GalacticPunt

@freak_spawn: Wait, so what you're specifically asking is how much directors of COMIC BOOK movies can alter the source material? Because your title and posts didn't communicate that at all.... It took ten posts to decipher this.

I feel the writers and directors of comic book movies should have the choice to alter the characters and motivations as they see fit. But they should always weigh the risks in doing so. The two Tim Burton Batman movies are very different from the accepted vision of Batman (Burton's Batman has no problem with killing dudes, a young Joker killed the Waynes) but are entertaining movies.

Then there's The Spirit. I laughed a lot and had fun with The Spirit, but it had NOTHING to do with Will Eisner's cast of characters and tone. Frank Miller just seemed to be pissing on his friend's grave with that one.

@madeinbangladesh:

You're about 35 years late to be incredulous about KISS comics. They're also had books produced by Archie and Todd McFarlane Productions over the years. And I'm not even a fan of the band.

Marvel got to freak out parents the most, by adding the band's BLOOD to the red ink.

Brainiac should be the big baddie of the sequel. He should be the ultimate A.I. that comes to Earth and takes over all the technology. Mankind has to fight a worldwide war against their own electronics, Cyberdyne-style. They can only be saved by the combined forces of Superman... and Lex Luthor.

Lex Luthor should be a respected technology magnate in the MoS universe, like a combination of Steve Jobs and Mark Zuckerburg. He should start as a cocky nerd with a full head of hair. Over the course of saving the world, Lex comes to distrust and resent Superman's alien-ness, and Superman sees how ruthless and bloodthirsty Lex is. Not to mention a love triangle over Lois...

It comes to light that Brainiac was seeking to catalog the secrets of Earth (such as the magic of Themyscira and Atlantis) because it knew something else was coming to destroy everything soon. That something must be Darkseid and the forces of Apokolips, in the Justice League movie!

Then the third MoS movie would be the ultimate grudge match between Superman and Luthor, for the soul and future of the human race...

Just came back from the theater, and most everyone there came out of the movie RAGING. "Man of Steel" joylessly drags Superman's name through the mud, but more importantly, it's just bad cinema. I know it made good money and the sequels are inevitable, but I pray that they will be helmed by a different screenwriter and director.

The supposed narrative arc of this movie is that Superman's two fathers both implore him to be a force for good and inspire people. OK, great. How does that work out?

The world doesn't even see him until his fellow aliens start killing people to get at him. He saves the world from a crisis that he is the cause of. Thousands die. He kills Zod in front of a family (and the scene was staged in such a way that there were about 17 ways he could have stopped Zod without killing him). The fallout from the shocking act of Superman taking a life in his first movie? He feels sad for a minute, and gets a hug. Then it's back to being cocky and smiling, and female soldiers thinking he's "cute."

After all the death and destruction caused by Earth's first contact with an alien race, the real ending of this movie should be everyone in the UN working out a plan to make Superman leave or die. It makes no sense for anyone in the world to see him as heroic, when the only thing they know him for is saving them from his own legacy. That, and snapping the neck of the last of his race in front of some kids. Way to go, Kal.

What about buying digitally a month after release, when it's a dollar cheaper? That would seem like a frugal approach. I'm mainly a trade-waiter, though 99-cent digital sales get some impulse buys.

One out of ten saying that they just don't buy is messed up. What are they doing here? They should weigh in. Curious about how many just like to post about cartoons they once saw. Then there those who are reading comics through nefarious means, who aren't likely to come forward.

@cbishop: You can't be certain you're going to get the final product. As Palmiotti said, Kickstarter is all risk--and that's for both sides. We're throwing our money at a wish, with a chance that it will never materialize. Chances are good that creators will eventually deliver on what they pitch, since their reputations will be destroyed otherwise. But unexpected stuff can happen, and an outright scam is possible (COUGH shadow of the eternals COUGH).

Interesting article. I'd love to know more on a couple of aspects. Jimmy mentions that "adult content" seems to get more interest in Kickstarter-land. Is he saying that tastefully R-rated stories (where the language, gore, and nudity is purely in service of the story being told) get more backers than family-friendly ones? Or that outright porn-y fan-service trumps everything else? I wish it was the former, but I suspect it's the latter.

Also, what's the success-rate like for total unknowns? Obviously having the project nearly finished goes double for unpublished creators. But is there any hope for them in crowd funding, if the concept is sound and the art looks cool? Just... ahem, asking for a friend...

Always Be Climaxing?

@dadarkknight36310 said:

@GalacticPunt said:

What I find a bit ironic, is that at this point Superman should be PUBLIC DOMAIN. Like biblical characters, Dracula, or Sherlock Holmes, anyone should be free to tell their own Superman stories. Comic and cartoon characters should have the same copyright expiration date as novels and paintings, but Disney lobbyists have rewritten the laws over the years to hold on to Mickey Mouse exclusivity.

Marvel (and Valiant, and you or me) could be printing their own Superman tales in 2012, if Marvel's parent company hadn't dictated new copyright laws to congress.

I disagree with that because I fill that if the company is still frequently using the property then the rights should stay with said company. In your case every comic book company characters should be public domain.

No, not every character should be public domain. Just the very old ones! Please look at it this way: Why were copyright laws invented? Answer: To protect writers and artists, in every media, from being ripped off by copycats in their lifetime. Of course, corporations keep rewriting the law to extend the time they can sit on an intellectual property...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_law_of_the_United_States

Under the current web of laws, Superman goes public domain in 2033, Batman in 2034, Captain America in 2036. In my humble opinion, 70 years from time of copyright registration should have been enough. There's a point where a concept has been in the cultural DNA long enough that it belongs to everybody. That time will come, EVENTUALLY, for all comic book characters.

What I find a bit ironic, is that at this point Superman should be PUBLIC DOMAIN. Like biblical characters, Dracula, or Sherlock Holmes, anyone should be free to tell their own Superman stories. Comic and cartoon characters should have the same copyright expiration date as novels and paintings, but Disney lobbyists have rewritten the laws over the years to hold on to Mickey Mouse exclusivity.

Marvel (and Valiant, and you or me) could be printing their own Superman tales in 2012, if Marvel's parent company hadn't dictated new copyright laws to congress.

Although I think he's one of the greatest actors to ever get in front of a camera, Rourke is pretty darn eccentric, and I'm dubious of his ability to judge scripts. He said "yes" to "Passion Play" after all. Every bit of dialogue in that fell out of a bad student film, not even he and Bill Murray could quite salvage it.