Jump to content

Scarecrow????


mynameisash

Recommended Posts

According to your own logic, the amount of characters used as inspiration for a new character is immaterial. If I take small aspects from literally *every* Marvel and DC superhero from the Golden Age to today and incorporate them into my new concept, the result is still a knockoff. That sounds silly to me. Of course, Spawn isn't 100% new but I'm sure many would agree with me that knockoff implies less than 25% new.

No we're back to semantics. If we look up the definition for 'knockoff' or any related word, we will not find anything that denotes a percentile.

 

If you apply this theory to every publisher, there's probably a dozen protagonists at most who fit your originality criteria. If Spawn is a knockoff of Deathlok, Dr. Strange is a knockoff of Superman.

I'd like to know where you get that... if the red cape is all you have, no, sorry, but it's not there. If anything, Dr Strange is much closer to Dr. Fate, especially in his early appearances.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 57
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

According to your own logic, the amount of characters used as inspiration for a new character is immaterial. If I take small aspects from literally *every* Marvel and DC superhero from the Golden Age to today and incorporate them into my new concept, the result is still a knockoff. That sounds silly to me. Of course, Spawn isn't 100% new but I'm sure many would agree with me that knockoff implies less than 25% new.

No we're back to semantics. If we look up the definition for 'knockoff' or any related word, we will not find anything that denotes a percentile.

 

If you apply this theory to every publisher, there's probably a dozen protagonists at most who fit your originality criteria. If Spawn is a knockoff of Deathlok, Dr. Strange is a knockoff of Superman.

I'd like to know where you get that... if the red cape is all you have, no, sorry, but it's not there. If anything, Dr Strange is much closer to Dr. Fate, especially in his early appearances.

You're correct that percentages aren't linked to the defintion of knockoff but I stand by my original statement. I did type "implies" in that sentence after all. As for the Superman/Dr. Strange observation, it's absurd for you to tell me "it's not there" when you're claiming Deathlok is a knockoff of Spawn.

 

Plenty of other similarities exist too. They both have black hair if you disregard Stephen's streaks. Their costumes are mostly blue and there's only a one inch difference in their heights. They both fly. They both have secret identities.

 

I challenge you to show 2 pictures of Deathlok and Spawn to strangers you encounter on the street. Ask them whether these characters look like knockoffs. Next, show 2 images of Dr. Strange and Superman. Again, ask them whether these characters look like knockoffs.

 

I guarantee more people will notice physical and outfit similarities between the latter. I'm well aware who Dr. Fate is. Lots of comic book fans would agree that he and Dr. Strange have more in common but they look very different in terms of appearance even when Dr. Fate's helmut leaves his mouth exposed.

 

OmegaHarbinger

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're correct that percentages aren't linked to the defintion of knockoff but I stand by my original statement. I did type "implies" in that sentence after all. As for the Superman/Dr. Strange observation, it's absurd for you to tell me "it's not there" when you're claiming Deathlok is a knockoff of Spawn.

No, I'm claiming Spawn is, in part, a knockoff of Deathlok. This has been admitted to by the creator of Spawn- I don't know ehre to go for a higher authority here. Further, the word "implies" makes it a matter of semantics, as I already pointed out. We are arguing meaningless details. Observe:

I challenge you to show 2 pictures of Deathlok and Spawn to strangers you encounter on the street. Ask them whether these characters look like knockoffs. Next, show 2 images of Dr. Strange and Superman. Again, ask them whether these characters look like knockoffs.

 

I guarantee more people will notice physical and outfit similarities between the latter. 

Well, yeah. They'd have to. As we've noted several times in this discussion, Deathlok is only PART of what went into Spawn. I'll grant that you have to know some basic information on the characters to understand that the character is, in fact, a knockoff. Heck, you could show people on the street who know absolutely nothing about comics pictures of Invincible and Blue Beetle and they'll look like knockoffs. It would be like someone asking me if there was too much similarity between two cars- I know nothing about cars, I'd have no clue what the heck I was talking about, so why would you ask me?

 

I'm not even sure what you're still debating here. The creator of Spawn has openly admitted that he copied and blended several existing characters to make his own. That means he has admitted that this character is a knockoff. I have agreed that the character is unique- not through creation, but through what has been done with it.

 

The fact is, we've been in agreement for pretty much the entire thread, but because I don't agree for the same reasons and with the same ideas, you still feel the need to debate. However, the things that you are now debating make no actual difference to the debate, like the definition of knockoff, which is (again) semantics, and has no bearing on the debate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're correct that percentages aren't linked to the defintion of knockoff but I stand by my original statement. I did type "implies" in that sentence after all. As for the Superman/Dr. Strange observation, it's absurd for you to tell me "it's not there" when you're claiming Deathlok is a knockoff of Spawn.

No, I'm claiming Spawn is, in part, a knockoff of Deathlok. This has been admitted to by the creator of Spawn- I don't know ehre to go for a higher authority here. Further, the word "implies" makes it a matter of semantics, as I already pointed out. We are arguing meaningless details. Observe:

I challenge you to show 2 pictures of Deathlok and Spawn to strangers you encounter on the street. Ask them whether these characters look like knockoffs. Next, show 2 images of Dr. Strange and Superman. Again, ask them whether these characters look like knockoffs.

 

I guarantee more people will notice physical and outfit similarities between the latter. 

Well, yeah. They'd have to. As we've noted several times in this discussion, Deathlok is only PART of what went into Spawn. I'll grant that you have to know some basic information on the characters to understand that the character is, in fact, a knockoff. Heck, you could show people on the street who know absolutely nothing about comics pictures of Invincible and Blue Beetle and they'll look like knockoffs. It would be like someone asking me if there was too much similarity between two cars- I know nothing about cars, I'd have no clue what the heck I was talking about, so why would you ask me?

 

I'm not even sure what you're still debating here. The creator of Spawn has openly admitted that he copied and blended several existing characters to make his own. That means he has admitted that this character is a knockoff. I have agreed that the character is unique- not through creation, but through what has been done with it.

 

The fact is, we've been in agreement for pretty much the entire thread, but because I don't agree for the same reasons and with the same ideas, you still feel the need to debate. However, the things that you are now debating make no actual difference to the debate, like the definition of knockoff, which is (again) semantics, and has no bearing on the debate.

Up until this point, you haven't added "in part" to that sentence every time you typed it. You've simply said Spawn is a knockoff of Deathlok and elaborated on your reasoning.

 

Besides, what kind of observation is that? Isn't it the same as saying as someone is, in part, ugly? Either they're ugly or they're not. There's no point in saying it's half true. I can say Batman is, in part, a knockoff of Superman. They have enough in common for that to be true but it's a jaded way of looking at comic book characters.

 

You keep insisting that Todd McFarlane has admitted that Spawn is a knockoff when he's never said any such thing. A new character can be based on a previously existing character without being a knockoff. I can base Strawberry-Eyes on Snake-Eyes and Strawberry Sortcake without claiming it's a knockoff. "Based" and "knockoffs" are not the same word. You really need to grasp that crucial fact.

 

As for semantics, I was referring to my statement that "many would agree with me that knockoff implies less than 25% new". I'm allowed to state my opinion after all. I still feel the need to debate because you're arrogantly insisting that Spawn is a Deathlok knockoff and next claiming I'm wrong when I make an equally silly comment regarding Dr. Strange and Superman.

 

The points I've raised are highly relevant to this discussion but you fail to answer my questions. I doubt any superhero is created without the slightest bit of inspiration. Why view Mr. Fantastic as an original character when he was created long after Plastic Man? The overwhelming majority of comic book characters are knockoffs if we adhere to your logic.

 

OmegaHarbinger

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Up until this point, you haven't added "in part" to that sentence every time you typed it. You've simply said Spawn is a knockoff of Deathlok and elaborated on your reasoning.

Um, no. I, and others, clearly stated that Spawn is a cross between Deathlok AND Venom, with supernatural elements (which would be why I said "Deathlok + Venom + Satan = Spawn" in a previous post). The only person who claimed that it was "just" Deathlok was Dolphin-Snagger, who was making a joke at first, but then added in Venom in a later post when you turned it into a debate.

 

Besides, what kind of observation is that? Isn't  it the same as saying as someone is, in part, ugly? Either they're ugly or they're not. There's no point in saying it's half true. I can say Batman is, in part, a knockoff of Superman. They have enough in common for that to be true but it's a jaded way of looking at comic book characters.

You are plainly ignoring the bulk of this debate. McFarlane created Venom. McFarlane worked on Deathlok. McFarlane created Spawn, and when broken down, he is almost EXACTLY what you'd get from a combination of those two characters.

 

You keep insisting that Todd McFarlane has admitted that Spawn is a knockoff when he's never said any such thing. A new character can be based on a previously existing character without being a knockoff. I can base Strawberry-Eyes on Snake-Eyes and Strawberry Sortcake without claiming it's a knockoff. "Based" and "knockoffs" are not the same word. You really need to grasp that crucial fact.

From dictionary.com:

knock-off: An unauthorized copy or imitation...

 

If you take two characters and blend them into your own character, without permission, you have indeed created a knockoff.

 

However, you need to pay attention. I stated long ago that, to me, "knockoff" and "based on" are the same thing (which, to a certain extent, they are), and neither carries a negative connotation. This makes it a matter of semantics. A knockoff (actually, it should be knock-off, but that's another debate entirely) is an imitation. An imitation must be based on something. Are you following the logic train yet? I'm not even saying you have to agree with my opinion; I'm only asking that you understand that this is where I'm coming from.

 

As for semantics, I was referring to my statement that "many would agree with me that knockoff implies less than 25% new". I'm allowed to state my opinion after all.

Indeed you are. It doesn't change the fact that you are arguing something that is not in the definition of the word, and thus is semantics.

 

I still feel the need to debate because you're arrogantly insisting that Spawn is a Deathlok knockoff and next claiming I'm wrong when I make an equally silly comment regarding Dr. Strange and Superman.

I'm insisting it because anyone with half a logical mind can see it. Dr Strange and Superman, on the other hand, are apples and oranges. If you'd said "Dr. Strange is Dr Fate's powers crossed with Superman's appearance" not only would you have a case, but I probably would have agreed with you.

 

The points I've raised are highly relevant to this discussion but you fail to answer my questions. I doubt any superhero is created without the slightest bit of inspiration.

Agreed. This is why my argument is that the creation isn't the original part of a character, but rather what is done with them after creation. However, this doesn't make the character "completely new" as you claimed in a previous post.

 

Why view Mr. Fantastic as an original character when he was created long after Plastic Man?

I don't. His powers were old and tired long before he was created. Human Torch got it even worse- he didn't even get an original name! It's what the creators did WITH those characters that makes them special and unique.

 

The overwhelming majority of comic book characters are knockoffs if we adhere to your logic.

And your point would be...?

 

Yes, I do indeed feel that nearly every character made since the 60's (and quite a few even in the 60's) were inspired or based on other characters, and thus can be considered knockoffs. Once again, it's the things the creator chooses to do with the character that determines whether or not they are unique. Spawn's focus on supernatural elements and redemption made him unique. Mr. Fantastic's scientific genius made him unique. The list goes on.

 

You insistance on challenging the semantics and opinions behind my side of this debate only illustrate that this has been settled long ago, and we continue to quibble over nothing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Up until this point, you haven't added "in part" to that sentence every time you typed it. You've simply said Spawn is a knockoff of Deathlok and elaborated on your reasoning.

Um, no. I, and others, clearly stated that Spawn is a cross between Deathlok AND Venom, with supernatural elements (which would be why I said "Deathlok + Venom + Satan = Spawn" in a previous post). The only person who claimed that it was "just" Deathlok was Dolphin-Snagger, who was making a joke at first, but then added in Venom in a later post when you turned it into a debate.

 

Besides, what kind of observation is that? Isn't  it the same as saying as someone is, in part, ugly? Either they're ugly or they're not. There's no point in saying it's half true. I can say Batman is, in part, a knockoff of Superman. They have enough in common for that to be true but it's a jaded way of looking at comic book characters.

You are plainly ignoring the bulk of this debate. McFarlane created Venom. McFarlane worked on Deathlok. McFarlane created Spawn, and when broken down, he is almost EXACTLY what you'd get from a combination of those two characters.

 

You keep insisting that Todd McFarlane has admitted that Spawn is a knockoff when he's never said any such thing. A new character can be based on a previously existing character without being a knockoff. I can base Strawberry-Eyes on Snake-Eyes and Strawberry Sortcake without claiming it's a knockoff. "Based" and "knockoffs" are not the same word. You really need to grasp that crucial fact.

From dictionary.com:

knock-off: An unauthorized copy or imitation...

 

If you take two characters and blend them into your own character, without permission, you have indeed created a knockoff.

 

However, you need to pay attention. I stated long ago that, to me, "knockoff" and "based on" are the same thing (which, to a certain extent, they are), and neither carries a negative connotation. This makes it a matter of semantics. A knockoff (actually, it should be knock-off, but that's another debate entirely) is an imitation. An imitation must be based on something. Are you following the logic train yet? I'm not even saying you have to agree with my opinion; I'm only asking that you understand that this is where I'm coming from.

 

As for semantics, I was referring to my statement that "many would agree with me that knockoff implies less than 25% new". I'm allowed to state my opinion after all.

Indeed you are. It doesn't change the fact that you are arguing something that is not in the definition of the word, and thus is semantics.

 

I still feel the need to debate because you're arrogantly insisting that Spawn is a Deathlok knockoff and next claiming I'm wrong when I make an equally silly comment regarding Dr. Strange and Superman.

I'm insisting it because anyone with half a logical mind can see it. Dr Strange and Superman, on the other hand, are apples and oranges. If you'd said "Dr. Strange is Dr Fate's powers crossed with Superman's appearance" not only would you have a case, but I probably would have agreed with you.

 

The points I've raised are highly relevant to this discussion but you fail to answer my questions. I doubt any superhero is created without the slightest bit of inspiration.

Agreed. This is why my argument is that the creation isn't the original part of a character, but rather what is done with them after creation. However, this doesn't make the character "completely new" as you claimed in a previous post.

 

Why view Mr. Fantastic as an original character when he was created long after Plastic Man?

I don't. His powers were old and tired long before he was created. Human Torch got it even worse- he didn't even get an original name! It's what the creators did WITH those characters that makes them special and unique.

 

The overwhelming majority of comic book characters are knockoffs if we adhere to your logic.

And your point would be...?

 

Yes, I do indeed feel that nearly every character made since the 60's (and quite a few even in the 60's) were inspired or based on other characters, and thus can be considered knockoffs. Once again, it's the things the creator chooses to do with the character that determines whether or not they are unique. Spawn's focus on supernatural elements and redemption made him unique. Mr. Fantastic's scientific genius made him unique. The list goes on.

 

You insistance on challenging the semantics and opinions behind my side of this debate only illustrate that this has been settled long ago, and we continue to quibble over nothing.

You're all over the map with your comments. You _have_ said Spawn is a Deathlok knockoff more than once without elaborating. It's a lie to say otherwise. You did not wrote that equation numerous times. I'm not ignoring anything here. You just arrogantly believe everyone needs to agree with you on this matter. Who cares if Spawn is composed of 3 totally different concepts. If I combine a cyborg nun, a time travelling chef, and a zombie cleptomatic together, most people would agree that the resulting creation is new. At least 90% of comic book characters are combination concepts so you might as well they're all knockoffs. That's a bleak way of looking at the world if you ask me.

 

"Knockoff" and "based on" are not the same thing. I'm not going to debate a topic where you're so clearly wrong. Doug Moench has said Moon Knight was influenced by Batman. That doesn't make him a knockoff. No creator in his right mind would belittle his work by saying my ideas are just knockoffs. I refuse to board your logic train when it's headed nowhere. The bottom line is that words were created for a reason and there's a difference between using one over another.

 

For your information, Dr. fate probably did not influence the creation of Dr. Strange in any way. It's far more likely that Dr. Droom (not Doom) was his inspiration. The fans don't decide who played a part in a character's creation. Only the people responsible for introducing a character can say what their thought process was behind inventing him/her. I have no interest in coming up with kooky reasons why every character is derivate if you take a little from character A and something else from character B. That's a waste of time. Nothing is 100% original.

 

Actually, I disagree with you completely regarding the original part of the character. If a character looks like another in a very significant way, I'd say he's a knockoff. I believe Quicksilver is a Flash knockoff but Hawkeye is not a Green Arrow knockoff.

 

Plastic Man and Mr. Fantastic are really nothing alike both in terms of personality and use of powers. Powers don't determine whether someone is knockoff. If that were the case then Bruce Wayne is a Lois Lane knockoff. What a chreator does with a character is totally irrelevant.

 

My point would be that it's stupid to insist characters that have only superficial similarities are knockoffs. If you think the Punisher and Wolverine didn't influence the creation of Deathlok, you are mistaken. We're not quibbling over nothing here. If you want to spread your jaded philosophy towards knockoffs, go ahead but I'll continue to poke holes in this incredibly flawed logic.

 

OmegaHarbinger

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're all over the map with your comments. You _have_ said Spawn is a Deathlok knockoff more than once without elaborating. It's a lie to say otherwise. You did not wrote that equation numerous times. I'm not ignoring anything here.

Really? Let's see what I had to say about that...

Spawn is Deathlok crossed with Venom.
No less an authority on the character than McFarlane himself has stated that Spawn is equal parts Venom and Deathlok.
Deathlok + Venom + Satan= Spawn. Guess what? Deathlok and Venom are still there.
No, I'm claiming Spawn is, in part, a knockoff of Deathlok... As we've noted several times in this discussion, Deathlok is only PART of what went into Spawn.
Um, no. I, and others, clearly stated that Spawn is a cross between Deathlok AND Venom, with supernatural elements (which would be why I said "Deathlok + Venom + Satan = Spawn" in a previous post).

 

You can't even be bothered to pay enough attention to your own argument to know who said what anymore. Not once did I claim that Spawn was based solely on Deathlok, despite your assertions to the contrary.

 

If you want to know how the characters are similar, Sagat already put together a comprehensive list of the more-than-coincidental amount of similarities. I refer you to that.

 

You just arrogantly believe everyone needs to agree with you on this matter. Who cares if Spawn is composed of 3 totally different concepts. If I combine a cyborg nun, a time travelling chef, and a zombie cleptomatic together, most people would agree that the resulting creation is new.

To a certain extent, I agree with you. The debate we are apparently having is WHY they are new.

 

At least 90% of comic book characters are combination concepts so you might as well they're all knockoffs. That's a bleak way of looking at the world if you ask me.

I'd argue that it's realistic, but that's an argument for another time. I never said I think less of any character for being "based on" or a "knockoff," or any other term we may or may not apply. In fact, I think I made it clear that just the opposite is true. I regard them based on what they do, not what the influence is.

 

"Knockoff" and "based on" are not the same thing. I'm not going to debate a topic where you're so clearly wrong.

So I'm supposed to fully support your semantic opinion that a knockoff has to be "less than 25% new," but you think it's "clearly wrong" that I have a semantic opinion that "knockoff" and "based on," if used without negative connotation, are similar enough to be used interchangably?

 

Well, it's always nice to know the level of intolerance I'm dealing with.

 

Doug Moench has said Moon Knight was influenced by Batman. That doesn't make him a knockoff.

Yes, yes it does. I again point you to the definition of the word.

"knock-off: An unauthorized copy or imitation..."

Moon Knight, as an unauthorized imitation, would be a knockoff. Does that make him less of a good character? Not at all, but you seem to think that the very word "knockoff" is a damning insult. That's the point I'm trying to make. It's only your opinion that it is that awful, thus the argument is semantic.

 

No creator in his right mind would belittle his work by saying my ideas are just knockoffs. I refuse to board your logic train when it's headed nowhere. The bottom line is that words were created for a reason and there's a difference between using one over another.

Once again, we come to the semantic argument about whether or not "knockoff" is a dirty word. I say no, you say yes. I'm willing to agree to disagree, but you insist on embarrassing yourself.

 

For your information, Dr. fate probably did not influence the creation of Dr. Strange in any way. It's far more likely that Dr. Droom (not Doom) was his inspiration.

Good point. I overlooked that one.

 

The fans don't decide who played a part in a character's creation. Only the people responsible for introducing a character can say what their thought process was behind inventing him/her.

Agreed. However, when creators fully admit to their sources of "inspiration," which is actually a common occurance these days, the character can very well be given a term that denotes it so. Just because I use "knockoff" out of simplicity is no reason you have to, or even agree with my use of the word... but I think I've already overstated that.

 

I have no interest in coming up with kooky reasons why every character is derivate if you take a little from character A and something else from character B. That's a waste of time. Nothing is 100% original.

I agree completely. I don't make it a hobby myself, and I don't mean to make it seem so.

 

Actually, I disagree with you completely regarding the original part of the character. If a character looks like another in a very significant way, I'd say he's a knockoff. I believe Quicksilver is a Flash knockoff but Hawkeye is not a Green Arrow knockoff.

...and you've lost me again. How is one comparison more evidant than another in this case? To be clear, I'm not trying to debate your assertion, I'm just curious as to your reasoning.

 

Plastic Man and Mr. Fantastic are really nothing alike both in terms of personality and use of powers. Powers don't determine whether someone is knockoff. If that were the case then Bruce Wayne is a Lois Lane knockoff.

The point I made in my previous post was that what made Plas and Mr Fantastic different was, in fact, their very unique personalities and thus, use of powers. Mr. Fantastic thinks along the linear, the analytical, and so he turns into simple shapes and objects. Plas is more energetic, sarcastic, and just a little crazy, so he uses his power to turn himself into actual objects and perform sight gags more often than anything else.

 

Comparing Bruce Wayne to Lois Lane is completely out of the blue. Lois doesn't have years of training to make her the world's greatest detective and one of the foremost masters of hand to hand combat. I'll admit that both have the same powers, but the two don't possess the same abilities at all.

 

What a chreator does with a character is totally irrelevant.
I think every single person who has ever read a comic book would disagree with that. What you do with the character is sometimes the sole difference. One need look no further than the Squadron Supreme or Watchmen for proof of that.

 

My point would be that it's stupid to insist characters that have only superficial similarities are knockoffs. If you think the Punisher and Wolverine didn't influence the creation of Deathlok, you are mistaken.

Well yeah, you'd have to be mistaken. All three characters were introduced in 1974, and at the time, Wolverine and Punisher were both intended as one-shot characters... but that's another history lesson entirely.

 

We're not quibbling over nothing here. If you want to spread your jaded philosophy towards knockoffs, go ahead but I'll continue to poke holes in this incredibly flawed logic.

If you'd done anything to poke holes in it, that statement would mean something. All you've gotten me to do is tell you the way I view originality in a character, and see how it differs from yours. I see nothing wrong with either point of view, and it saddens me that you can't accept the possibility. Did you ever think that maybe there are so many different characters, and even different takes on the same characters, for that very reason?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Guys this is why nerds are still burned at the social stake. relax, okay to be fair, you have, noticing the last date of the post but man...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Find Action Figures on Ebay

×
×
  • Create New...
Sign Up For The TNI Newsletter And Have The News Delivered To You!


Entertainment News International (ENI) is the #1 popular culture network for adult fans all around the world.
Get the scoop on all the popular comics, games, movies, toys, and more every day!

Contact and Support

Advertising | Submit News | Contact ENI | Privacy Policy

©Entertainment News International - All images, trademarks, logos, video, brands and images used on this website are registered trademarks of their respective companies and owners. All Rights Reserved. Data has been shared for news reporting purposes only. All content sourced by fans, online websites, and or other fan community sources. Entertainment News International is not responsible for reporting errors, inaccuracies, omissions, and or other liablities related to news shared here. We do our best to keep tabs on infringements. If some of your content was shared by accident. Contact us about any infringements right away - CLICK HERE