Jump to content

Magic 8 Ball

Members
  • Posts

    1,712
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Magic 8 Ball

  1. Actually, I read something ages ago in which a biologist/comic fan addressed this question. IIRC, he decided that Wolvie's little sailors would not be able to fertilize an egg, although the reasoning escapes me. I'll have to do a search and see if I can find that. Of course, this is speaking from a scientific standpoint on a comic book character. I think the person who said they just haven't come up with a decent story for it yet hit the nail on the head.
  2. ... and once again, old news. This was debated and settled weeks ago. Additionally, the white Sasquatch could be used to represent the Exiles Sasquatch, although the figure has red eyes, and that particular version has blue eyes. Frankly, I wouldn't put it past Toy Biz to have been trying for that Sasquatch, and just made a mistake.
  3. Actually, with the ability to split the BAF into 10-12 pieces, I'm hoping for the grandaddy of giant characters: Fin Fang Foom! I know, wishful thinking, but hey, I can dream.
  4. My store has never had any endcap/stand/etc of ML. Just three pegs that get restocked about twice a year. In the past two years, waves 4 and 5 lingered for over a year, then we got one case each of 6 and 7, then two cases of 8... now all three pegs are filled with what appears to be four or five cases of 9. I've never seen Best Of or 10 in the stores, and at this rate, I never will. I can't even find the Fearsome Foes boxset that's been out for months everywhere else. So you'll excuse me if I'm not terribly excited by the news of a Wal-Mart exclusive wave. Chances are good we'll either never get it, or we'll end up with one case that sells out within a day, then they'll never be seen again. Don't get me wrong, I want to be excited about this... but the fact that I'll probably end up paying ebay prices for the whole damn wave when there is a Wal-Mart down the road from me kind of quenches my excitement. I already have to resort to paying comic shop prices to get the ML that I should be able to find on the shelf. @grumpy@
  5. Really? Let's see what I had to say about that... 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. To a certain extent, I agree with you. The debate we are apparently having is WHY they are new. 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. 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. 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. 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. Good point. I overlooked that one. 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 agree completely. I don't make it a hobby myself, and I don't mean to make it seem so. ...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. 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. 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. 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. 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?
  6. You really don't want me to answer that last part. As to your other statements, I've answered them below, since your post simply repeats them. I'm not saying any of that, and I'll thank you kindly not to put things like that in my mouth. I'm not sure how I can make it any clearer that the sheer number of X-Men covers made it impossible for the vote to come out without a majority of X-Men covers in the final round. No one had to do anything to rig it once the contest started. Just count on the X-Men fans to vote X-Men, and figure that the lack of decent options would force even people who wouldn't normally vote X-Men to do so. As you can plainly see from the comments in the first page and a half of this thread, people did indeed do that. The only other option was to vote for crappy covers, or not vote at all. That's not a choice, that's a sham, and it disturbs me that you can't see it. To an extent, yes. I'm not saying every single Marvel character should have a say, but how hard would it have been to give one cover to each of Marvel's top groups/characters? No way should over 20 of the 32 covers been X-Men or related. I'm not debating the popularity of the X-Men, I'm debating that the number of fans they have justify X-Men covers making up over 60% of the "choices." One source? One definition from a dictionary and I'm suddenly without other resources? You know nothing of my background, education, or other sources which I have- as a result, please do not attempt to trivialize my statements in such a rude fashion. In the model of democracy, all positions would have equal say, and all voters an equal chance to voice their support. There is no denying that this was not the case here. There was a clear bias to the X-Men and it's related properties. There were cases in which another option was not made available. This is without going into the fact that the set voting days changed after the start of the contest! The rules changed after the contest began- how do you account for the "fairness" in that?
  7. WRONG, dude....sorry. The only thing that is needed is options, you need to go pull out your old politics text book. Anyways this is pointless, people voted for lots xmen covers (because they wanted)....there's nothing more to be said....I'm done. From dictionary.com: dem·o·crat·ic ( P ) Pronunciation Key (dm-krtk) adj. 1. Of, characterized by, or advocating democracy: democratic government; a democratic union. 2. Of or for the people in general; popular: a democratic movement; democratic art forms. 3. Believing in or practicing social equality. Yeah, equality isn't part of democracy at all... except that it is. You may point to the second definition and tell me that the X-Men are more popular than any other segment of Marvel's characters, and then I again point out that they simply have the most vocal fanbase, which Marvel is well aware of and takes advantage of. Not that they shouldn't- it's good business practice, but that doesn't change how annoying it is. In a case like this, where a vocal minority has more options than anytone else, democracy does not exist.
  8. You missed the part where I pointed out that in some cases, voting non-X-Men was NOT an option. This leaves your only option to vote X-Men, or not vote at all. That is not a democratic choice. In a democratic vote, all sides are presented equally, and in this case, there was an extremely clear bias toward X-Men. Marvel knows full well that the X-Men fans are the most vocal and most rabid of the fanbases. This is why a clear majority of figures made in ML have been X-related. I refuse to believe that they presented this joke of a contest without having some idea that it would turn out like this.
  9. 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. 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. 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. 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'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. 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. 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. 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.
  10. 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: 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.
  11. Why get mad at people for voting for what they know and like, I'm really that's how the world has always worked, period. The fact has been (and remains) that the X-Men are popular... but they aren't THAT popular. This "contest" was X-Men centered from the beginning. Marvel and Toy Biz both knew that the current market push for the X-Men, and the rabid fanbase, would pretty much seal a win for them, but they put out this joke of a contest anyway. There were some brackets in which something non-X wasn't even an option! Like I've said before, Marvel and Toy Biz know that X-Men is a cash cow, but there's no need to keep milking the same damn cow. I know plenty of X-fans who are getting burned out by the last few years of X-Men heavy merchandising, and the movie isn't going to make things better. There's a fine line between "give the people what they want" and "shove it down their throats."
  12. 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. 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.
  13. But they've broken and fixed regular Wolverine so much that he's barely recognizable... not seeing much difference here.
  14. I have a hypothetical question for you. If I combine equal parts Snake-Eyes and Strawberry Shortcake, is my new creation also a knockoff? I don't see how that's possible since a ninja commando and a doll don't logically mix together. That process creates something completely new. Likewise, Deathlok, Venom, and Spawn are each too different to be considered the same thing. OmegaHarbinger Any time you "borrow" from several elements to make something else, you're going to have elements of what was there before. Deathlok + Venom + Satan= Spawn. Guess what? Deathlok and Venom are still there. The result of something that is a blending and morphing of already-established characters can NEVER be 100% new and unique. Any time you cross those three things, you will inevitably end up with something that is close to Spawn. Once again, it is the responsibility of the creator(s) to DO something new with the creation, unique or not. Deathstroke crossed with Spider-Man yeilded Deadpool. He's a great character (when properly done), but he's still the sum of his parts. There are very few ways that you could cross those characters and not come up with Deadpool, but what has been done with him since his creation is what makes him a unique character. In other words, as far as creation goes, a character based on one or more existing characters is just that. They are, indeed, knockoffs. Once again, that isn't bad (at least not to me). However, it is what is done with the character after creation that determines whether or not they are "completely new." In the case of Spawn, his creation paints him as a knockoff, but what was done with him marked him as a character that could stand on his own.
  15. I'm not sure how you can make the assumption that Marvel's Scarecrow is a rip-off of DC's Scarecrow. Let's be honest: If you take a name like "Scarecrow" and apply it to a comic book villain, having never heard of the two existing characters, you'd come up with something very similar regardless. I mean, the guy's either going to look like a giant bird or, well, a scarecrow. I'm not trying to absolve Marvel of anything. For all I know, they did indeed know of DC's Scarecrow and base their own on it. However, I do have serious doubts that was the case.
  16. I don't see why nationality should play a major role in whether a character is a knockoff. So do you believe Luke Cage & Rage from the New Warriors are knockoffs? The other major aspect you're neglecting to mention about Deathlok is that the concept involves travelling back in time. Although Spawn deals with moving a few years forward in time from the protagonist's perspective, that's hardly the same thing. OmegaHarbinger There shouldn't be a debate, since McFarlane has stated that Spawn is based on Deathlok and Venom. Deathlok and Spawn commonalities; -both killed by own company -both brought back as living corpse -both African American -both seek revenge on the one man responsible (head of corp) who in both comics looks pratically identical -both have an elderly advisor = origin and story flow are the exact same Costume Venom and Spawn commonalities; -both have a living costume -costume can transform into whoever/whatever they want -both costumes are self defensive -chains = symbiote tendrils Not to mention the fact that McFarlane worked on both titles before leaving Marvel and creating spawn with no previous writing experience........ We're debating semantics here. Can a character be based on another without being an outright knockoff? I say yes. You apparently say no. One of my all-time favoirite VALIANT comic book heroes is X-O Manowar who was sometimes described as "Conan in a can" meaning a cross between Conan, the Barbarian and Iron Man. X-O was still a completely original title though. In my opinion, knockoff is a very demaning term. If a new character is a cross between 2 very different concepts, there's a good chance he's relatively unique. So I think it's unfair to say Spawn is a ripoff of Deathlok. By the way, Spawn is technically not African American. Al Simmons was African American but one of the unusual aspects of Spawn's origin is that he was resurrected in a white guy's body. OmegaHarbinger Whether or not Spawn is black or white is, to borrow your comment, semantics. Interesting character study, but completely irrelevent to the discussion at hand. Whether or not "knockoff" or "ripoff" are demeaning or insulting is also semantics and personal perspective. For example, when I place that label on a comic character, I am using it instead of phrases like "modeled after" or "in the spirit of." Others can (and do) mean insulting things when they say it, but that's thier POV. So in my view, a character can very easily be based on another without being a copy. However, that character is still, IMO, a knockoff, with the followup that (also IMO) a knockoff isn't necessarily a bad thing. No less an authority on the character than McFarlane himself has stated that Spawn is equal parts Venom and Deathlok. This, in my eyes, makes him a knockoff, but again, I'm not associating a negative connotation with that. I can let the character and the comics stand or fall on their own merit... but I understand that I'm somewhat unique when it comes to positions like that in topics like this. Again, this entire argument has become semantics.
  17. You LIE! Spawn is Deathlok crossed with Venom.
  18. The question is....In what year did DC's version originate? The Marvel one was in 63 I think. DC's Scarecrow made his first appearance in World's Finest Comics #3 from 1941. I've never read that story so I'd be interested to hear how scarey or tame he acted early on. The villains of today rarely started out as creepy in the Golden Age. If DC's Scarecrow was a joke for decades and Marvel's Scarecrow was much more eerie in 1963, who's the real ripoff? A question like this really needs the expertise of a DC Archives and Marvel Masterworks collector. OmegaHarbinger I'm far from an expert, but I seem to remember reading (in a recent Comics Buyer's Guide, I think) that DC's Scarecrow only made one golden age appearance. It's entirely possible that Marvel made thier Scarecrow, never knowing that there was a DC character with the same name until DC started using him again. In other words, Liefeld didn't create him, so it's probably not a knockoff. @loll@
  19. Says who, you? I mean maybe you don't like her, but a lot of people do....clearly. A lot of people like Daredevil. They could have bumped one of the 20 or so X-Men covers to give him a shot, don't you think? No, out of 32 choices, more than half are X-Men covers, or covers featuring X-Men. I know Toy Biz likes to milk the cow, but they need to realize they have a whole barn full of cows; no need to milk just one. Lame choices, lame voting system, lame turnout. Like I said, at this point I'm just hoping that this leads to a product that totally redeems my feelings on the matter.
  20. Yes. He premiered as an Iron Man villain, went on to fight Captain America a lot, then become a Ghost Rider villain for a while. You can find a up-to-date bio of him in the Horror 2005 Handbook that Marvel put out just a few weeks ago. Interesting tidbit: During the Marvel vs. DC series, the Scarecrow characters from both universes met up and went on a terror spree, until Spider-Man trounced them both for hasseling Lois Lane. Seriously. His only figure to date is in that box set. To be honest, it's a pretty sweet figure, too. The only online bio for him that I know of is at Advanced Iron, but the page isn't loading right now.
  21. You beat me to pointing out what a crock it is that all X-Men won. I'm not saying the X-Men don't have their fans or that they don't deserve them, but this is just ridiculous. In the other division, there is only one bracket that doesn't have an X-Men comic in it, but there is a cover with Wolverine on it... guess how I'm figuring this will end up? Lame. Just horribly, terribly lame. I really hope this ends up in a kickass product, because this isin't starting out well at all.
  22. As much as I'm underwhelmed by the selection of covers, I was still hoping to cast a vote. I find it incredibly sad that the bracket that was supposed to end today is still open, while the one that was to open is closed. Way to keep up with your own system there, Marvel!
  23. Most of these covers are just lame. If these are to be made into ML figures, a good portion of the characters on those covers have already been done, many of them not even needing a second go-round. I mean, honestly, Uncanny X-Men #213... MORE Wolverine and Sabretooth? Excuse me while I lose my lunch. Uncanny #136? Outside of Storm in that particular outfit, we have all of them, and I don't care enough to buy most of those characters again. If these are to be the Marvel Masterworks-style dioramas, most of them still suck. That Astonishing X-Men cover just wouldn't work well as a dio. I can't even imagine how they COULD get a dio out of Uncanny #213... And this is only the first bracket. I haven't even seen the second yet, and I'm already underwhelmed. I have to agree fully with those who are wondering how this is the best they can come up with out of 40 years of history...
  24. This is probably the wrong forum but didn't Liefield create Deadpool, Cable and alot of others for marvel? If he did then why does everyone always dog him out. Not that you did but everyone does. I know he draws ankles small as could be but he gave us those guys right? Also i am one of those guys who is pretty much a X-men, Hulk and Spidey guy but i would love to see this Gladitor guy, you are right he woould apeal to collectors and kids. i want a Sentury and if i would have to custom him to get it so be it. Also those were some nice cutoms. Well, the fact that Deadpool and Cable were basically lame knockoffs of other characters has a bit to do with it. I'm not saying that they haven't been turned into good characters, but the fact is that Liefeld often thinks he is being original when he just puts a new paint job and a lame origin on someone else's creation, and too many people have let him get away with it for far too long. The man can't write for beans, and he can't draw worth crap. After almost 20 years in the industry, his artwork should have changed and matured over the years. Unfortunately, it's only gotten worse. The only thing he's gotten better at is hiding the flaws. There are panels of his "art" that make me physically cringe. I'd say more, but that's the condensed version of a much longer rant that I probably shouldn't go into.
×
×
  • 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