Stop trying to constantly make new movies of series that already have good ones. Sam Raimi's first Spiderman film was fine, and the second wasn't really that bad, and they actually kept everyone fairly in character without that whole "catching 'bad guys' justifies injurious collateral damage" narrative that modern superhero flicks like so much (which Spiderman was never about anyway, dumbasses).
Also adapt some more obscure, interesting things that have actual movie potential despite low name recognition, although DC has way more of those that I can think of.
well, Spiderman got a remake because it's not being handled by Marvel Studios and they have to keep making a movie every so often or the rights revert
I've learned to tolerate drama...except on the boat
It's handled by Sony...and Sony is really, really hard up for franchises. They actually did try to buy Marvel outright at one point, but that didn't materialize.
Remember what I said about that intensely political series?
So, like every good story, it's got a set of protagonists and a set of antagonists. Try to make sure they're roughly balanced between each other, so it's actually interesting.
A new series of comic books will tell the story from the side of the protagonists.
A new TV series will, instead, tell the story from the side of the antagonists. They're the protagonists in this context, and the protagonists of the comic books are the antagonists here.
Or at least, they think so. This applies to both sides.
Remember what I said about that intensely political series?
So, like every good story, it's got a set of protagonists and a set of antagonists. Try to make sure they're roughly balanced between each other, so it's actually interesting.
A new series of comic books will tell the story from the side of the protagonists.
A new TV series will, instead, tell the story from the side of the antagonists. They're the protagonists in this context, and the protagonists of the comic books are the antagonists here.
Or at least, they think so. This applies to both sides.
i always thought hirst is rather tacky in general to be honest.
which may very well be the point, but it's not a point that i can say that i'm a fan of.
He makes giant visual puns. Of course it's tacky.
Which is to say that I think that some of his work is funny, but I do not really understand the reason why he is so very, very wealthy, other than that modern art patrons either do not get it or take way too much stock in visual humour as a form of expression.
For Heaven's Sake, an infant's skull cast in platinum and studded with pink and white diamonds, will go on display later this month (*this was back in 2011*) as part of an exhibition of new paintings and sculptures by the artist.
The baby's skull on which the work was modelled is believed to be that of a newborn less than two weeks old which is part of a 19th-century pathology collection that Hirst has acquired.
For Heaven's Sake, an infant's skull cast in platinum and studded with pink and white diamonds, will go on display later this month (*this was back in 2011*) as part of an exhibition of new paintings and sculptures by the artist.
The baby's skull on which the work was modelled is believed to be that of a newborn less than two weeks old which is part of a 19th-century pathology collection that Hirst has acquired.
That is completely like him: Morbid, excessive and incredibly silly all at once, with just that little undercurrent of actual profundity that makes it all extra uncomfortable.
I think that's the trouble with Hirst. He is just clever enough to almost justify himself, but doesn't give enough of a fuck to go the extra mile and get over the shock value element of his own work. Like, the shark piece was actually really interesting and kind of fucked up, but he's really barely trying at this point... or trying too hard, as it were.
I think that's the trouble with Hirst. He is just clever enough to almost justify himself, but doesn't give enough of a fuck to go the extra mile and get over the shock value element of his own work. Like, the shark piece was actually really interesting and kind of fucked up, but he's really barely trying at this point... or trying too hard, as it were.
i don't pretend to understand Hirst, but i agree with this assessment, i think... the shark piece struck me as legitimately clever, but mostly he kinda bores me.
Like, i can appreciate that he's probably very intelligent, but i'm puzzled by the extent of his success.
I've learned to tolerate drama...except on the boat
A comic company whose more prominent businesses include filmmaking, animation, and licensing. I know we're not exactly John Q. Public, but last I checked, John Q. Public didn't read comic books.
Doesn't matter anyway; they're all media created to turn children into devil-worshipping violent facist communist muslim jew mormon catholic atheist humanists anyway.
A comic company whose more prominent businesses include filmmaking, animation, and licensing. I know we're not exactly John Q. Public, but last I checked, John Q. Public didn't read comic books.
John Q. Public is perfectly aware that Marvel makes comic books and has been making them for an extremely long time, however. Their brand identity is heavily tied to comic books.
While the comics themselves are mostly a nerd thing, anyone who watches a superhero movie does so well aware that they are watching a movie based on a comic book.
Frankly as far as publishing entertaining comics goes in recent years, I think the best company doing it nowadays is IDW (responsible for a number of middling-to-excellent Transformers series and a very nice Dungeons & Dragons series, among other things).
Comments
Remember what I said about that intensely political series?
So, like every good story, it's got a set of protagonists and a set of antagonists. Try to make sure they're roughly balanced between each other, so it's actually interesting.
A new series of comic books will tell the story from the side of the protagonists.
A new TV series will, instead, tell the story from the side of the antagonists. They're the protagonists in this context, and the protagonists of the comic books are the antagonists here.
Or at least, they think so. This applies to both sides.
the lumps of wax or the morton feldman quartet movie?
edit: i can't read spelling tonight
well that can always be done
because alternate continuities are free
I heard it's quite comfy underneath the iron buttocks of Disney, perhaps someday you'll tell me what it's like.
mwahahahaha
someone hasn't heard of the internet
ideas are copyrightproof
i don't pretend to understand Hirst, but i agree with this assessment, i think... the shark piece struck me as legitimately clever, but mostly he kinda bores me.
Like, i can appreciate that he's probably very intelligent, but i'm puzzled by the extent of his success.
i would be totally in favour of this tbh
While the comics themselves are mostly a nerd thing, anyone who watches a superhero movie does so well aware that they are watching a movie based on a comic book.