... but doesn't have the same advertising advantage.
Especially with time-sensitive messages.
For instance, in the example above... at the moment the viewer watches Supernatural, not just SHIELD isn't being watched... also their ads and network promotions.
And if that viewer doesn't get to it immediately or waits out several episodes to binge watch, the impact and possibly even relevance of the advertising decreases.
No network would bother scheduling broadcast if initial air-time had no meaning to them. In fact, it would be more likely they would make all shows available for web as soon as produced, or at the beginning of the day. They WANT to congregate as many viewers at once. The WANT it to be "an event."
I don't know how EVERY network deals with on demand or web re-broadcasts... but I know some will delay 1 or 2 days or even weeks from initial broadcast.
And for the record... I'm not saying Supernatural (with Flash preceding it) is an insurmountable challenge for Agents of SHIELD that dooms them in any way.
I simply recognize it as potentially their biggest challenge going into the new season... largely because (and I say this about so few DC productions) Flash stands to be a pretty big hit from the start. Second to that challenge is the fact that DC effectively will have prime-time TV content airing on FOUR different days of the week, all on networks that will advertise anything but SHIELD.
It's not about the challenge of the viewer to see it, but the network to have it seen at airtime.
Ratings don't tend to include DVR viewings.
DVR info is tracked. Most assuredly!
I'll amend... It is tracked but supposedly only in homes with Nielsen dairies/monitors. DVR views are, however, still not the optimum of preferred viewership for any network. And DVR recordings with lengthy delays in viewing even less so.
So if a Nielsen viewer watches Supernatural and DVRs SHIELD... that IS significant as a loss to ABC ratings.
I'm lame with tech in general, but even I have at least one rank in "Profession: Use DVR" :)
It's not about the challenge of the viewer to see it, but the network to have it seen at airtime.
Ratings don't tend to include DVR viewings. (If that is even being tracked, it would represent a whole other issue in its invasion of privacy.) And while there are other metrics available to gauge various levels of "success," (like how well something is trending in social media,) initial views at airtime are what networks consider the most valuable in terms of gauging how successful a show is. It's part of what they use to attract advertisers and be in a position to sell airtime for more money.
As far as Supernatural, yeah, they aren't as likely to pick up that many new viewers on their own. BUT with the Flash on before it, it is not unlikely that they will get some carryover of those viewers, which is probably why they strategically scheduled that way.
SHIELD had announced its fall schedule before Flash did after all.
Oh no... Freehold will gloat!
After one more season or nine? ;)
Right now AoS only has a full season down. I'm pretty sure there is a fan base willing to keep it running.
Time will tell, but I think you'll be disappointed in your ability to gloat when the day comes.
Much as I thought Smallville was lackluster and not really done as well as it could have been, there really isn't any denying it succeeded for ten seasons.
It's just hard to gloat over something you don't like when it ends in success.
The toughest challenge for AoS in this coming season for them will be that they moved into a competing slot with Supernatural...
And while that is ABC vs CW, both shows are targeting essentially the same general market (especially airing The Flash in the hour before.)
They also DID do better in rating in that timeslot the one time they did that last season. AoS starts two weeks earlier than F&SN.
They have some cool draws to the show this season too, though the fan base for some of those skews a little older.
I'm doubtful of how much the greater 18-24 demo remembers Twin Peaks or even Xena for that matter. (They might remember Lawless from BSG, I suppose.)
I am pretty excited about the mid-season run of the Agent Carter mini-series too!
Also they don't have any MCU film interruption of their story until May so that like reduces that complication.
And when does the first MCU Netflix show start? Also May.
Interesting timing...
Oh please... there was NOTHING wrong with that at the time.
Anyone growing up on that had nothing better to compare it to.
I would also know. ;)
(I admit though, many advancements in animation and storytelling have improved the entire form over time. Leaving really no excuse for things like Ultimate Spider Man or TTGo... ugh)
According to what I've been able to find out [I can't claim 100% accuracy as the available info is sparse at best], Dave Johnson (Ben 10, DC/Marvel cover artist) had been developing a Micronauts toon.
But then the rights got sold to Hasbro just as the MCU started getting underway and before Disney had bought Marvel. Sometime in about 2009 it was announced the Abrahm's would be working on a film.
That ended the possibility of the cartoon coming to life... some of the art for it is out there on the interwebs and looks decent, but word was that Bug got replaced by a far more goofy looking character called "Dit-Dat." (Which sounds like a lyric to a Iggy Azalea song.)
There had also been an attempt to make an animated mini-series for Sci-Fi Channel in the late 90's but never got off the ground. That was apparently supposed to lead into a 26 episode run and a lot of merchandising opportunity.
Abrams is clearly a little too busy for Micronauts these days.
Of the last 10 characters I've played in tabletop roleplaying games, 7 of them have been female.
The character I'm playing now in a group with 2 females and 3 guys is a female, making the PCs line up 3 females and 2 guys.
In some of those games it was to balance or contrast what I always felt was a far too male-centric dynamic because they were kind of weird about inviting actual women to play. In some, it simply fit the story I wanted to play out better.
I never worked to change my voice or affect any specific "feminine" behavior. I tend to focus on motivation, story, etc...
I just act like I would expect her to act, say what I would expect her to say.
They're never "gay" for the sake of that fantasy, nor really sexual at all because there is usually in-game reason why pursuing that is just impractical or not particularly of interest. (plus most GMs I have played with have gotten uncomfortable playing stuff like that out further than a handshake or the vaguest of insinuation.)
I don't give it a lot of thought past, "I like heroines."
Heck, maybe AntLang will find a soul gem that was deliberately hidden in the microverse?
While I'm sure that was intended as a joke, I was just commenting else where that James Gunn had said that he wanted to use Bug in GotG but couldn't because they "don't have the rights."
He said that at least a week or so ago and it suddenly dawned on me:
Who the hell is working on a Micronauts movie???
Turns out... Bad Robot.
And the most recent news about it is over a year old.
>_<
So yeah... it would seem they don't have the rights to use the microverse either.
Back to Guardians for a moment...
I was digging around previous posts and I found this in the Agents of SHIELD thread... possibly WAY OFF TOPIC for the thread and I'm not sure how it got there...
but on May 29 this happened:
references after credit scene for GotG:
SeeDarkly_X wrote:
LazarX wrote:
... I'm fairly sure the movie [GotG] is going to be a failure on the scale of the Green Lantern movie, both in terms of critical reception and at the box office...
[snip]
Yeah, it's the riskiest of Marvel Cinematic Universe films thus far, no question. But their foundation is solid and GotG would have to be Howard the Duck to do as bad as Green Lantern did...
You could look into Joseph Campbell's The Masks of God: Oriental Mythology and review the source material he references.
He was a pretty prominent mythologist, so if you look into his body of work you might find something useful.
Are you claiming none of the pre-release info mentioned the Mandarin?
No. If you read what I wrote, you'll note I quoted something that specifically did.
As to Irontruth: You mentioned how "marketing" built up some expectation. I don't see it, and I doubtless watched the same trailers as everyone else.
I did see sub-seminal sources build hype based on erroneous and unsubstantiated claims of what to expect. But nothing direct from Marvel did.
And back to thejeff, if what you are essentially upset with is that they didn't tell you what the story would be before you went to see it, then who can really argue against that point.
They left a lot in the dark... and I think they should have and it was good they did.
And to Kevin Mack: Yeah, Movie Bob did that breakdown well.
I've never read any of the source material. I'm just judging the movie on its own.
The movie was really about Tony Stark and his struggle of relating himself to the suit, figuring out what it meant to him. Then they layered a convoluted plot of bait and switch on top of that that just felt pointless.
The problem is that they spent this time building up the Mandarin, both in marketing and then in the story line. To pull the rug out from that on the AUDIENCE gives similar feelings of betrayal and mistrust. For this kind of movie, to remove my feelings of trust is a bad thing. Now I stop being invested and care less for the characters on screen, because the director has shown me overtly that he's toying with me.
Toying with the audience works for a lot of films. Inception is a movie built on the concept of manipulating perception and concealing the truth from the viewer (both in the movie and out). There, it works and is even expected. IM3 is not that kind of movie and going into that kind of area is dangerous and can backfire. It certainly did with me.
I still liked the movie, but only a little bit. I wasn't that interested in going back to the theater and haven't really cared to pick it up since it's out on DVD.
Let's make a distinction between "marketing" and "op-ed news-pieces."
Because for all the advertising and official statements Marvel made... I know I saw nothing that built up or guaranteed anything other than a "mystery" or "mystique" of the Mandarin. They never showed him in an action scene. Never showed or discussed the use of rings. Always left his presence vague.
I'll give you an example... in one interview Feige said of the Mandarin, "Assuming that he’s the one responsible for what happens to Tony’s house, no other villain has been able to strike that fast and that hard at one of our heroes." Note that he didn't say "When he attacks Tony's house." He says "assuming" which leaves possibilities wide open because all we'd seen in ads was the house being blown up. Not WHO did it.
But everywhere some unofficial source from people generating click-bait would aggregate the news, theorize the meaning, expand on the comic character's history, etc...
that exposure is not the fault of the movie makers.
So if something you saw along those lines carried with you and ruined what you expected of the film, I think it's worth it to be more critical of the "news-pieces" read online.
Because if Marvel says "We've cast Ben Kingsley as the Mandarin" and every Joe who knows how to use WordPress & thinks they are a journalist needs to fill their crappy 3000 word column of the day just so they can generate traffic enough to justify advertisers paying them for the chance of someone seeing their ad... you can bet most of what they write to fill that column with has little to do with anything official.
And many times it's poorly researched as well.
So in case of Feige's quote above, such a writer tends to turn that into something like, "So it looks like we'll see the Mandarin blow up the Stark mansion" and then the telephone game strips even more context after it's been aggregated and reaggregated.
A responsible journalist would take that quote and analyze it... probe into what is meant by "assuming" and not actually "assume" something that wasn't stated.
This is pretty well true of ALL news at this point. You really do have to examine the sources carefully. And if anyone takes Joe Wordpress at face value, that just isn't the fault or failing of the film maker.
Personally, as an audience member, I didn't feel betrayed at all. And the story also left the Mandarin so vague as to leave me questioning "why isn't he taking a more active role?"
So in that sense, what you feel was a backfire, thoroughly satisfied me.
Except I don't buy that because for the vast majority of the audience, the Mandarin meant nothing.
That being true, why would anyone expect the classic interpretation of the character?
It goes without saying most films do not 100% match the core material. If you acknowledge that before even going to see it, why would this one be any different? In most cases, you're better to expect changes and be surprised and appreciative of anything that connects well to canon.
I still say it's a solid film and story on its own and brilliant in its ability to build mythos for an even greater story over time.
In the end... you don't know that you WON'T eventually see a more classic version of the character face Stark on screen.
Given that in most MCU films the villain dies, I'm happier that this story has the potential to fill more than one movie and this was a good a starting point as any because now... well none of us really know what to expect, do we?
Yeah, I get that it was well done. It was even an interesting twist. That's not the point. Nor was the point that you needed to know about the Mandarin.
The point was that the movie would have worked just as well with someone else in place of the Mandarin. Same plot, but with a new character or lower profile villain instead of the Mandarin. The only people that cared that it was the Mandarin were the comic geeks, who were the most likely to be upset by the reveal. If you don't know or care about the Mandarin except for some vague knowledge that he's an Iron Man villain, the twist is cool. If you go into the movie thinking "Awesome, I can't wait to see the Mandarin on the big screen", if that's part of what you're excited about for the movie, then you're going to be disappointed.
Mandarin is a classic Marvel villain. People like him. I like him. I wanted to see him versus Tony. Finding out it wasn't the Mandarin at all, but the lame extremis villain was a let down.
And now they're kind of screwed if they wanted to use him in another Iron Man movie. So, iconic Iron Man villain down the tubes.
But that is precisely why it DID work so well. Expectation.
And I get being disappointed because of an expectation based on unstated assumptions of what the character's inclusion might mean (ask me about Deathstroke on the cover New 52's Teen Titans some time) but this is a case where not only did they surprise us, they did so with the existing context and merits of the universe they created.
If what you wanted was a whole new villain? You ALSO got that!
Me? I went into the theater wondering: what are they going to do with the character & if they don't use the rings (always doubted they would) how can they make him interesting?
And making him a terrorist head of "The Ten Rings" gave you every indication that would be kind of all there was to it... until Trevor!
Even without the Blu-ray reveal, the story was solid and the way they did it entertained. If the Mandarin walked in and started ring-slinging, that might have been appealing for fan service, but also might not have made for the best story on film at this stage of the franchises development. Who can say? Doesn't hurt to give themselves somewhere else to go in a sequel.
And personally I love that they've built up the mythos of the character. They have absolutely left it open to bring him back in another film and even flush out the "True" Mandarin. To say they're screwed and can't do so now is just a limitation of imagination. It can be done.
Bringing it back to Marvel...I don't think Guardians had the fanbase of other Marvel properties, plus there have been so many iterations that it's pretty easy for Marvel to pick and choose there storyline or how the characters were portrayed. But man...compare that to say Iron Man 3 and The Mandarin. I know a lot of people that completely lost it (in a bad way) about the Trevor reveal, and I can't say I blame them.
Yeah, the Mandarin is a good example. It wasn't a bad movie in a lot of ways, though I had other issues with it. But there was no point in using the Mandarin the way they did.
The only people who'd care that the supposed villain was the Mandarin were the comic fans who were also the most likely to be upset by the reveal. For anyone else, any other name or even a less classic Iron Man villian would have worked just as well. But no, you get people excited about one thing and then twist it into something else, you're going to get upset about it.
The Thor 2 Blu-ray Marvel One-Shot tells everyone what they need to know about "The Mandarin."
Personally, I thought what they did with the Mandarin was brilliant. And finding out what the One-Shot reveals knocks it out of the park!
The fact that NO ONE saw it coming... astounding.
You have to remember... not a single promotional image, trailer, or legitimate news piece EVER revealed that "Mandarin" would possess and/or use 10 rings of power. Almost certainly they left that in the dark for good reason. Because IM3 wasn't a story about the head of a terrorist organization with super powers... it was a story about FABRICATING a terrorist in order to achieve another goal.
In the end, most movies "based on" or "adapted from" are going to change things significantly in one way or another.
What matters to me is the story. These days they are able to accomplish just about anything they want to with effects... but if the story doesn't hold then it's worth considerably less to me. Marvel has been telling a good story. And sure, they leave us with questions. They SHOULD!
I love Farscape. But I disagree that there is any intended inherent or formulaic parallel to it in Guardians.
Even if you can find defined archetypes in it, the characters and story are original and quite different from Farscape.
Sure, the "DNA" is present because nothing that exists now in the genre can say it wasn't influenced in some way by anything previous in the same genre.
But I would be careful about assigning too much similarity here when there isn't all that much.
Let it be itself more than an homage to something else and I think it satisfying in its own right.
So, as promised above, Part 4 of The Myth Prosaic began today! But most of you probably still not have yet read the first 87 pages at SeeDarkly.com.
You might like it. Please take a look.
This will be my only "bump" of this thread, unless there is some active discussion about it.
Click here for a little piece of artwork Georgia Z made to help spread the word!
Thanks for the indulgence everyone. Hope you enjoy her story.
I've mentioned it around here once or twice in passing, so maybe some of you have seen it already...
now that my wife has three full sections up as of today and Part 4 starting on Monday,
I wanted to make a more direct invitation to the community to read it:
"Fantasy Role Playing. Dystopian Future. Legends. Magic. Monsters. Gods.
All blend into the story about a reluctant hero named Chess.
But how much is he imagining... and how much is real?"
The Mythic Chess Set is a trilogy written by Georgia Z and presented as a web serial.
Incorporating elements of both science fiction and fantasy, the story centers on a character who plays a fantasy role playing game
and how that experience becomes useful to him in a dystopian future.
Three times a week a new page of the story is published along with a brief blog by the author.
Book I:The Myth Prosaic is available to read for free at SeeDarkly.com.
As of this post 87 pages are up.
If you enjoy it, please leave comments or start discussions there and please share with anyone you think might also like it.
There are Facebook and Twitter links on the site as well, if you don't mind liking/following those for updates (but it's not wholly necessary.) :D
Thanks!
Disclaimer: The Myth Prosaic is best viewed in Firefox or Chrome but is friendly to many mobile devices.
There are no advertisements. There is nothing to buy. Georgia Z simply has a story she hopes you'll read and some ideas she hopes you might discuss on the site.
(I've been into Marvel comics all my life and I just can't get invested in the falcon, sorry... he's one of the most boring characters IMO... I would have cheered if Howard the Duck would have taken the mantle, however...)
Well then you'll be happy to know that Original Sin has revealed that
Howard is :
nearly as smart as Reed Richards... but also "the greatest example of wasted potential in the whole galaxy.".
If Marvel says it's a title as well as a name and that they are giving it to a woman. Then it's true. They own it and can do what they want with the IP. No amount of petty ranting is going to change that.
Well... they own A very specific VERSION of "Thor." They do not own all representations of Thor.
Thor, as with most myths, transcends above a great deal of legal trademarking and copyright restrictions. (Think about why there are 2 Hercules films out in one year's time, neither having to do with the other.)
So yeah, as you suggest, they can tell whatever story they want with the one in their mythos...
But so can Image, DC, etc... each with some version of the mythic god in their canon.
Some have reinvented Thor as a grey alien (re: Stargate).
And some have made Thor this.
Granted, no one has made near as much popular use of Thor than Marvel, but that doesn't stop them from trying.
I don't really have anything definitive to offer as source material for your project.
I do, however, think it is excellent of you to take on this "quest" simply because it helps to elevate the reputation of roleplaying games as not only a positive influence on youth but also as a legitimate educational resource.
Good luck!
(Actually... allow me to revise. My wife has written a story set in a dystopian future. The central character IS a roleplayer and his roleplaying experience IS central to his character development and the story. One of the tag-lines for the story is, "What could you gain from gaming?"
Rather than link here in a manner that might be regarded as "hijacking" or "spam," I'll instead invite you to check my profile for details on where to find it free-to-read online. Various entries of her accompanying blog also have a number of researched insights that could be relevant and the story itself might offer you some other creative perspectives. Perhaps that could be helpful?)
I do like what I read of Wild Cards... the first couple of the old books, and then the first of the new series (the one with the reality show), and that one kind of bored me.
Once they got past introducing the new characters with the reality show things picked up. While I will admit it hasn't been the same as when Martin, Snodgrass, et.al. had more active roles in the writing, it still goes in some dark directions.
I wonder though... about Misfits... how much might be more "cultural dissonance?"
That is to say, in terms of UK programming, UK viewer expectations, UK writing, etc...
I am honestly not sure how to say this the way I am thinking it but perceptually, different cultures could likely have an entirely different perspectives on the genre of "superpowers" as a whole.
How much do you think that affects what you consider "thematic disconnect?"
(Keep in mind I have no idea where you are in the world, so I might be assuming that you're American. ;) )
To clarify about Wild Cards, it was never just Martin. That series is a composite work of many authors, Martin just happens to be one of them and the primary editor.
I'm aware. I own every book and we've had the discussion around here before: http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2qw0o?Wild-Cards-edited-by-George-RR-Martin#26
(Martin also was the GM for the actual RPG with those authors from which those stories grew so he can legitimately be credited in shorthand. No library or bookstore shelf the books under any other name either. Not even the ones Snodgrass and Miller wrote entirely themselves.)
My point above stands.
The tone of the series in not entirely unlike that of Misfits in various ways.
I don't think you'll have to worry on that last point since Elongated Man is a DC character...
I don't know how much detail you'll want, but I'll put this next bit under a "spoiler"
Original Sin Spoilers?:
The premise seems to be a means by which Marvel can introduce a number of ret-cons that allow them to tell a lot of new stories in the framework of "This was always a secret but the Watcher saw it and remembers."
Those secrets get revealed and have implications that seem to affect many of the Marvel Universe characters, ranging anywhere from "I have a sister" to "my friend made me a monster" and so on.
Essentially, one moment triggers multiple other storylines while the central story continues.
One secret revealed is very directly related to Nick Fury (not Jr.) but that is revealed as part of an investigation separate from the aforementioned singularity.
This is an interesting show in that I would have actually liked it better if it didn't have any supernatural elements. The super powers kind of feel tacked on, and just watching those people with their... special personalities annoy each other would have made for a better story, I think.
See I disagree... one of the things that I've always found enjoyable about Misfits is that it isn't an effects-driven story about people with powers...
it's a story about people first, who also happen to have powers.
And not realm-shearing powers. Just a thing or two above the norm that they can't rely on to get them out of EVERY situation, but do come in handy when used creatively.
Of course, I grew up on a healthy amount of the Wild Cards series by George R.R. Martin. If you haven't read it, well I'm sure you can imagine how he might handle superheroes. ;)
Oh.. and it turns out I missed season 4 too.
Hooray! Even MORE to catch up on!
I loved this show when I found it a couple years or so ago but I have yet to see the last season. It was free to watch online but then some cross-continental restrictions were implemented on the source site. I've been waiting to hear word it had become fully available again.
Thank you for starting this thread. Because you did, I've now found it available on Hulu as well!
Thor from the Earth X storyline was female. As I recall, Thor was made female in that continuity as a punishment from Odin, who was somehow still foolish enough to believe anything Loki said.
THANK YOU! Everywhere I see this discussion, no one seems to remember this!
For those needing a visual reference on the point... click here.
Scythia wrote:
This isn't even new, they just did the same thing recently by promoting Ms. Marvel to Captain Marvel. Which I might add wasn't just a title, the alien being who was originally Captain Marvel was so named because his name was Mar-vell. Meanwhile, the name Ms. Marvel was then handed off to a new character.
On the other hand, I don't mind either one bit.
Again illustrating how this is entirely not a wholly original idea. And I don't think it makes it bad... it's just not worthy of mass hysteria given we've already seen the actual Odinson and Loki both portrayed as a women in the past.
I brought this thought up elsewhere as well... on the point some have made about "why not just elevate an existing female character to her own title without making her "Thor."
Female counterparts to male heroes have been around a long time. (Though oddly not so much male counterparts to female heroines.)
But the truth is most female heroines who are NOT named after or similarly to a previously or currently known male hero, do not do entirely well as ongoing titles except in rare cases. If the current title Ms. Marvel were called anything else, I honestly don't think it would get the attention it has, despite its diversity and story. Likewise, I feel pretty confident that if the upcoming Thor title were to be called "Angela" or "Frigg" instead of "Thor" it would gain little traction or attention. (Which is kind of interesting when you consider Thor's first appearance in Marvel Comics was in a female-led title called Venus in the late 40's. But that also only lasted about a year and a half.)
So in that, yes, it seems obvious that as a ongoing exercise of marketing product it could be that it serves Marvel better to do it this way.
But they want to tell the story and have it read. And I can see the argument some have about it being a stunt. To some degree everything done to sell a book is such. That is any comic company's overall objective of course, but Marvel has traditionally done so from a stand of writing the story first and letting the PR work it self out after that, not so much the other way around (unlike DC,) so I lean toward giving them the benefit of the doubt here.
After all, even as a female, the old joke is just as funny:
The thunder god went for a ride
Upon her favorite filly.
"I'm Thor!" she cried,
And her horse replied,
"You forgot your thaddle, thilly."
Got to say...well played, gents! If you are going to homage for laughs, that's the way to do it.
More and more, I have to say I am liking this movie in spite of the sheer potential for "stupid" of Marvel movies. Well that, and Zoe Saldana's Gamora...whew!
It's not actually an "official" poster from them, but James Gunn repost it (and others) on twitter from a group of fans that are making a bunch of these type of parody posters... so it seems he approves!
Considering the time line, Guardians happens, then SHIELD, then Agent Carter, then more SHIELD, then AAOU.
Essentially they have the entire season to either rebuild their structure in a way that allows them to provide support for what will happen in AAOU or they will be only tangentially affected by it, it the same way they were by Thor.
Of course... Hayley Atwell is ON the AAOU cast for the role of Peggy Carter. They could, thanks to the mid-season Agent Carter mini series, build mythos on Strucker over the course of the SHIELD season and nod back to it in someway during AAOU.
Like so: MAOS discovers a mystery involving HYDRA... the trail leads back to some old SHIELD documents with a stunning cliffhanger moment leaving everyone asking, "What did they just find out?!"
Cue Agent Carter and we get that answer during that run with the elaborate and exciting backstory. Then they come back to MAOS to use that critical find to move their plot forward, but come just short of resolving it before the world is overrun by the mad human-exterminating Ultron robots.
heh heh
Issues 67-93 of the X-Men were reprints, 5 years worth.
Yep, that's effectively what I said. ;P
Russ Taylor wrote:
The original, classic X-Men tanked. Really.
Well, outside of the truly strange reprinting practice, I don't know that is necessarily the case. You could as easily say "so good they did it twice" depending on your attitude about it I suppose.
But it wasn't the last time they would do reprints of the title; the next time it would be under the "Classic X-men" banner at the same time they kept Uncanny running. It seemed to me, growing up, a great way to catch up on the back story of issues that weren't so easy to find.
So I don't know that "tanked" is true. Marvel seemed to have had a commitment to keeping the idea going. I don't know what the sales of the book were like, but we know they kept it going. That means something better than "tanked" in my estimation.
It might be interesting to dig into that history to find out the reasoning behind it, especially since it was such a unique occurrence in comic-book publishing.
Maybe I'll ask at a con someday. ^_^
I know that when asked at Emerald City Comic Con about it, he answered that his people were in discussions about it with Warner Brothers/DC, which made it pretty clear that no decisions were made in March at least. It could just mean that he's expressing his interest, I'm not suggesting that it means anything is planned for this movie or the next, but it was clear that the door hadn't been closed.
That's kind of what I figured. And OF COURSE he'll say he wants to be involved if asked by the media. He does represent a branch of WB/DC entertainment and it would be idiotically bad PR for him to say he wouldn't want to be involved. (Though I would laugh so hard if he did that.)
Plus, you know, there's that paycheck to consider.
You don't keep a continuous comic run since the 60s by not being a popular hero.
The X-Men got their comic cancelled in that period. No kidding. Complete with Cyclops. Who never carried a solo title for any length of time, so is a pretty silly comparison with Iron Man.
There's no magic board at Marvel that says "We can't cancel Iron Man! It's tradition!". Like any other old property, he's got more room than less successful characters, but money is money.
You won't get much argument that Iron Man's a weaker brand than the Fantastic Four (though a more interesting one), the X-Men, and Spider-Man. He's a stronger brand than Doctor Strange (TV movie because of his counter-culture appeal), Daredevil, the Punisher, and Nick Fury, all of who got movies first, just not Marvel Cinematic Universe ones and not all of them theatrical. A weaker but more comparable brand to Captain America (couple of movies first) and the Incredible Hulk (long TV presence). Stronger than Thor, who was IMO the real gamble of the movies.
Don't buy into the narrative :) Papers love underdog and everybody got it wrong stories, even when it's not that true. I've seen more than one story claiming Star Wars bombed with the critics.
Wellllll.... X-men were never truly "cancelled." There was brief period where they stopped printing but resumed the run 5-6 months later, continuing the numeration but using the book to publish reprints up until they introduced the All-New All-Different cast. That was in the early 70's. However, looking into this carefully I learned that the X-men DID start as an every other month publication.
As far as how weak or strong a brand Iron Man is versus Fantastic Four?
Fantastic Four's 616 appearance count comes in at 1,623 to IM's 2,892... and to be honest, I could not tell you if any alteration of the core team is included in that count.
Both had awful movie versions made in the 60's or 70's.
Both have had various cartoons made over many years and of various quality.
In recent years, the 2 FF films are regarded in hindsight as generally as lacking in one way or another but were top of mind before the Iron Man films, which are the foundation of the entire MCU and made more with its first movie than both the FF films combined. And the upcoming FF film is already under a bit of scrutiny.
I think there IS some argument to be made about Iron Man being the stronger "brand."
But in the end again the strength of the "brand" isn't really what they seem concerned with.
For Marvel Studios, it seems to be more about the telling of a creative story with fascinating characters. Yes, "brand recognition" is important to them, but only to a point. It's certainly not the overriding principle guiding them and they don't allow their PR department to dictate what the creative people are doing in any significant way that effects the story.
Agents of SHIELD and GotG... heck even Ant Man... as "underdogs" they're great examples of how much trust Marvel has in the creative teams involved.
Simply no metric of "popularity" really measures the kind of successes they've had or will have.
Good work begets good results.
They have already made it clear that DCTVU will be separate from the movie universe they are attempting.
Are you sure about that? The last I've seen Stephen Amell is still in the running for Green Arrow if/when Arrow would appear in a Justice League movie.
I, and likely most people here, can not claim 100% certainty on what DC plans to do until they confirm it with action.
But yes, I have seen news specifying that point.
Also, we have all seen that in the wake of Man of Steel, there has been NO element connecting the story of Arrow to any event in the movie.
And what happened in that movie would CLEARLY be big news in the Arrow universe (far bigger than even the Star Labs particle accelerator news that was present in many episodes.) For them to have dismissed it in the current mythology and draw any character from the DCTVU into any post-BvS:DOJ films would be fairly disingenuous to (and disjointed from) the story they've presented us with thus far.
For that reason alone I would expect them to have better sense...
I have no idea why I expect them to exhibit "good sense" in anything other than what they're doing with Arrow (and what we expect them to do with Flash)... but in this, it's more logical. They already have a separate universe Gotham and Constantine in the works after all.
I would imagine what has been seen regarding Amell was probably something to the effect of reporters asking him IF he'd do it, and him acknowledging interest but not the actual offer or confirmation of the movie role. And then a subsequent misreporting of that confusing the issue further.
But I've seen nothing about that one way or the other.
I think the Flash looks really good and shows promise. The real question I have is whether or not Warner Bros/DC Comics will really manage to do some connections between their properties in the way Marvel has done (at least in terms of Iron Man/Captain America/Thor/Avengers/Agents of SHIELD). It would be great if at least some of the new movies had links to Arrow and The Flash.
Having seen Man of Steel, not sure if the events of that film can be explained to have happened in the Arrow/Flash world. Maybe they could make it so the plot of Man of Steel overlaps with a future show of Arrow/Flash and the fall out from that movie impacts their world.
Not sure if they have to pay a lot of cash or something every time someone says Superman or Batman which restricts them.
They have already made it clear that DCTVU will be separate from the movie universe they are attempting.
Personally, I'd prefer they maintain that division. Man of Steel had a LOT of problems and was just abysmal. The critical anticipation of the BVS:DOJ film is largely negative and its production is riddled with problems of its own on many levels.
By comparison, Arrow is the single thing DC is is doing right. Flash has shown as much promise.
I'd really rather they stand apart from the mess many expect the films will be.
I have to admit, I had goose bumps the entire time I was watching the trailer. I grew up watching The Flash series back in the early 90's. I have a suspicion that's why Flash is one of my favorite heroes. The thing I'm most excited for is, where is John Wesley Shipp going to appear? He played Barry Allen in the earlier Flash. I think it would also be nice to see Amanda Pays make an appearance somewhere as well.
Some believe that is Shipp behind young Barry Allen in the scene where his mother is under attack. It's just quick and blurry enough to not be certain, but if you play the scene frame by frame he does look similar.
That might indicate that he will be Allen's father.
