$270 for 60's Batman Blu Ray set...sheesh..guess I won't be buying them in November like I thought. Hopefully they break them up into individual seasons soon so I can buy them one at a time.
$270 for 60's Batman Blu Ray set...sheesh..guess I won't be buying them in November like I thought. Hopefully they break them up into individual seasons soon so I can buy them one at a time.
I thought the same thing and will likely wait also. My understanding is that what's up for pre-order right now is a Special Edition and therefore includes bonus stuff (like a Hot Wheels Batmobile--which, btw, I found one at my local grocery store for $0.99 about a year ago!--and postcards). Also, $270 is the MSRP (manufacturer suggested retail price) and things on Amazon hardly ever sell for MSRP (it's down to $242.97 as I type this--Edit: I just checked again and it's down to $189.99 as I type this). I would love this and was excited for its release, but I wasn't clamoring for the need to have it released. I don't see myself spending over $100 for the entire series. Especially when it's on for an hour every week on me-TV.
One of stations on my DirecTV package has started airing Batman. I've got about 35 episodes DVR'd thus far. To my surprise, my 11 year old, who has never shown any interest in superheroes whatsoever, *loves* it.
Listening to the most recent episode tonight and as the geeks talk about their pull lists containing Marvel, DC and independents, it got me thinking: What makes an independent comic book/company independent? For example, is Image an independent company (I think the majority of people consider it independent) that sells "indie" books? Is it simply a "rights" issue with the creators, the creators own the property? I always kinda figured that "independent" meant not the Big Two--but I feel that while Image isn't as big as Marvel or DC, it is a "large independent company," whereas a "smaller" company like BOOM! is more independent (yet they publish so many licensed properties).
Listening to the most recent episode tonight and as the geeks talk about their pull lists containing Marvel, DC and independents, it got me thinking: What makes an independent comic book/company independent? For example, is Image an independent company (I think the majority of people consider it independent) that sells "indie" books? Is it simply a "rights" issue with the creators, the creators own the property? I always kinda figured that "independent" meant not the Big Two--but I feel that while Image isn't as big as Marvel or DC, it is a "large independent company," whereas a "smaller" company like BOOM! is more independent (yet they publish so many licensed properties).
Well at least now both DC and Marvel are divisions of larger media conglomerates. But in the past I think it referred to their dominate positions in the market.
As to a company like BOOM! being more of an indie than Image solely on the basis of size is false. BOOM! is one of a group of mid tier publishers like IDW and Dynamite and Dark Horse that lives and dies by it's licensed properties. They branch out sometimes but the bread and butter are in licensed books. They occupy a strange middle ground, not corporate owned but answerable to entities other than the consumers.
Valiant is currently an independent, with a focus on creating a viable alternative to the big 2's interconnected universe. But it also mimics they're structure so it's really a matter of scale. If X-O Manowar or Ninjak achieved the sustained popularity of a Wolverine or The Flash, they would cease to be independent.
And Image, and a few others like Oni, are out there with a model that is about giving creators space to do the kinds of books they want to do. Without corporate oversight, with as few people to answer to as possible. Creators have the most direct relationship with their readers with these books. That, for me is what determines whether or not a book or a publisher should be considered independent. The more indirect the relationship the less independent the book and probably the publisher. Image has simply been exceedingly successful with it as of late.
Another way of looking at it is that Marvel and DC are the only 2 publishers that provide something irreplaceable to the market. Their characters and universes can't exist outside their respective spheres for the most part. And the market would collapse if either just disappeared overnight. The market is completely dependent on the big 2. No other publisher can say the same. Creator owned books can and do move from publisher to publisher and licenses often change hands. There would always be a place for those books if Image or BOOM! vanished. But only Marvel can make a Marvel book and only DC can make a DC book.
Why is Michael Bay considered a hack, while Christopher Nolan is considered a genius?
As far as I can see, they're both competent, successful, and consistent.
I'm not a fan of either, so I'm genuinely curious why the one is considered so much better than the other.
I would concur with that. Both are internally consistent and enjoyable in their own right. I don't go to see a Michael Bay movie and expect to have my world view blown open any more than I expected that from John Woo movies. I expect Bay to give me big explosions, overwrought heartstring tugging summer popcorn flicks filled with pretty, and quirky people and that is exactly what he provide. Bay is the Jim Steinman of Hollywood. There's nothing wrong with a movie about Robots punching other robots in the face, all while riding on robot dinosaurs, so long as that's what you've set your expectations around.
Nolan takes a more artistic and contemplative approach. He may give me explosions, but he's going to do something to subtly mess with my perception along the way. Nolan is more like the Roger Waters or David Gilmour.
I'm unashamed to admit that I like me some Meatloaf and Pink Floyd.
It probably isn't fair or even accurate but in my mind Bay=explosions and things that go boom...Nolan actually makes interesting movies.
So, why is it not OK to do movies about explosions and things that go boom? Bad Boys was a reasonably fun movie. I didn't go see it in order to be educated or even have my mind blown. I went to see it to see Will Smith and Martin Lawrence drive fast cars, shoot people and make witty (ish) remarks (and for Tea Leoni). It satisfied everything that I was seeking out of the movie and it was ideal to have on while I was splitting my focus with other things.
Memento was an intricate and involved movie that made me think a lot about the film in retrospect. Again, something that I enjoyed a great deal, but less than ideal in any scenario where 100% attention can't be focused on the film. I'd argue the same for Inception and the Prestige as well.
While I've enjoyed things from both, I think that one could also describe them as unassuming and self-important respectively.
Why is Michael Bay considered a hack, while Christopher Nolan is considered a genius?
As far as I can see, they're both competent, successful, and consistent.
I'm not a fan of either, so I'm genuinely curious why the one is considered so much better than the other.
I think they are both hacks and in my mind aren't much different. I've said so in the past. Bay is solely concerned with the set pieces with little to no concern for the story that connects them. Nolan throws in a million of ideas and plot points together and tries to connect them instead of having an organically evolving story. Both leave their films seemingly bloated and aimless. Both have a disdain for the audience that is unpalatable. Bay thinks his audience won't care as long as something shiny is in front of them and Nolan thinks he has to hold his audiences hand because they just won't get it without his help. Michael Caine should just be listed as Exposition Narrator in all his films... Don't even get me started on Ellen Page in Inception.
I guess what it comes down to is that Bay doesn't care if he tells a story or not and Nolan doesn't really know how to.
My opinion, obviously.
Maybe it's because Nolan throws ideas and concepts around instead of explosions, which seems classier, or maybe it's because Wally Pfister is an amazing cinematographer and Hans Zimmer is a great composer that they give his films a sheen of quality. But it doesn't matter, they both make boatloads of money so they're both doing something right.
This was a special screening of Guardians put on by my FLCS.
The audience was 100% nerd.
Committed.
Career.
Nerd.
The first trailer is an extra-length, extra-sincere preview of a movie about the winningest-ever high school football team having to deal with the devastation of losing A GAME.
There was no heckling.
There was no muttering.
Cold.
Dead.
Silence.
A film about how tough it is to be a pedophile in today's society could hardly have been less well-received.
This was a special screening of Guardians put on by my FLCS.
The audience was 100% nerd.
Committed, career nerd.
The first trailer is an extra-length, extra-sincere preview of a movie about the winningest-ever high school football team having to deal with the devastation of losing A GAME.
There was no heckling.
There was no muttering.
Cold.
Dead.
Silence.
A film about how tough it is to be a pedophile in today's society could hardly have been less well-received.
Total.
Communal.
Disinterest.
Open letter to all the jocks who gave me swirlies in school:
The first trailer is an extra-length, extra-sincere preview of a movie about the winningest-ever high school football team having to deal with the devastation of losing A GAME.
That school is from this area and I was sick about hearing of them years ago, now I will have to put up with more of De La Salle High school B.S.
Why is Michael Bay considered a hack, while Christopher Nolan is considered a genius?
As far as I can see, they're both competent, successful, and consistent.
I'm not a fan of either, so I'm genuinely curious why the one is considered so much better than the other.
Nolan stretches storytelling styles, has made movies that require thought and play with and sometimes break the conventional “Three Act” prison of modern moviemaking. He is visually inventive, and draws excellent performances from his ac tors. Even Dark Knight Returns, which I felt was flawed storywise, had some great performances
Michael Bay is a solid 2nd unit director who knows how to stage action sequences, but can make decent actors seem terrible, and the plots are so generic, I seriously wonder if he tells the screenwriter “Whatever Final Draft tells you to do, do it and don’t ask questions.” And, his movies LOOK terrible. EVERY current cliché in filmmaking is on display: Over use of blue filters? Check. Actors walking away from explosions without looking back? Check. Hypercutting action sequences so you don’t know what is going on? Check. Making the humor as broad and overacted as if he’s playing to the back of a baseball stadium? Check.
Bay makes movies that at bio-degradable…a few months after they come out, they are forgotten because there’s nothing there. Nolan has made two genuine pieces of art in Memento and Inception, and you could argue The Prestige is art as well. Bay’s best reviewed movies are Bad Boys and Pearl Harbor…and they didn’t get good reviews.
Comments
My attempt at a YouTube Show.
http://www.wnyc.org/story/children-hospital-get-visit-superheroes/?utm_content=bufferc985a&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer
You can view it here.
or
Here!
Actually it became a separate forum, I used to help moderate it but that was a long time ago.
As to a company like BOOM! being more of an indie than Image solely on the basis of size is false. BOOM! is one of a group of mid tier publishers like IDW and Dynamite and Dark Horse that lives and dies by it's licensed properties. They branch out sometimes but the bread and butter are in licensed books. They occupy a strange middle ground, not corporate owned but answerable to entities other than the consumers.
Valiant is currently an independent, with a focus on creating a viable alternative to the big 2's interconnected universe. But it also mimics they're structure so it's really a matter of scale. If X-O Manowar or Ninjak achieved the sustained popularity of a Wolverine or The Flash, they would cease to be independent.
And Image, and a few others like Oni, are out there with a model that is about giving creators space to do the kinds of books they want to do. Without corporate oversight, with as few people to answer to as possible. Creators have the most direct relationship with their readers with these books. That, for me is what determines whether or not a book or a publisher should be considered independent. The more indirect the relationship the less independent the book and probably the publisher. Image has simply been exceedingly successful with it as of late.
Another way of looking at it is that Marvel and DC are the only 2 publishers that provide something irreplaceable to the market. Their characters and universes can't exist outside their respective spheres for the most part. And the market would collapse if either just disappeared overnight. The market is completely dependent on the big 2. No other publisher can say the same. Creator owned books can and do move from publisher to publisher and licenses often change hands. There would always be a place for those books if Image or BOOM! vanished. But only Marvel can make a Marvel book and only DC can make a DC book.
I'm asking this seriously.
Nothing snide meant.
Why is Michael Bay considered a hack, while Christopher Nolan is considered a genius?
As far as I can see, they're both competent, successful, and consistent.
I'm not a fan of either, so I'm genuinely curious why the one is considered so much better than the other.
Michael Bay doesn't.
Nolan takes a more artistic and contemplative approach. He may give me explosions, but he's going to do something to subtly mess with my perception along the way. Nolan is more like the Roger Waters or David Gilmour.
I'm unashamed to admit that I like me some Meatloaf and Pink Floyd.
Memento was an intricate and involved movie that made me think a lot about the film in retrospect. Again, something that I enjoyed a great deal, but less than ideal in any scenario where 100% attention can't be focused on the film. I'd argue the same for Inception and the Prestige as well.
While I've enjoyed things from both, I think that one could also describe them as unassuming and self-important respectively.
I guess what it comes down to is that Bay doesn't care if he tells a story or not and Nolan doesn't really know how to.
My opinion, obviously.
Maybe it's because Nolan throws ideas and concepts around instead of explosions, which seems classier, or maybe it's because Wally Pfister is an amazing cinematographer and Hans Zimmer is a great composer that they give his films a sheen of quality. But it doesn't matter, they both make boatloads of money so they're both doing something right.
Zach Snyder!
Oh.
My.
Goodness.
Such overwrought, beautifully-filmed drivel.
"Nothing in our Solar System can help us."
Excuse me?
Horse.
Shit.
Oh. And apparently--NEWS FLASH--the love between an father and daughter is very strong.
It looks like a Lifetime movie meets Field of Dreams in space.
This was a special screening of Guardians put on by my FLCS.
The audience was 100% nerd.
Committed.
Career.
Nerd.
The first trailer is an extra-length, extra-sincere preview of a movie about the winningest-ever high school football team having to deal with the devastation of losing A GAME.
There was no heckling.
There was no muttering.
Cold.
Dead.
Silence.
A film about how tough it is to be a pedophile in today's society could hardly have been less well-received.
Total.
Communal.
Disinterest.
You lost.
Sincerely,
Me
Michael Bay is a solid 2nd unit director who knows how to stage action sequences, but can make decent actors seem terrible, and the plots are so generic, I seriously wonder if he tells the screenwriter “Whatever Final Draft tells you to do, do it and don’t ask questions.” And, his movies LOOK terrible. EVERY current cliché in filmmaking is on display: Over use of blue filters? Check. Actors walking away from explosions without looking back? Check. Hypercutting action sequences so you don’t know what is going on? Check. Making the humor as broad and overacted as if he’s playing to the back of a baseball stadium? Check.
Bay makes movies that at bio-degradable…a few months after they come out, they are forgotten because there’s nothing there. Nolan has made two genuine pieces of art in Memento and Inception, and you could argue The Prestige is art as well. Bay’s best reviewed movies are Bad Boys and Pearl Harbor…and they didn’t get good reviews.