On my mind: Batman hulks out, Merida x Violet at 5:22 AM

I can't write much lately. But I am using free software to create crude animations. Here's some of the ones that are safe for work.

.

Here's one I've thought about awhile. How fun would it be if Batman suddenly Hulked out in front of Joker? Pretty Crazy, right?

I also made this. I ship this.

How do you Batman vs Superman? I show you! at 5:26 AM

Superheroes be like

There are characters and concepts out there, that are difficult to adapt, especially into a mainstream movie. Works that are too long, too morally complex, or too visually advanced for any old  person to present on screen.

Works that, once adapted, are always controversial.

Batman and Superman are the opposite of that.

Batman and Superman are the Easy Mode of works to adapt. Really, the narrative difficult parts have already been taken care of for you. Literally everyone and their grandma knows this characters, and they've been fleshed for over 75 years, on just about every medium imaginable, including streams of films.

"If anything, Superman Returns was not dark and meandering and melancholy ENOUGH."

But, according to certain spoiler laden reviews, somehow I have to explain to Zack Snyder and WB how to bring together Batman and Superman. Spoilers follow.

In a way, it's not so surprising that the studio that couldn't get Green Lantern, Jonah Hex, and Hellblazer, doesn't understand how the whole Batman x Superman thing should work. They only have like decades of comics, and the Bruce Timm animated movie, and Batman/Superman Public Enemies the animation. All works that cultivated the very idea of these characters butting heads. I guess  they didn't see that. They did see Death of Superman and The Dark Knight Returns, which, which are not really stories that make sense to mix with each other. It's X3 all over again. Mutant Cure and Phoenix each could be their own SERIES OF MOVIES, you don't put both together!


Anyway, I'm not reviewing the movie. I haven't seen it. But from the information I have, in this one Batman is angry and kills people and Superman...probably doesn't anymore, a lot. Batman is angry because of what happened in Metropolis(which, in-universe is kind of dickish because while Superman  might have failed to save a lot of people in Metropolis, he did save everyone ELSE in the world from turning into mountains of skulls. So...perspective) and because of that and the manipulations of Lex Luthor, that's what causes the titular boxing match.

In the end, upon being informed  that Superman's mom is called Martha, alike his own Mom, Batman gives up trying to straight up kill Superman, and they and Wonder Woman team up to fight Doomsday, the non-flipper having , revived and remonstered Zod, which kills Superman. Of course he kills Superman, why else would you have that sack of rocky shit if you wern't going to do the whole Death of Superman Tango. Of course, at this point we aren't killing Superman, American Icon for years, beloved by all, the world's greatest Superhero, but Superman, Divisive figure that some call FALSE GOD, and who had to attend senate hearings about his behavior. Even Superman Returns earned  it's "Superman is DEAD" moments.

Hey, as long as we're adapting the less good parts of the DCU...

Ok, director of Watchmen and 300: Here's how this usually goes down.

Batman and Superman have completely different methods of achieving the same thing, as well as entirely different viewpoints of things. Batman is generally more distrusting and cynical, because his entire thing is based on having watched his parents gunned down before him. Also, since he doesn't have Superpowers, he can't just pick up people and throw them in jail.

Superman, though, is basically a humble guy even though he could compress your cranium into diamonds. He is more of an optimist, and his approach to a situation that Batman might approach with Karate tends to be less like that.


So if these two haven't met, there'll be an obvious rift on account of the methodology. If they've already met, there will be some overlying issue that will be big enough to have characters be torn apart.

They'll fight, but not out of spite, for someone must stand up for what's right. But, naturally at some point they'll figure that they both want the same thing: justice, and so they'll squash the beef and make up. Uh, that sounded a little....


ANYWAY, you see, that's usually how it goes when you don't want to assassinate one or the other. If you want to make Superman look like an Super Jerk, you play to the negative perceptions some people have about him: That he's a dullard, boring, hypocrite, status quo loving freak. If you want to make Batman be in the wrong, have him just spy on  everyone and be an paranoid douche.

However, for all the half a decade plans of sequels you got lined up, you forgot to plan the most basic shit: How are Batman and Superman different.

For all the poop pants serious face talks of DESHTINY in Man of Steel, by the end you don't really get a sense of that this is THE Superman. You know, The "Great Icon of Hope" the film kept pushing. Even now in this film, there is allegedly not a sense of that. We never really got back from Pa' Kent if oh so special Clark Kent should leave a bus of schoolchildren to drown. In fact, in Man of Steel, when he kills Zod and he's all broken up about it, you can almost hear Kevin Costner going "you see, Clark, saving the planet...awful business, that."

I'm starting to think WB hired Sandy Corolla as a way to keep him out of Marvel's hands...

So to contrast Morally Ambiguous Superman we have...Morally Ambiguous Batman. EVEN MORE-ERERER morally ambiguous than when he exploded an entire factory or when he lied about and covered the District Attorney's death because Gotham's little heart just couldn't handle the idea that he went on a killing spree, if you can believe it.


So now, rather than Navy Blue, Boy Scout Supes fighting Gray and Black , Scowling Batman facing each other before coming to an understanding based on a new found sense of trust and respect over what good they see in the other we have Blue-Black, Pensive Superman Fighting Rock Gray and Black Batman fighting each other over stupid shit, and coming together over stupid shit long enough to fight Doomsday.

Really, it's all in the visuals.

To clarify, I have not seen the film. I'm sure IF I watch it, it won't be the worst thing I've done. I'm not a snob. I thought MoS was just kind of okay. But just from knowing these plot elements, I am just boggled. I am boggled that in a year when Fox got Deadpool right...FOX...DEADPOOL...RIGHT...that Warner kind of dropped the ball on  pretty much THE only Superheroes they bought DC for. I mean, not financially, the movie's doing good I hear. But, again, it's 2016, and Marvel made a good movie about fucking Antman. You don't get points for showing up, WB and DC.

Horrendous Theory: Frank Miller Makes-A-Wish at 9:10 AM

Say, over the years Frank Miller has had a bit of a falling out with the nerdosphear. While highly celebrated during the 80's for his comics about Batman being gritty, as well as other Sin City and 300, the pervasive thought hanging in the air seems to be that Frank's become a parody of himself, as well a mysoginist warmonger, with a smaller minority that thinks that he was ALWAYS a mysoginist warmonger and that we just kinda realized it.

But whatever you think of him, you have to admit his projects have drawn a lot of controversy in the last decade, whether it's that book about Batman(later removing the Batman part) going to the Middle East to kill Bin Laden, which took so long to make US forces got to him first, or making an actual Batman book with a title alluding to Nazi terminology.

Now why would DC allow for Frank Miller to make this kinds of things with it's bread and butter character? You might think that the guys who okayed Sue Dibney's rape and Green Lantern having a book titled "Triumph of the Will" maybe aren't so good at drawing the lines between envelope pushing and going to far to get your book mentioned. But I have another theory.

This is a picture of  Frank Miller, looking not-so-hot at age (58). Lots of rumors have circulated about why he looks so beat up, but what never came up is "he's super healthy."

Without speculating about a man's health, I think Frank Miller's been given a final diagonosis. He's got a date with death coming up real soon.

So you're DC, and one of your former star talents is dying and you know it. And he approaches you and tells you he wants to make a book in which Batman kills cops and makes Robin eat rats. Now, this is your main breadwinner character, and if anyone else where to approach with that idea, you'd turn him down. But are you really gonna send a good friend of the industry, a guy you might have read up as a young man, to die of sick and in poverty? No, you let him do whatever he wants.

It just so happens his Make-A-Wish wish is less of the happy puppy variety and more of the whatever this is variety.

But my SUB theory of this is that there is no empathy involved in the process. I mean, when Frank Miller dies, the hate will subside, and up will float a body of work that people will have a burst of interest in, if only to know it the troubled old man really was a madman or a genius or both.

So instead of playing it safe and telling him no, you double down and let Frank Miller make mincemeat out of popular characters, knowing that it's an INVESTMENT for a book that, if it doesn't sell NOW, will surely sell a lot once Frank Miller kicks the bucket. If it's the first thing it's heart warming, but if it's the second thing it's kind of diabolically genious.


But it's probably none of those. I mean, I'm not Frank Miller's doctor or anything.  I just think both of those things  make more sense than someone seeing the term "Batman: The Master Race" and not seeing any problem with it. But hey we'll see.

BGE investigates: Do we have too MUCH Batman? at 7:49 PM

2batty4me

In my nerd commandments article I commented that, while Batman movies have been recycling a lot of it's villains and  snubbing others for over 2 decades, I have no desire for Batman to go away.

 But that got me to thinking, maybe Batman COULD go away for a bit.

You see, since he was created that silly 60's TV show, Batman has become overall the most popular super hero in the world. This has various reasons. Unlike Green Lantern and Flash, or even X-Men, bringing the the concept to the screen isn't filled with technical obstacles. And trust me, if it was by the comics alone, Batman would be stuck in the same level of recognition as Rotor the Walrus. No, I'm not giving you a hyperlink.  Batman, and overall most of his enemies, are mostly humans, and don't have require a lot of complicated effects to be realized with a modicum of acceptability.

Just like vampires, and zombies Batman's ease of presentation has allowed other sides of the character to flourish. But it's not just that. Even as many heroes' run ups with the grim and grittiness of the 80's and 90's has  become a mocking point for them, Batman's has endured as the POSITIVE point in the character's history, despite the fact that it could get about as silly as anything else.

When's the last time you saw DLC based 50 year old TV show outside of Call of Duty: Modern Warfare's Bewitched Costume pack?

But maybe it's a generational thing. I'm 30 and Batman has been  the most popular character in several mediums for the better part of most of my life. But even growning up during a phenomena called Batmania, I've never seen Batman be this prevalent. Batman's 3rd  official live action movie continuity starts with Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice next year. It itself is a prequel to 2 Justice League movies which, if you think they're gonna put aside the most popular character in the world being played by  Holywood's beloved Ben Affleck to focus on anyone else, you are sorely mistaken.

Ben Affleck  as Bruce Wayne looks like Ben Affleck a whole lot.

There's a Batman Solo movie already planned with Affleck set to direct and obviously star.  Suicide Squad will feature a cameo with him, and also spotlight on the ever popular Joker villain, with additional Batman villains like Harley Queen, Killer Croc, and Deadshot(played by Hollywood's beloved Will Smith, and you know what a scene hog he can be) making  significant percentage of the titular team.

But if that's all too grim for you, there's also Lego Batman, but like for cinema, not like the handful that exist out of cinema. And not like the Lego Batman GAME series. And speaking of games, Batman also has a game series to him now: The Arkham Series. That one has been a big success so far, so count on more coming. For the record, during my day we never had a Batman game series, especially not one hailed as worthy of magazine cover importance. In fact, we had a running joke about how the assortment of unconnected Batman games could never be any good.

And let's not forget the Batman car game! Remember, Batman doesn't use guns!

And let's not forget Gotham, a Smallville-esque attempt of filling the years between Batman's parents being murdered and Batman becoming Batman with a long running soap a dope. Oh, and animated movies coming out about pretty much most important Batman comics arcs.

For a long time, I wanted DC to finally give us heroes that wern't Batman. And while that call is seemingly being answered, It seems to me that they wouldn't take "the risk" unless they could pillow any potential  losses with EVEN MORE BATMAN.



It seems to me at some point we could be reaching Peak Batman, a point of Bat Exhaustion when Batman is become so common place, so ever present, that really he becomes boring. This is even more dangerous than Batman becoming ridiculous. Batman has bounced back from ridiculous a few times.  But once the people become bored with the character, nothing but leaving it alone can help.

The 7 years between this and Batman Begins where spent, yes, trying to make more Batman.

Remember, there was a time where Archie outsold Batman. Yes, that Archie. He had cartoons and stuff. He didn't need Predator or death and gay stunts. It was just a simple funny book, in every sense.  But over time, Archie's brand of humor became a bit bland for American audiences. Archie became boring.  Where are Archie's movie and cartoon deals? Where are Archie's games? They aren't.

It is my opinion that WB should put a leash on the Bat, but nevertheless I suspect they won't.  If the Batman brand crashes it may take a few decades before it can bounce back. This would be bad for fans, since it wouldn't just cut short exploitations of the Batverse, but much further DEVELOPMENT of it in it's source material. It would also be bad for WB, since "a few decades" is what it HAS left until Batman enters the public domain. But I guess we'll see.

I can still remember how worn out those gloves where...

 

BGE investigates: Is Batman a huge hippocrite? at 12:39 PM

The Bats are gonna fly toniiiiight! They're wearing Hockey pads, toniiiight!

Batman. Who is this man, and what drives him to do the things he does?

This might be the kinds of nerdy questions that mostly should be answered by "he's not real, jerk," but for 70 years a multitude of artists and writers have  made their livelihood by essaying  into comics, movies, and tv shows  carefully  crafted answers to that question.


While the Bat's personality is a reflection on the artists, the society at the time, and mercenary creative need, most Bat-fans would probably  know the following.

1)Batman is Bruce Wayne, Millionaire Playboy , whose parent's murder as a child drove him to become a vigilante/super hero.
2)Batman does not kill.
3)Batman does not use guns.

You can see fan outrage for those times when Batman kills, or for those rarer still moments when he can be found clutching a handgun. Batman Beyond, an official cartoon depicting  the future of the Animated Series, depicts the moment Bruce decides  to stop being Batman as being one time illness FORCED him to use a gun to scare off a criminal.

So Batman does not use guns. This is an integral part of the character, now.  All he has is his wits and his fists and his gadgets and vehicles. Otherwise his just an ordinary billionaire who engages in regular exercise. You don't see Batman shoot up a place. Except in, like this scene.

In this scene, The Joker is gassing the city, and it's up to Batman to stop him. He does, and then he takes aim from his airship towards the Joker.

The intention is pretty clear, here. Batman is trying to shoot this single man from the sky with the guns in his warplane. While it is pretty dramatically convenient that Batman's aim is so lousy,  Batman's idea here isn't for Joker to do a stint on prison. He's trying to shoot him dead.

Now, being fair, Batman DOESN'T have an established code against killing in that movie, nor an established code against guns, perse. Many fans have gone on to believe that THIS particular Batman is acting severely out of character. REAL Batman wouldn't bomb a building, or burn a man alive with his car's afterburner or throw the Joker off a cathedral to his own death, they'll say.

"Real Batman" might more closely ressemble The Dark Knight Trilogy VERSION, to many of those fans. That one DOES establish Batman has  a reason for not wanting to kill, and a specific aversion to guns. He rejects  killing after his initiation on the league of Shadows involves murdering an accused criminal, and rejects guns after his love interest scolds him for his intention to shoot the man who murdered his parents.

After that, it's nothing but  his wits and his fists and his gadgets and vehicles. And my what vehicles these are! There's the Tumbler, a tank-like military offroad vehicle equiped with jumping action, fiery turbines, missile launchers,  and what appears to be a periscope style overhead machine gun.

Of course, Batman didn't order that made custom. He doesn't need military grade weapons. He's not a killer, guys! He only ever uses the Tumbler's missile capacity to take down  a train.  Further movies, though, establish his continually upgraded fleet includes a motorcycle that detaches itself from the Tumbler. Pretty useful for chasing after the Joker, but as we see here, not as useful for apprehending him.

This scene echoes the earlier scene where  Batman blasted away at the Joker from his high tech plane, except in this scene Batman doesn't blast at the Joker. I mean, with the enormous guns in the Batbike, he'd tear him to pieces. But he can't even manage to run him over, which he seems he kind of wanted to do but doesn't. You know there's a couple of things between running over a man with your motorcycle and just sort of letting him go, right, Batty?

"Okay, lemme explain. This doesn't shoot bullets, it shoots plastic explosives. Totally non-lethal stuff."

And if you're wondering if those are guns, flip over to the ending of Dark Knight Rises, where Catwoman, riding the same model,  explodes a barricade and eventually Bane, the movie's villain. The Batpod isn't just armed with peashooters, it's a fucking war machine.

He's also got "The Bat", a hovering...thing, also armed with  machine guns and explosives.

So what gives, anyway? Am I the only one who has noticed?

The Bathorse is also armed!

Batman's "No GUNS" thing is kind of weirdly structured. On the one hand, Batman outright refuses to even WORK with somebody who's carrying, but sees no objection to having a 50 cal mounted on his Bat Huey.

Most of the same reasons for using firearms are the same kind of reasons for putting them on vehicles. "Guns are for killing, and I don't kill" Well, Batman doesn't have to use guns to straight up murder. He an debilitate  an opponent, scatter a crowd of unarmed thugs.  In the same way he can have machine guns mounted on the hood of his car and not necessarily use that shoot Poison Ivy dead, he can have a handgun in case the situation calls for it.

"Guns are what criminals use!" First of all, YOU'RE a criminal. You're embezzling money from your company, engaging in acts of aggression, driving unsanctioned vehicles and  Second of all, let's be adults here, Batman.  All sorts of people carry guns. Police. Military personnel. Security guards. Civilians who want to defend themselves. I'm not pro-guns  or anything, but it is what it is. It's especially weird to say that in the world of DC when it involves metabeings.  Some of these people can fly and throw blasts out of their hands. I'm sure if you look hard enough in the DC universe, there's a guy whose powers is shooting bullets out of his eyes.

"Guns killed my parents." Yes, the classic trauma. Batman is AVERSE to firearms, and somehow this mental avertion goes away if it's the vehicle he's riding doing the shooting.

But wouldn't the SOUND of the machine guns on the Batmobile trigger back memories of that fateful day?

For such a presumed "important" part of the character, this discrepancy has not yet been tackled. In fact, Arcades all over the continent are filling up with Batman: The Arcade Game, a game that lets you choose from MOST of the popular Batmobiles, and allows you to shoot up the streets as you try to stop Bane, Mr Freeze and The Joker.  While some of this vehicles never actually shot anything on their original version, this game allows it like it's the most natural thing in the world.



So pick one, Bats. Either never guns, or sometimes guns.

Frequently Stupid Questions: Public Domain Edition at 1:15 PM

Because public domain doesn't engender a lot of sympathy, I have decided to compile some answers to a lot of doubts people often have. I don't know if people actually feel like this, or if it's industry shills going around, but I think it's high time I addressed them.

I mean we're four years away from 2019. Copyrights have been extended for 40 years. Let's talk about this without emotionalisms.

Do you think you have a right to other people's rightful properties?

I don't think so, I know so. But so do YOU!

"Entitled" is a term that is often used to describe those  that want shorter copyright. After all, why should we have access to something we didn't create?

 But the thing is, we DO have a right. The American Constitution, not me, says that copyright exists for a limited time. Limited does not factor in if the guy made money in his lifetime, or if he doesn't want his works turned into a proto punk furry porn opera or if the guys made money from his work afterward aren't his kin. Limited means it should end at some point.

But Big Entertainment doesn't think it should end at "some point", therefore they got congress to unconstitutionally stretch the duration of works.  Look, here's some graphics explaining it.

I thought of showing the ref getting his payola far too late.

But what if an author doesn't make any money in the first x amount of years?

The idea here is basically we're supposed to to feel empathy for the poor struggling author. "Don't you want authors to get payed" is supposed to be followed by "yes, goddamn it, and the only way to make sure is to extend copyright 200 years more, woohoo!"

But here's the thing: this art/creation/invention thing is NEVER gonna be a sure thing. For every Batman that makes billions in comics, movies, cartoons, videogames and halloween costumes, there's thousands of Moongirls, whose owners just kind of forget, to ever bring out.

For this works(the majority), being wrapped up in red tape  for almost 100 years or more is a lose lose situation.  The work just sits there  unused, it doesn't  make anybody any money, but nobody can use it, unless the author released the work themselves.

Intellectual property is just as much property  as physical property, and a work  going to public domain is like the government stealing your house from you. What you own can't be taken away, right?

Intellectual property is not physical property, at least not like a house. It's more like...air.

Air is something that, except for  scuba divers and birthday balloons, is available enough that there is little need to hoard it. On the surface of the planet there is enough oxygen for us humans as well as cockroaches and giraffes and dung beetles. Only a truly spiteful god would insist that air should belong only to the plants that produce oxygen for 90 years so they can charge for it as they will. Most plants don't live that long.

But we want there to be more plants, because we just can't get enough of that wonderful Oxygen. So we give plants a break: we won't eat all their fruits, and rip out all their flowers, and chew on all their roots for a  time, so we can have more plants.

As we have more plants, we can start eating the older plant's fruits. We can pick their flowers and chew their roots. They have fulfilled  their purpose.

Well copyright is just that. We want more artists creating, inventors inventing, philosophers philosophizing and song writers twerking, so we say "for a time, we will subdue our urge and, indeed, our RIGHT to take something as intangible as the works of a mind, and duplicate it, remake it, remix it, retell it, to give you creators a break, so that ALL of us can eventually  see the benefits. We just want the air. That's why we held off."

The differences between a house and a song should be obvious. A house that you no longer have rights to cannot be inhabited freely by you. You can no longer do in the house as you see fit. But obviously, it has a limited amount of  people it can fit.

A song you have no rights to is a song anyone can sing, play, be reproduced by anyone. That includes you. It doesn't fit any normal definition of stealing.

Also, If you truly believed Public domain works are a form of theft, ethically you'd need to not participate in any of them. Hands up if you've ever said "I'm not watching if Bram Stoker's heirs aren't making money." "I'd be stealing to watch Les Miserables!" "I can't  watch Pride and Prejudice, the original author didn't authorize."

What a mighty fine thing, to rebuke the thief while spending  his loot! If you don't consider enjoying the spoils of the public domain tree stealing, then don't treat if falling into pd as theft.

Why can't you come up with your own stuff, you lazy assholes?

This is a fairly common one. After all, original works are highly valued, while derivative works are the devil's clogged, overflowing toilet.

Okay, first of all, originality isn't just in making brand new characters and stories. I thought the Avengers was pretty original, even though every one of it's characters is older than me.

Statistically, you hadn't been born when this happened.

So when characters are copyrighted we beg Marvel and DC to make them into movies and TV shows and games. We swallow up adaptations of A Song of Fire and Ice, The Walking Dead and many more. We get excited for the third remake of the adaptation of a comic from the 80's, and a new version of a toy commercial from our youths, in movie form.

But when somebody says it'd be nice if they went public domain eventually, the same people turn around and ask everyone else if can't make something new.

So let's not do that. Let's not say only lazy people want to work off of Tolkien's books, then rush off to pay for a LOTR MMORPG. Let's not say "just  make a NEW Superhero" only to bemoan how Wonder Woman isn't getting a proper movie, or her costume sucks, or is a Thin Israeli instead of a Muscly Greek( or a Thick Turk? I'm not sure what Amazons actually were). That's the result of "WB can make with Wonder Woman as it see fit."

Obviously there is financial value in owning a recognizable character, because otherwise there wouldn't be talks of remaking Highlander and Short  Circuit. But here's my beef: the handful of companies that  own your favorite shit have nothing to fear from Johnny Fanfiction and Suzie Kickstarter. They own tv channels, Radio Stations, Game Develpment houses. Copyright is supposed to keep you from giving up the creative world because everyone is copying you as soon as your work is done. Are you really gonna tell me Best Geek Ever's Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles is a serious concern for Viacom when they have a whole  arm of channels and all I have is a fuckin' blog that we have to award them "only game in town" status FOREVER, too?

But what if they turn my(or my favorite) work into porn?

This could be fit under the wider banner of "what if they turn an author's work into something they hate?"  Like when WB did Alan Moore all wrong, or like when Hitchcock was locked out the editing room. Something like that  but now that it's public domain, it's somehow badder.

Or like when Alan Moore turned public domain characters into porn, My head hurts.

But I guess we hate porn now, huh? Ok fine. What would happen if you make a well known work, it becomes public domain, and you  get to see your work become porni-sized?

I'll answer the question with a question: what work currently in the public domain is more known for the porn version than the real? Which anything that has a porn version the porn version is more known than the real?

None. Porn is fairly forgettable and underground.  Axel Braun's superhero porn parodies aren't getting  on SuperheroHype's news page, that's for sure.

If you're a fan of a work and don't want there to be porns of it, bad news, kimosabe. If it's big enough, there's probably porn of it. From E.T. to  to the Room. From Mickey  to Dangermouse. From Robocop to The Girl with the Dragon Tatoo. Porn, bitch. Porn, motherfucker. That is our current world, where long copyrights reign, and  we charge kids who download mp3s thousands in fines. The world where we travel halfway across the world to arrest Kim Dotcom.

It's besides the point that your drawings of Jason fucking Freddy aren't competing with any official ones.

You, see, for the companies that own these works, "the dignity of the work" and "the artists original intentions and vision" are not the matters that keep them up at night.


And finally the answer would be, get over it. American copyright laws aren't  there to protect you from hurt feelings. Why talk such big game about freedom of speech  and so on, if we're gonna wimp out as soon as other people express themselves in ways we find objectionable?

It'll just lead to everyone making Batman works and nobody doing nothing else, you know?

The thinking, here is that a work being superpopular  and public domain would wind creating a great super-saturation of said work's derivatives. I use Batman as an  example because he's pretty popular and at 75 years, frankly should have lapsed years ago. But you can substitute him for Mickey, Superman, Harry Potter or the Ninja Turtles.

First of all, that's kinda the point. While copyright exists on a work, it removes competition from the originator. Like this.

No, really, that's pretty much it.

But we all know competition is the spice of quality, and if we had everyone be able to work on the same work...

Asylum WOULD Present Batman, like ALL  the time.

...the market would determine which is best. The market probably can't handle INFINITE Batman, thought, and I'm sure eventually it'd subside.

 How bad could it get? Well, zombies are a good example. They went public domain decades ago. While since there's hardly been a LACK of zombie happy works, there also wasn't a year where we only had zombie movies, games, and cartoons and songs.

And what would WB do in the face of such competition? Well, coming up with new stuff seems like  a solid plan. After having worked on Batman for so many years, they should have a reasonable advantage by 1995, and the new competition should force them to up their game.

And further, works further enriching the public domain would provide greater and greater possibilities. You guys are all excited for Batman v Superman and Avengers: Age of Ultron. In a world of reasonable copyright, both could have been a single movie, and be released in 2005.

In  a world of reasonable copyright, we could totally have  a Wonder Woman movie written by Gail Simone and Directed by Lauren Faust. And Capcom can continue to use Spider-Man in fighting games, even if Marvel would rather make it's own fighting games.

Sure, we might see some uninspired shit based on these works. But having Abraham Lincoln vs Zombies is a small price to pay for playing Resident Evil.

Oh, my childhood!

You just want free/cheaper stuff, you cheap bastards!

Maybe. I can't talk for everyone, but who doesn't like free shit? I wished I had millions  of dollars to buy pop culture icons wholesale , but until then I'm left with in the dishonorable position of making new stuff... or waiting until stuff falls into the public domain so I can take a stab at it. I've already done it and plan to, in the future, do it again. So maybe.

But why is that greedy, though? It's not like I want Batman all for myself. How come wanting works to be widely available in libraries and online, legitimately for anyone is greed, but fucking hording copyrighted works for 100 years is ok?

And this is about more than me wanting pop culture. Books on nature, technology, philosophy and history are being kept from being looked at, while American education languishes. These works could be made available to our young underprivileged that need it.

There are works withering away, that nobody can save from disappearing forever because they're copyrighted. Are we really gonna stand here and say those are acceptable losses, and that making money off of the long dead takes priority over keeping the long dead's words and art alive for future generations?

It's not a debate about whether   the public domain should exist at all, but you'd be forgiven for believing it so, as the current length and the last two extensions have blasted the public domain into basically not including anything from the 19th century.

What IS under debate is...

How long should Copyright be?

This is one that's been going on for literally hundreds of years(but not too many hundreds. 300 at most). Amongst people that do think over 75 is too long, there isn't a consensus. I've seen some say 30, 20, 15. Some even shoot for single digits or say that there should be no copyrights at all.


Personally, I feel the old 56 maximum  duration was fine, and I'd go for that. But instead of having to re-register every 23 years, you have to reregister  every 10 or so, with an accompanying fee.

Why? Well, if you really want the US Government to spend the people's tax dollars on going after the Megauploads and Napsters and Shareazas of life, you have to pay SOMETHING. What, do you think copyrights just protect themselves?

Also, it would prevent media from just becoming a game of "who can buy more." It would force companies to consider if they really want to own that IP, instead of forcing them to own the IP.

But what if an artist makes something something and it doesn't become profitable in that amount of time?

Ok, are there any examples like that? Author gives up on work, reaps rewards 50 years later? Is that a thing that happens that often, that the whole law must  be geared toward that?

Because if we're  gonna make the law based on what actually happens, then most works make most of their profit within a 5 year margin. and the most sensible copyright durations would be 14 years.

In either case, copyright is supposed to protect you enough that you keep creating, not maintain your shitty ass half a century spanning business model. What, if the creator can't create without getting blown, are we suppose to get them a girl, too?

It wasn't supposed to be Shakes. It just happened.

Why so much whining about stuff that never belonged to you?

Here's my beef with long copyright: If it was JUST that it's 95 years, and that we don't get stuff our own grandfathers enjoyed, I'd be okay. I'm not particularly interested in doing  my own Mickey Mouse shit.

But when I realised that they had gamed the system to actively deny us of any work lapsing, I snapped.

"Also, I suggest staying away from the tobaco."

It's like we were supposed to receive an inheritance, but then the bank  earning interests on the money decided to delay the reading of the will for 40 years. If you won't call it robbing you of the money, you can probably call it things like "unethical", "fucking underhanded", "extremely greedy", "unjust". And we're supposed to just sit here like stupid idiots and say "well, that's the law, and the bank is big and we're little"

Not so. An I'm certainly not just gonna wait until they do it again!

I was not born before the 76 extension. There was nothing I could do.  I was a boy during the Sonny Bono act of 98. I didn't even know what copyright was. There was nothing I could do. But if I can do something now, I will. I won't let my children go through the same thing.

L.I.E.S. The DC movie schedule revealed! at 8:25 AM

Hello, you Gullible Gents and Overly trusty Dames. It's been a while since I've told you  Leaked In Early Secrets.  The truth is, I've been away on a self imposed exhile. I don't want to go too much into it, but I'll just say sometimes you get challenged to a fight to the death and you do it, but death fights are no fun. People could die on those. In fact, usually when no one dies, things went wrong.

"Let no bad happen" indeed.

So you may have heard some dame say that she got the list of movies DC's planning on making for the next few years. If you believe DC's going to have 3 movies a year, then I'll show you a green dog or 2.

That's not the REAL DC schedule! Let Uncle Batzarro show you how it's done, baby.I snuck into Warner's board room, disguised as a maid.  They didn't know they don't have any retro style maids, so it was easy.

In there, I overheard their true plan, spoken with the kind of confidence that gave us Teen Titans, Greem Arrow in Superjail, Metal Men, Flash and Justice League Mortal as news to chew, rather than as movies to watch.


2015

Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice

I can't stop poking fun at this title.

(BAAt)man (They haven't written it or anything, but they thought that the idea of having a name that is also the logo, even if the name is screwed, was good enough to greenlight.)

Speedy (They actually mean Kid Flash/Impulse, but nobody corrected them that Speedy is Green Arrow's sidekick)

2016

The Wall ( They figured since Maleficent did mint at the box office, they'd get on that "gritty origin story about a woman" thing with Amanda Waller. In this version Amanda Waller begins as a member of a troubled teen help line called Anti-Suicide Squad, but then she somehow turns it into a paramilitary group)

Lobo (I've put this down at Lobo, but they kept refferung to him as "the guy with the claws" and asking if Hugh Jackman was available.)

"This guy. right?"

Justice League

2017

2Man 2Steel( Tyrese is in the shortlist to play Steel)

Not-Wonder Woman (I don;t know which Superheroine they meant, they kept saying "the other one" and "the really popular one" but every time someone said Wonder Woman they'd say no.)

"I'm pretty sure we've been selling clittoris necklaces on Hot Topic for awhile."

Blue Beetle/Red Tornado (They don't know if this is a good teamup, it was chosen with Dice and crayons.)

2018

Batman's Back (There's no story, just the idea to show Batman from behind in the posters)

Batman's Back in action

Captain Planet ("They've got Captain America, but Captain Planet will be huge overseas.")

Shazam v Sandman: The Revenge of Spider Jerusalem (  They envision it as a huge middle eastern adventure, which they assume would have to involve  Sandman and Spider Jerusalem by default. Spider Jerusalem in this is a huge spider.)

Batman v Santa Clause: Dawn of Jingles (For need of a holiday movie)

2019
Batman: Days of Future Bat (This one is a time traveling crossover betwen Burton Batman and Nolan Batman.)

Wonder Woman (After 2 hours they gave up on guessing who the other really popular heroine they own is.)

Justice League Mortal ("We have to reboot the Justice League franchise sometime, right?)

How you like me now, punks?

So there you go. The truth, only the truth and nothing but  L.I.E.S.! Batzarro: OUT! (Turns into a raven, flies away.

Let's talk about Wonder Woman's body as if it mattered at 4:34 PM

"I wish Hollywood had some tricks to make people look not-as-they-are..."

Wonder Woman is one of the earliest female superheroes, and probably the one most people care about anyway. So going into Batman v Superman : Dawn of Justice, which had her first appearance in live action in decades must be pretty exciting for fans, right?

This is just as pointless as  #bringbackourgirls, except Zack Snyder might actually bring them back.

Oh, you wanna talk about Wonder Woman's body in what's likely to ammount to a cameo in Batman's movie? Fine. I like Wondy's body too.

There's 3 prevailing schools of thought on Wonder Woman's body: Jezebeline, Maximist, and Curvilinears. And none of the people who  profess these styles actually acknoweledge their titles, because I just made them up.

The Jezebelineans would love for Wonder Woman to not-give girls bad body image.  If Diana looks like a model they'll probably complain, even if 90 percent of all female actresses are like that anyway. DC comic heroes are easy to make a stand on while Black Widow rolls around in her  skintight jumpsuit, totally not getting a movie.

For them, there is a Wonder Woman.

For the record I like her movies. She's no Camryn Manheim, though.

They'd probably say I'm exaggerating. I am. But if you're gonna cast Wonder Woman exclusively for the Jezebelian crowd, without any accounting for anything else, this is your stop.

Maximists take this ficticional amazon's ficticional history seriously. "She's an AMAZON! She should have oak stumps for legs and abs that can take a tomahawk missile!"

For them,there is a Wonder Woman.

Don't know.

I mean, Superman and Batman are ripped. Why can't Wonder Woman be super ripped? Huh? Why is it? Is it because that's not nearly the most important thing when it comes to bringing this character to life? Huh? Is it?

The Curvilinears just want to see an accurate depiction of Wonder Woman's breasts. The character's long history has seen many changes in tone and style, but NEVER have her breasts been what we'd consider "small". They plan to be starring at that cleavage for a good amount of time, and they want to make good on that investment. For them, there is a Wonder Woman as well.

Va va va boom!

I guess that makes me a  Curvilinear as well. huh.

But in the end the people at WB chose this chick.

Those are some nice headlights.

There's bound to be a bunch of reasons why she got cast. How much money  she could bring to the movie chief among them. She's not the ideal actress for Wonder Woman we all picture in our head, but that just us. Some of us thought Thomas Jane would make an excellent Shadow the Hedgehog, and some of us thought HHH would make a fine Thor, and some of us thought  Heath Ledger would ruin the Joker forever. In the end we're proven wrong, we like the actor and we move on.

Or the Sonic movie never happens and we start to hate on  Jane over The Mist. Goddamit!

 

In either case, here's some of the questions you should be asking instead: How much screen-time will Wonder Woman actually have? What exactly will be her role in a movie titled Batman v Superman? Will she actually show in costume in the film? Will she use her magic lasso? Her invisible plane? Will we see Themyscira? Will Themyscira be actually a river near Turkey, like in real life?  Why is there not a sequel to the wonderful animated Wonder Woman movie? Why is there no Wonder Woman movie period, and instead we have to settle for her playing  a support role to Batman and Superman? Just asking, man.

Resumen Del Lunes 12/5/1014 at 4:30 PM

Era ver esto, o Pocahontas. Si tuviera que tomar la decision otra vez....me voy con Pocahontas.

Los Power Rangers vienen con una nueva pelicula, en un mundo que ya tiene a Pacific Rim, la mejor pelicula de todos los tiempos. Esto no esta abierto al debate.

No hay noticias de cual serie se Sentai les hara la mayoria del trabajo.

La Liga de la Justicia por fin viene. Aquellos que dijeron que preferirian esperar 7 años por una pelicula mejor a la que el Director de Happy Feet rezen...que yo no los encuentre. La pelicula aun tiene a Henry Cavill como Superman, Ben Affleck como Batman, Gal Gadot como Wonder WOman y a otros que no me importa. A nadie le importa Cyborg, DC!

Creo que estan cometiendo un error. Superman deberia ser el Israeli, aqui. Digo, si lo ven a tener haciendo el papel de Moisesus en cada pelicula, pues que se tiren Judio.

Si, en la nueva pelicula tambien.

Ah, la pelicula? Nada, va a estar buena, pero mucha gente se va a quejar de lo cortos de los pantalones de Wondy y de  que Superman estrujo mucho a un criminal. Ironicamente Superman no puede ganar.

Aparentemente hay mucho interes en el titulo de la nueva de Star Wars, que podria ser "The Ancient Evil".

Aquaman mira con ojos envidiosos a Flash. "C-List....algun dia yo tambien lo sere"

Pero espera! Tambien podria no serlo! Que vamos a hacer si no sabemos el titulo de una pelicula que ahora fue que empezo a filmar? Volver a bajar Episodio 3?

Batman PODRIA estar guiando este carro

Ya esta disponible el trailer de Gotham, la serie que trata con el comisionado Gordon antes de que Batman estuviera por ahi.. Me suena a Smallville. Yo creo que van a llegar a la temporada 10, y ya va a haber salido Bane y Poison Ivy y Robin mientras Bruce Wayne todavia no sale de la highschool.

Gracias a Warner por complir con el pacto que mantiene a la sociedad unida: Que nunca debe haber menos de 5 productos de Batman in pantallas o en desarrollo.

Naked Batman! 5 facts we'd have to live with if Batman where public domain... at 9:21 AM

This happened.

The maximum duration of a copyright used to be 56 years.  As we've discussed, this means that everything made before 58 should have reasonably lapsed into the public domain. In Batman's case this means most of his most well known characters and concepts would be available for all to use, free of charge and free of litigation.

I have brought this matter up to fans, and many of them are concerned. They can't even picture a world where you can  go ahead and make your own Batman. As much grief as fans can give companies like DC, many think Batman is rather safe in DC/Warner's hands.

Here's 5 realities of a world where Batman is public Domain.

5) DC still owns real Batman.

Let's face it, guys. We're not talking about a riot where we go into DC's office and rob them of Batman. As the day the first Batman comic goes public domain, this is what you'll have to work with.

He just threw a man by the neck! "Regular Exercise" my ass.

It's gonna take you a couple of years to get to "Batman as we know him" today, and by then the character will already be far, far from that. You get no Batmobile. You get no Batgirl, or Batmite or  Bane. Not for a while.

Nobody still like Jason Todd.

This is Batman and his nu 52 era buddies, some of them with Wikia pages longer than the Bible. By the 2030s all Batman related Wikia pages will have more words than the Bible. You don't get that, not initially. You get the starter Batman: an orphan richboy who wants to punches criminal while dressed vaguely like a bat.

Under previous, you'd already get to adapt this.

DC needn't fear your Batman. Unless...



4)Your Batman might be better than  their Batman.

He's Nicholas Cage. He's awesomer than most things by default.

A lot of people I saw were afraid of "any old fanboys" having their  terrible ideas on Batman.  Can you imagine what that would look like?

I don't have to. Fans all over the world are currently engaged in writting stories about Batman meeting Fluttershy or something. Fanfiction is already a thing, a thing widespead enough that WB hasn't put any major efforts to stopping it. Maybe some of this stories might be good, or great. Maybe all of them stink. At least some of them involve Robocop and Batman having sex. Frankly I opt not to read them.  I can safely ignore them and so can you.

But consider Sandy Corolla. A skilled filmaker who once made a couple of fanfilms starring DC characters, and sometimes Predator and Alien. Everybody loved those fan films. Most of us would have given Corolla our money to see the full films. But WB owns Batman, and he couldn't have secured any financing for a full film except from WB, which already had plans for Batman. Under previous law, Corolla could have taken his skills towards actually making such films. He could have asked another studio to finance them. He could have taken it to kickstarter.

Where's my "realistic" body armor?

Instead he didn't. Let's face it, guys, not all the people who could make great Batman stories work for WB and DC. Some of them might work at Marvel. Some of them might work at Image. Some of them might even work at Fox. The only difference between DCs writters and, fanboys, other writters is that  they are legally allowed to work on Batman. That's all.

However, they wouldn't all be anything close to "real" Batman because...

3) We would have a lot of weird takes on Batman

Well...he's more like a bat, isn't he?

In 1998 I saw The Mask of Zorro, a movie that followed a former bandit played by Antonio Banderas adopting the mantle of Zorro from perrenial pseudo-Hispanic Anthony Hopkins. It was a fun movie. But I kept wondering where it had left the original Zorro's mute butler. You know, from the TV series. Then there was the animated, future set series. I didn't see it much. Zorro's in the public domain, currently, so anyone can work on him and many do.

Naturally, once people get to working on Batman, they're not all going to want to have the same take. After all, that is the fun of public domain. Does Batman really have to be an only child? What if he had siblings? What if  Batman is  really Alfred? What if Batman is really a bat that, through training, became a human? Maybe we get Arronofsky's Batman where he's a bum helped by a big black mechanic named Big Al? Maybe one is just naked all the time.

This is especially true before some elements are public domain. After all, if WB still own the concept of Batman living in a cave, where will yours live? Your version should already be trying to distance itself from other Batmans, maybe yours sleeps in a casket, like Dracula. Maybe he goes back to the planet Bat or something.

It only  sounds stupid because they haven't done it yet. Eventually any and all this versions could find a place in people's hearts. We'll have many Batmans, and don't be surprised when not all of them are "Bruce Wayne, playboy billionaire orphan who becomes Batman at night

2) DC would not use Batman as much.

Jesus Christ!

DC likes Batman. He makes them a lot of money, and money's where it's at. Batman's in movies. Batman's on television. Batman's on cartoons. Batman's on videogames. Batman's on lunchboxes and sweaters and sweatshirts.

However, if someone else can make Batman, that's no fun anymore. WB, overwhelmed by greed, would probably begin promoting "their" characters a lot more, if Batman was usable by anyone. They'd probably promote some silver age character to Batman's spot of importance, if they could at all.

This would not be all bad. If Batman's as overexposed in the 2030s as he is now, a little winding down might not be as bad as it sounds. The character's never not been popular, but maybe it's best to not have 50 Batman products a month in your face.

1) You'd get Batman everywhere

SAFE!

If Batman was public domain today, do you think they'd put him in Street Fighter? In Final Fantasy? In Johnny Test? WWE? GTA?

Off course they would. More than a deluge of new Batman movies every year, it would result in 1000s of "appearances" in stuff. Think of it like this: imagine every cartoon version of Dracula you've seen. Imagine all his appearances in franchises that aren't adaptations of Bram Stoker's books. That's what we're looking at.

Even when the over-saturation reaches critical levels, you'll still see Batman show up every once in a while to help or hinder the characters in question. It wouldn't be rare. And maybe that's gonna be just fine.