>>42999 >>43000 I ain't reading all that.

>>42999 >It's about the fact that there are stories that cannot be told in the same way without the histories. Not even just the literal histories, though those are important. It's also the history in the public consciousness. I'm calling bullshit because the Japanese NEVER seem to have this problem with the thousands of fantasy manga and anime that deal with the "generic" concept of a hero fighting and defeating the demon king. A concept started by the Dragon Quest video games, which has spawned innumerable tropes. And has gotten to the point that there are hundreds of series in the past decade alone that just start right at the end to pick up the story concepts in play and run somewhere else. If the public is already "in" on the joke, then you do not need to waste the time explaining it. Just continue on without an issue. >Because while some hateful saboteurs have wormed their way into legally controlling the character and trying to destroy what he stands for, they can't fully defeat the fact that Superman represents Truth, Justice, and The American Way. The fact that he represents those things (and more) is specifically why they target him. These characters and their histories are not just money printing machines. They actually mean something. No, they don't. Superman, Batham, Spoder-Man, Spawn, every single one of these characters are just scribbles on a page. They don't "mean" anything. They're just exist as power fantasies and escapist adventures. They can be well written and tell fascinating and thought-provoking stories, but that doesn't escape the fact that it's just a fictional character at the end of the day. None of them are real, and that's a bigger issue than anything else. That majority of people today find fiction to be more "real" than reality, and to such an extent that they take random quotes out of media and treat them as if it's just as "important" as real person. One I often hear people repeat is the Yoda quote from ESB "Do or do not, there is no try". Which, okay, yes, it is a great quote, it's something worth thinking about, but are you really going to let the guiding force in your life be a little green muppet from a story about space wizards fighting Nazis? Being that this material is fiction, you can make these characters say whatever you want, it can be something childish or the character expressing their unsolicited opinions on Isreal, but the reality that you have to keep coming back to is that these characters exist for one purpose: TO PROVIDE ENTERTAINMENT. So what is Superman's purpose: to entertain or to "represent" America? And if you're not being entertained, why don't we look somewhere else? >In fact, Nosferatu, despite trying to skirt copyright law, failed, and was ordered to be destroyed You keep bringing up Nosferatu as an "example" copyright issues when the reality of the situation is that Nosferatu had nothing to do with Dracula other than the premise. It was a completely separate story based on completely separate concepts with completely different origins: https://invidio.us/watch?v=a9xI1BErmnU No different than Stoker having copied the ideas for Dracula from Varney the Vampire. And probably furthering my argument that the ideas matter more than the character. The banning and censorship of Nosferatu only happened because of Stoker's widow being vengeful bitch desperate for cash, and ordering the destruction of the film as revenge for Prana-Films being unable to pay the "ransom money" she wanted because they had already spent everything making the film. >And would Castlevania really be better if Dracula wasn't in it? You mean replaced it with a generic vampire? Nothing would change. In fact, I actually get tired of vampire fiction having to find a way to "tie" itself back to Dracula instead of being it's own thing. Perhaps the most eye-rolling part of Rosario + Vampire. >You don't go after people doing stuff about Dracula, or Frankenstein, or Sherlock Holmes, or Hercules, or Thor, or tons of other pre-existing works. Because some of those fanfictions that came later are good. And some are terrible, like Thor: Ragnarok and Dracula 2000. And, as I just said, I actually do get tired of them constantly hauling these characters out of storage instead of making their own original characters. >Bad example. I'll give you that. >>43000 >But his bag of tricks is pretty iconic, and that's from the '50s TV series. That was the third attempt to reboot him. The first attempt was when Pat Sullivan was still alive and trying to make the shorts more like Disney's popular Merry Melodies series in order to retain viewership. The second attempt was a decade later under Burt Gillett, a former Sullivan and Disney staffer, and canned the series after three films. The series in the 50's was the third reboot of the character and happened after a two decade hiatus. Not counting the comics. >Yeah but I blame the fact that the execs and the people they hire don't actually fucking know or care about Superman at all. Perhaps that's an indication that we should all move on. If nothing else, so that he can at least be put to rest. >The version that became known worldwide can fly and shoot x-ray beams out of his eyes, and he works at the Daily Planet with Perry White and Jimmy Olsen, and he fights Lex Luthor (who is a bald guy) and Brainiac and General Zod and Bizarro and Mr. Mxyzptlk and Metallo and Parasite. He was raised by Ma and Pa Kent in Smallville, Kansas, and he lives in Metropolis, not Cleveland. He gets his powers from a yellow sun. He's friends with Batman and a member of the Justice League of America. Can you name ANY of the adaptions in the past 20 years that have managed to include all those elements without fucking it up? >but I'd argue that all of those things are pretty core elements of the character, and none of them existed in Action Comics #1. I'd argue that Superman is more than a strong guy who jumps hard and simps for Lois Lane. Those things are important, but there is a lot more that was added over time that I would say is a legitimate part of the character now. You're missing the point. Why not start from square one and try to actually build things up properly? The only reason the MCU became a juggernaut in the first place was them taking the time to actually make the movies. Same thing with the DCAU. Stop trying to include "everything" all at once and actually give some time to lay a foundation for a story and characters. >Omni-Man is not Superman. You sure it isn't because Invincible is a shit series by default? >You can make a new guy with most of the same history, and the suit, and the name, and it will be closer, but it still won't be exactly the same without the elements of the history that are missing now. Does it actually matter as long as you can tell a decent story with you're "Not-Superman" character?

>>43002 >are you really going to let the guiding force in your life be a little green muppet from a story about space wizards fighting Nazis? Would it make you feel any better if they attributed the quote to the person who wrote the dialogue rather than Yoda?

>>43004 >>43002 The whole point of fiction is to inspire through fantasy. Teaching lessons. If the quote inspired you then it's doing it's job as more than just mindless entertainment.

>>43002 >And has gotten to the point that there are hundreds of series in the past decade alone that just start right at the end Name ten that aren't Frieren. >but are you really going to let the guiding force in your life be a little green muppet from a story about space wizards fighting Nazis? Hehehe, people actively take inspiration from worse these days. Worse media, worse characters, worse statements. There's probably one or two shitty things that guide and inspire me that I can't think of right now. >So what is Superman's purpose: to entertain or to "represent" America? Who says it can't be both? What started as one became the other through a stroke of luck on the writers part that Supes became a cultural icon. Although for WB his purpose is to be a street whore for money. >Perhaps that's an indication that we should all move on <Corpo being retarded means we should all bury the memory of a defining part of modern Americana >Does it actually matter as long as you can tell a decent story with you're "Not-Superman" character You underestimate the power of autism. His autism specifically.

>>43002 >I'm calling bullshit because the Japanese NEVER seem to have this problem with the thousands of fantasy manga and anime that deal with the "generic" concept of a hero fighting and defeating the demon king. That's not true. Some do want to continue with the specific elements of a specific pre-existing work. You may or may not like them, but Japan is no stranger to fanfiction, or doujin, which are simply more accepted there, to the degree that the creators sometimes get hired to work on official entries. Dragon Ball is one of the biggest franchises in the damn world, currently run by an ascended doujin creator, and while I wouldn't argue Dragon Ball Super is the greatest thing ever, he does specifically do stories specifically building on previous elements that the original author mentioned but didn't focus on, like how the Moro arc actually dealt with the fact that Mr. Buu is basically the Daikaioshin and South Kaioshin merged. Pretty cool fanfiction concept, even if the execution was pretty meh in the end. >every single one of these characters are just scribbles on a page. They don't "mean" anything. Now who is the one against art? Yes, characters do mean something. Especially characters that have become iconic and part of the wider pop culture. >they take random quotes out of media and treat them as if it's just as "important" as real person. And when that media is by something you accept as culturally significant, you accept it. Of course you wouldn't want me to compare George Lucas to William Shakespeare, but you don't care when people quote lines from Hamlet or Othello. The specific line you complain about Yoda saying was by a real person, and his name was George Lucas. Say he's not as good if you want, but the principle remains the same. People quote from fictional characters and always have. Hell, Socrates may have been a fictional character, as well as many other people from that far back (and further) in history. But it doesn't matter who said an idea. What matters is the idea itself. It doesn't matter if the author expresses the idea through a fictional character. Plato expressed many ideas through the character of Socrates. Those ideas are still just as valid as if he expressed them in another manner. >these characters exist for one purpose: TO PROVIDE ENTERTAINMENT. This is a false dichotomy. Characters can exist for many purposes, and entertainment is but one. You can argue it's the most important purpose, and I may agree, but well written stories, fiction or non-fiction, are both entertaining and enlightening. Of course, some bad actors take this as an invitation to do bad propaganda, but the problem with that is that it is neither entertaining nor enlightening, as much as they may claim it's the latter. >No different than Stoker having copied the ideas for Dracula from Varney the Vampire. And probably furthering my argument that the ideas matter more than the character. The story and characters of Nosferatu are so similar to Dracula that it's blatantly transparent which characters are which, even with their names changed. But fine, we could use tons of other examples. Many of Shakespeare's most famous works are adaptations of earlier works. But does that disqualify Romeo & Juliet from being legitimate literature? Obviously not. It's literally a fanfiction adaptation of a pre-existing story. But it's well done, and that's what matters. It also doesn't matter that it's Romeo, a fictional character, who says "a rose by any other name would smell as sweet." The idea is still legitimate, and it was expressed elegantly in that play. >You mean replaced it with a generic vampire? Nothing would change. I disagree. While obviously Castlevania isn't the most story-heavy series out there, I think it's cool that it's Dracula, and that it uses elements like Alucard (and since Son of Dracula is still under copyright, I'm glad Universal didn't care enough to sue). Bloodlines tying in more directly to the original novel is also pretty neat. While the plot isn't the most important thing here, I do think it adds a bit, and the overall work would suffer a bit if it had to change for legalistic reasons. >And some are terrible, like Thor: Ragnarok and Dracula 2000. Yeah, but I don't care. I'd rather have both Dracula 2000 and Nosferatu than neither. I enjoy all sorts of very different adaptations of Dracula. Tons are fucking garbage, but I'd rather take the good with the bad instead of just having none of them. >That was the third attempt to reboot him. That's adding to my point, not refuting it. It's not the original version. It's not even close. And while we're at it, the version of Felix everyone thinks of is not at all the version in the earliest cartoons. The earliest appearances of Felix look totally different from the design that became iconic. >Perhaps that's an indication that we should all move on. If nothing else, so that he can at least be put to rest. It wouldn't be a problem if the character and concepts weren't monopolized by a corporation. If everyone could just compete to make their own products with the concepts, then we'd get good ones with the bad, and the bad would be rightly ignored, while the good ones could still be enjoyed. >Can you name ANY of the adaptions in the past 20 years that have managed to include all those elements without fucking it up? No. But I wouldn't expect one adaptation to do all of them. Like one movie couldn't use all those villains, but could do a couple. These are elements introduced over decades of comics. But I kind of like Smallville. It did most of the elements well, but admittedly fucked up Lana Lang, Mister Mxyzptlk, and sort of Jimmy Olsen and Parasite. Okay, there are like three seasons in the middle that were pretty lame, but it got good again by the end. >The only reason the MCU became a juggernaut in the first place was them taking the time to actually make the movies. Same thing with the DCAU. Stop trying to include "everything" all at once and actually give some time to lay a foundation for a story and characters. I'm not disagreeing with any of this. It's kind of my point. If someone would adapt things correctly, like the Pre-Endgame MCU, or the DCAU, or like many anime adaptations of manga, then things would be a lot better. >You sure it isn't because Invincible is a shit series by default? Just for the record, I don't like Invincible either. I have gotten pretty into Squadron Supreme recently (for another example of a series about "not-Superman"), but I think Invincible sucks. >Does it actually matter as long as you can tell a decent story with you're "Not-Superman" character? I didn't say you can't tell A good story with that character, but you can't tell ALL good stories with that character. There are certain stories that would rely specifically on elements very specific to the real character and not a copy. It's a shame to let legalistic bullshit stop those stories from being told. Art shouldn't be restricted like that.

>>43007 >Name ten that aren't Frieren. Never heard of that but there's Helk, The Devil is a Part Timer, Maoyu, Maou Kyoudai, This Time I will Definately Be Happy!, Daimaou no Off, Don't Cry Maou-chan, The Another World Demon King's Successor, Uchi no Maou ga Tenshi de tsurai, and I Couldn't Become a Hero, So I Reluctantly Decided to Get a Job. I tried to limit myself to manga and not include onshots like Maou to Yuusha and Yuusha Goikkou no Kaerimichi, or hentai like Tensei Maou and Maou-gun no Moto Kanbu ga Yuusha ni Makete Mesu ni Sareru Hanashi >Who says it can't be both? Because if it's to represent America, then the purpose of the material is to preach, which no one finds entertaining. >>43008 > Especially characters that have become iconic and part of the wider pop culture. Except those characters were not designed with that concept in mind. The characters were designed for the purposes of making money by selling fantastical stories to people. >And when that media is by something you accept as culturally significant, you accept it. Can you rephrase that? >Of course you wouldn't want me to compare George Lucas to William Shakespeare, but you don't care when people quote lines from Hamlet or Othello. I never heard anyone quote Shakespeare for any purposes out of the blue. >The specific line you complain about Yoda saying was by a real person, and his name was George Lucas. Okay. And the context of that line is to tell a story for a movie about space wizards in order to sell toys. >People quote from fictional characters and always have. And the people that tend to do that turn out to be absolute pricks because they do not exist in reality. I can understand someone using scenes or quotes from a movie to explain a concept in Layman's terms, but to just quote a character and use THAT as the basis for your argument tells me everything I need to know about your personality. >But it doesn't matter who said an idea. Yes, it does. >What matters is the idea itself. It doesn't matter if the author expresses the idea through a fictional character. Yes, it does. To put it another way, fiction exists as a hypothesis, reality and history exists as the experiment. Do you rely upon the hypothesis or the experiment when creating your view of the world? >Those ideas are still just as valid as if he expressed them in another manner. No, they're not. If you're going to run with that logic, then we need to achieve absolute zero or the world is going to be underwater like we see in Waterworld and Trancers, if it's not already past the point of return like in The Day After Tomorrow. And stop all development of robots so we can prevent a robot takeover like we see in The Terminator and I, Robot. Oh, and while we're at it, also consider stop making fictional characters because Cool World and Who Framed Roger Rabbit shows that cartoon characters can come alive and kill people. Do you not see how retarded this gets? >but well written stories, fiction or non-fiction, are both entertaining and enlightening It is impossible for fiction to be "enlightening" because it exists as a fantasy at the end of the day. You can argue that material like the 1970's series Emergency! had a positive effect on people's awareness and treatment in regards to medical and rescue services that they previously didn't know about, but the show's purpose was to entertain at the end of the day. Compare that to similar series like the currently ongoing Chicago franchise under NBC or Disney's 9-1-1 franchise who's goal is to preach to the view, to "enlighten", that "these people care". That's not to mention instances of people treating media like 1979 film The China Syndrome as actual "fact" regarding what happens if a nuclear reactor melts down when there's nothing actually scientific about the movie whatsoever. If you want to know why schools since the 90's have shoved literally retarded and autistic children into classrooms, blame Forest Gump as you had a bunch of parents that saw that movie and were inspired, were "enlightened", to believe that their mentally challenged child who needed real help to learn was just as capable as a regular kid in going to public school. The only "enlightening" thing media can actually do is make me get off my ass and do my own research if I'm interested enough in the subject. That's it. >The story and characters of Nosferatu are so similar to Dracula that it's blatantly transparent which characters are which, even with their names changed. It's not the same story. Nosferatu is heavily invested in Germanic and Slavic folk lore, unlike Dracula just copying from Varney and adding a "European invasion" aspect. However if we're to ignore that, you're proving my point that the ideas and concepts matter, not the characters. >Many of Shakespeare's most famous works are adaptations of earlier works. But does that disqualify Romeo & Juliet from being legitimate literature? Again, you're proving my point that the ideas matter in regards to the story, not the characters. Also which is a better story: West Side Story or Romeo + Juliet? >I do think it adds a bit, and the overall work would suffer a bit if it had to change for legalistic reasons. Why? It's just a name. >It wouldn't be a problem if the character and concepts weren't monopolized by a corporation Except they're not. The concept of an superpowered baby crashing to Earth is not a monopolized concept. We've seen it in everything from parodied in Megamind to James Gunn doing his own "Evil Supes" story with Brightburn to even Disney's version of Hercules. The idea of an invulnerable strongman coming to save the day has been done in everything from Tarzan to John Carter to David Dunn (Unbreakable) to Hego (Kim Possible) to Mr. Incredible to Samaritan/Nemesis (Yes, I recently saw that, it was a good movie). Take the concepts and do your own thing. > If everyone could just compete to make their own products with the concepts, then we'd get good ones with the bad, and the bad would be rightly ignored, while the good ones could still be enjoyed. But you can do that right now. >I didn't say you can't tell A good story with that character, but you can't tell ALL good stories with that character Then you make another new character to tell the stories that you couldn't with that character. And then make another character because you're still limited by the previous two characters, and so one. Or default to what Osamu Tezuka did, which was have the "characters" exist as tropes: https://infogalactic.com/info/Osamu_Tezuka%27s_Star_System >There are certain stories that would rely specifically on elements very specific to the real character and not a copy After a certain point, does that honestly matter? There's only so much "important" detail one must consider before you're just beginning to waste your time. >Art shouldn't be restricted like that. Art thrives because of restrictions, not the lack there of. If you cannot use Superman, then you make your own Superman "except with Blackjack and hookers".

>>43007 <Name ten that aren't Frieren >anon proceeds to do so I bet you really thought that was a gotcha, didn't you?

Full body look at The Leader in Captain Falcon.

>>43013 1000 years in MSpaint

>>43014 Jimmy Negatron!

>>43000 >>43000 Making Garet and Garett out to be distinct characters is spilitting hairs. They're different versions of the same guy, except the Fox Features original was a cop and the Charlton iteration was an archeologist/egyptologist, and for the record Charlton's run with the Blue Beetle wasnt a failure, they were just cheap and continued to reprint the stories Ditko had already provided them before relegating Ted to a back up in their Captain Atom title. Really after a certain point all the Charlton Action Heroes would appear in Space Adventures for whatever reason. Ted was still very popular, arguably their biggest capeshit success, but ultimately that success was still very niche. You have to remember Charlton was as low rung a comic publisher as you could be back in the day. They'ed print any material they could get their hands on just to keep the presses running and avoid wasting ink. >far as I know, Garret is straight up not canon to any later versions, except for one Post-Charlton, Pre-DC story where they retconned both Dans to be the same guy reincarnated Sounds like Bill Black's Sentinels of Justice. Probably one of the best uses of the characters outside of their tenure at charlton. I still resent DC for buying them out, because just like they've done with all their other acquisitions, at best they've sat on them for the last 40 years. With the alternative being more edgy crap like the Morrison series or Watchmen itself. Anyways the reality that the action heroes are free to use means we should use them. In fact, alot of Ditko's charlton contributions are PD. So when I spotted this one great fan art teaming up all of Ditko's biggest name characters, it inspired me to do the same with what was availible to me. Crazy to think Ditko produced 2 seperate Dr Strange clones for two different low rung publishers (charlton's Dr Graves and ACG's Mark Midnight, who later went onto be pastiched by Moore himself in the 1963 miniseries as "Johnny Beyond"). Ultimately this is a shrinking market catering to an evermore niche audience. We're at a point where transformers comics are outselling the entirety of DC's output these days. Maybe there's some truth to your claims regarding the popularity of these characters, but if we dont try to move the needle nothing will change. Atleast Austin Mcconnell and Spikeytortoise are giving things the old college try. God knows project superpowers is all but dead these days.

>>43009 >Except those characters were not designed with that concept in mind. That doesn't matter. They still have come to mean something. I've had teachers like you who told me the works of Dickens wasn't a real artist because he was working for a page rate. Of course so is practically every artist. Now is there a spectrum, where some things are more artistic than others? Maybe. But they're all art. That doesn't mean all art is good, but it's all art. And sometimes different readers can get different things out of the same art. Here's a quote... <Some people can read War and Peace and come away thinking it's a simple adventure story. Others can read the ingredients on a chewing gum wrapper and unlock the secrets of the universe. You know who said that? Lex Luthor, in Superman: The Movie. Don't like that it was from the mouth of a fictional character? Then attribute it to its writer, Mario Puzo, who also wrote The Godfather. Does The Godfather count as art to you? Or does it not since Puzo and everyone else involved got paid for it? >And when that media is by something you accept as culturally significant, you accept it. >Can you rephrase that? I understand we are talking about funnybooks and it's not typically considered high art, but I'm willing to bet that there is art you do respect. My point is that I don't think the source of the idea matters. What matters is the idea. Sometimes these funnybooks express interesting ideas in interesting ways. >I never heard anyone quote Shakespeare for any purposes out of the blue. I do. I use that "rose by any other name" line somewhat often. I've also found myself quoting "to be or not to be" and other parts of that soliloquy sometimes, in my more emo moments. Honestly, I quote Shakespeare somewhat often. Of course, I happen to be a high school English teacher. >Okay. And the context of that line is to tell a story for a movie about space wizards in order to sell toys. That's part of the context of the line. The other part of the context is to impart a message. I believe it was Aristotle that said stories are ways of conveying lessons. Some can take this too far and make their stories preachy and not entertaining, but of course the point of making it a story and not a lecture is to entertain and thus add additional forms of impact. There is point to all art. That's not to say all points are as important or correct, but there is something to learn from everything. See that Lex Luthor quote above. Also, I don't think what we can get out of a story is necessarily what the author intended, or consciously intended. "Death of the author" frequently gets taken too far as well, but I can get a lot out of reading Sonichu, even if it isn't at all what CWC intended. The man poured his retarded soul out, and we can learn a lot from it, even if he failed to learn anything from the various stories he is fictionalizing and conveying to us. >I can understand someone using scenes or quotes from a movie to explain a concept in Layman's terms, but to just quote a character and use THAT as the basis for your argument tells me everything I need to know about your personality. I agree that the fact that a quote has been said before doesn't make it more legitimate. The point of quoting other sources is because sometimes somebody already articulated an idea very effectively, and you might as well use that, and it's only right to cite your source (though sometimes this is done implicitly, if the line is so famous that it's expected that your audience knows the source). >Yes, it does. No it doesn't. If Person A and Person B both say the same idea, it's either correct or incorrect both times. 2+2 always equals 4, no matter who says it. I won't stand for someone coming to 8chan of all places and trying to argue for subjective reality. "Your truth" is bullshit. The truth is the truth regardless of who says it. >Yes, it does. To put it another way, fiction exists as a hypothesis, reality and history exists as the experiment. Do you rely upon the hypothesis or the experiment when creating your view of the world? Saying something isn't an experiment. And again, an author saying it in an interview doesn't make it more or less valid than writing it into a character's mouth. It's either a good or interesting idea or it is not. Some ideas can be retarded, or are just hypotheses and should be tested, but that has nothing to do with who says them. It's absolutely retarded to say that a character saying something is a hypothesis but the author saying it IRL is an experiment. It's so stupid that I don't think it's actually what you meant to say, and that you just didn't realize what a dumb analogy this was. >No, they're not. If you're going to run with that logic, then we need to achieve absolute zero or the world is going to be underwater like we see in Waterworld and Trancers I said they're just as valid as if he expressed them in another manner. If Kevin Costner came out and said that Waterworld is real, it wouldn't make it real. The idea would be just as valid no matter who says it or how. In that case, not valid. Of course, obviously the point of fiction is not to convince you it is literally real, it's to communicate other ideas in more elegant ways than just lecturing to you. Are all those ideas correct? No. They're be just as correct or incorrect if the author just said them out loud in a lecture though. Having a character say them doesn't make them any more or less correct than they would be otherwise. This is an absolutely insane claim for you to make. Again, it's so insane I'm pretty sure it's not what you intend to say, but you've dug yourself in to a ridiculous position and don't know how to get out. If Robert Zemeckis came out and said that he believes cartoon characters are real in another dimension, Chris Chan style, it wouldn't mean the idea is correct. It would be precisely as correct as it was when he directed Who Framed Roger Rabbit. Of course, he wasn't trying to convince you that Roger Rabbit was real. But the movie does contain other ideas I think Zemeckis probably does believe, such as things about dealing with grief and prejudice, with Eddie Valiant's character arc. Yes, it's a silly movie, but it has some ideas I bet Zemeckis thinks are legitimate. And maybe you disagree. But whether he says them through the movie or says them through a lecture, they're just as correct or incorrect either way. They don't suddenly become more correct if he comes out and just tells you the themes explicitly. >It is impossible for fiction to be "enlightening" because it exists as a fantasy at the end of the day. I know what site we are on, and I know how long I tend to rant about comic books, but dude, this is legitimately Rain Man-tier autistic. Whoops. Made an allusion. Now you'll complain that Dustin Hoffman has a completely different form of retardation in real life. >Examples of shows you don't like I agree that I also don't like their messages and (mostly) how they're expressed (often much too preachy, not good entertainment). The same ideas would be just as wrong if the writers just came out and lectured them to you directly. The fact that they tell them through stories doesn't make them any more or less correct. You must not realize that you're accidentally saying that if the writers of those modern SJW Chicago shows just came out and told you "white people are evil!" it would somehow be more correct than them telling it through their badly written stories. No, it would be just as stupid and incorrect. Maybe even more stupid since they wouldn't be able to obfuscate it with at least a slight layer of entertainment. At least then it might be a stupid idea expressed with a tinge of elegance. (Then again, those shows aren't very good, so maybe not.) >The only "enlightening" thing media can actually do is make me get off my ass and do my own research if I'm interested enough in the subject. That's it. There is a thing called philosophy. Sometimes you can get ideas that aren't about things you need to research. Now philosophies can be stupid, but when Yoda says "Do or do not, there is no try," he isn't making a statistical claim that nobody ever fails ever, he's just saying that confidence can sometimes increase your odds of success. The film said it in a much more elegant way, however. Not just with the dialogue, but the context. >Nosferatu is heavily invested in Germanic and Slavic folk lore, unlike Dracula Is Dracula not? A huge part of it is about Transylvanian folklore. What do you think makes Nosferatu more like that? Because it takes place in Germany? I don't think that alone changes much. That would be like me saying Dracula is heavily invested in English folklore just because it takes place in England. I don't recall the other elements that you're saying make it more invested in German and Slavic folklore. >However if we're to ignore that, you're proving my point that the ideas and concepts matter, not the characters. Nosferatu is straight up Dracula. They changed the name, but he's pretty damn similar. The plot is extremely similar barring a few aspects (which also get changed in other famous and official adaptations that are readily accepted as Dracula).

>Why? It's just a name. The name carries history and connotations. It's only one element, and changing just the name wouldn't change it entirely, I don't think it would completely ruin it, but it adds a bit. Juliet could be called something else because Romeo didn't fall in love with her because she was famous. She didn't have a long history that informed Romeo's view of her (in fact, when he learned her history, he loved her in spite of it, which was precisely the point). Dracula does have a long history that informs our view of him and why we like the character. Changing the name, like Nosferatu, changes a bit (but maybe not enough to not make it blatantly a ripoff). That said, Castlevania does also have Orlok show up as a boss, and he has slightly different connotations than Dracula (even if only slightly) and that makes it kind of cool. >Except they're not. Superman is more than each of the individual elements you mentioned. He's more than even the amalgamation of the elements you mentioned, because there are more elements involved. Each of the characters you mentioned is also meaningful in their own ways, as each is somewhat unique. Do you understand that DC publishes comic books based on tv shows based on comic books? Reading a comic about DCAU Superman or Batman '66 is different than reading about the mainstream versions. Even those characters, based on the comics characters, are different. To the fans who know the histories, the histories are important and unique stories can be told with those specific histories. Even the different versions of the characters carry different connotations. Kal-L is the original Superman, not the main Superman. The two have met and there are stories about how they're different. Jay Garrick is different than Barry Allen, despite both being The Flash, having the same powers. Wally West is also different, and his costume is nearly the same as Barry's. His origin story is extremely similar, too. But he's a totally different character and allows for totally different stories. >But you can do that right now. Not freely. Do certain stories with certain concepts and you get sued. >Then you make another new character to tell the stories that you couldn't with that character. Unless the stories you want to tell involve a specific character with a specific history and specific connotations. Again, there are stories that can be told with Jay Garrick and not Barry Allen, or Kal-L but not Kal-El, or Batman '66 but not Earth-One Batman, or DCAU Harley Quinn and not New Earth Harley Quinn. Batman Beyond is a great example of something that they've tried to get to work in the mainstream DCU many times, but it just doesn't work, because a big part of the appeal is how it ties in to specific elements of the DC Animated Universe specifically. >Or default to what Osamu Tezuka did, which was have the "characters" exist as tropes: Yeah, that's all well and good. I didn't say there weren't infinite ideas out there. But I did say that it's bullshit that some ideas can be limited by corporations buying the government so that they can sue you over telling a story. There are stories that can't be told because of this. Can you tell other stories? Yes. I never argued that. But there shouldn't be any stories that can't be told. Yet there are because of these laws. >After a certain point, does that honestly matter? There's only so much "important" detail one must consider before you're just beginning to waste your time. You're on a comics board right now. Comics have spent about 40 years now being turbo-autistic about very specific old continuity, making stories that are completely incomprehensible to normalfags. But they're fun for the autists who do learn enough to understand them. And it should be legal to write good stories like this, especially now that the corporations have been taken over by SJWs that hate what the characters and their histories represent (things like masculinity, America, and literally the very concept of heroism, which the SJWs were writing articles complaining about on Comics Alliance 15 years ago before they took over), and seek only to destroy them. If someone else has a good story to tell about the relationship between Ted Kord and Booster Gold that is specifically set between two particular issues of Justice League International, they should be able to publish it. If someone can put together their own Superman movie that actually understands the character, they should be allowed to do that without getting sued. Or maybe their stories would suck. But I don't care, because I can ignore them if they suck. Yet I could enjoy them if they were good. So we should be allowed to see them. >Art thrives because of restrictions, not the lack there of. If you cannot use Superman, then you make your own Superman "except with Blackjack and hookers". I sympathize with the idea that restrictions can help to make better art, but I think legalistic restrictions from corrupt corporations and governments aren't the types of restrictions we should embrace. Even then, all restrictions should be able to be ignored sometimes. I'd argue that sticking to canon is usually very important. It's a restriction that can be used to make great stories. But sometimes there are good stories that completely ignore canon. They should be allowed to be made too. All stories should be allowed to be made. Let the audience be the judge. >>43046 >Making Garet and Garett out to be distinct characters is spilitting hairs. They're different versions of the same guy, except the Fox Features original was a cop and the Charlton iteration was an archeologist/egyptologist There was also the whole thing where their origin stories and sources of their abilities were totally different. No later Blue Beetle stories ever reference the super-vitamins that Dan Garret used to take. The fact that Dan Garrett used the scarab to get powers is very important. >Charlton's run with Blue Beetle wasn't a failure They did several runs. Their initial run with Dan Garret apparently wasn't doing well enough, so they rebooted him as Dan Garrett, complete with new origin story and job, then that didn't take off, so they very quickly killed him off and replaced him with Ted Kord. The Ted Kord stuff is the stuff by Ditko, and it's excellent, and yeah it was that Charlton was quite mismanaged at the time that got it cancelled, but the point remains that Garret and Garrett are different, and Garrett wasn't even very successful in his own run, but is remembered because he was incorporated into Kord's backstory, while Garret (who was a much more successful character in is time) was not, and is thus now forgotten. I would commend an effort to try to do stuff with the Charlton Action Heroes. They're some of the more popular public domain characters out there. But that's largely because of what DC has done with them, including Watchmen, but also other stuff. Go and try to make your own Blue Beetle movie about Garret, Garrett, or Kord. You think they won't sue your ass? They just put out a Blue Beetle movie recently. You might be legally right, but you'd better be prepared to fight Warner Bros. in court over it. And they know this, and they bank on it. As for the other characters, like say Mark Midnight, if you read the stories and something in them really speaks to you and you think you have a story that could really say something specifically with that character, that's all well and good. Fewer people have ideas about those characters because fewer people care about them. Part of what makes a character mean something is their cultural impact, and certain characters had more than others. But then maybe something just speaks to you, and that's all well and good. One thing I actually don't like is when characters are re-used just for greed. Like when DC bought Charlton, their initial uses of the characters were not very much like the original versions at all. They all got heavily retooled. Captain Atom was retooled so heavily it basically became a whole different thing. The Question, while acclaimed, was practically a deliberate effort to insult Ditko's version. Blue Beetle was used as just a Spider-Man clone. But all that said, the DC versions also ended up becoming interesting over time. I like Ditko's Blue Beetle for a very different reason than DC's Blue Beetle, though I like both. So in the end, even though I don't like what DC did with the characters initially, I don't mind that the stories exist. I like that they exist. But I think that more should be allowed to exist. They shouldn't be monopolized by a corporation.

>>43049 There is a dogshit cheap indie movie featuring a black Dan Garett (golden age cop) made circa 2011 that tried to be a TASM mockbuster. Sure it was titled "Agent Beetle" but the point it can be done. Even Dynamite has their own version of Dan they've taken to calling "Big Blue" aswell as a new addition to the beetle mantle in "The Scarab" who was some sort of middle eastern war vet with a super suit. I also saw a book following the adventures of Dan's daughter once simply titled Beetle Girl. Just like with the original Billy Batson-Captain Marvel, you can use those characters and adapt their PD stories, you just cant use DC trademarks to advertise your product.

>>43048 >I've had teachers like you who told me the works of Dickens wasn't a real artist because he was working for a page rate. That's not how it works. Literally any activity can be considered a work "art". Japan even has an entire culture based around the artistic expression of just natural life and imperfection called 「侘寂」, which is where we get their renowned tea ceremonies and zen gardens. >And sometimes different readers can get different things out of the same art. I'm not denying that. What I'm saying is that art is not reality. Fictional characters are not real. They are tools that exist for the purposes of telling a story. Sometimes those stories can be childish and simple like Frog and Toad, other times they can be extremely complex narratives spanning entire galaxies such as the entire Warhammer 40k franchise. The problem at the end of the day is that they are not real. <And if you're going to argue that fictional characters are just as important as living breathing humans who lived, bled, and died on this planet so that others could survive; then I guess this scene from Duckman is the authoritative subject on how we should treat the Second Amendment. I mean, it even has James Madison. >My point is that I don't think the source of the idea matters. What matters is the idea. Sometimes these funnybooks express interesting ideas in interesting ways. Yes, they can, and I'm not going to deny that. I brought up the example of Emergency! earlier doing exact that with the show being the reason why it's common for rescue services to now have paramedic units. But that also shows the difference. A lot of people saw that show, then proceeded to look into the real world logistics behind how it would be possible to create such a unit in their own municipality, and then decided if the benefits outweighed the costs. Compare that to all the endless petitions, signed by millions of people, to get governments to fund the real world construction of a Mobile Suit or the Death Star for no other reason than "Just because". Even then, compare how, two months ago during the election, the Harris campaign put all their money behind hiring the Avengers actors to do a promo for her, meanwhile Trump didn't have to pay squat to have the "real world Avengers" of Elon Musk, RFK, Tulsi Gabbard, etc. backing him the entire way. >Spoiler I know. Looking forward to becoming a U.S. citizen without having to leave? >The other part of the context is to impart a message. Yeah, on Luke. >I believe it was Aristotle that said stories are ways of conveying lessons. I find history to be a better lesson than stories. >Some can take this too far and make their stories preachy and not entertaining, but of course the point of making it a story and not a lecture is to entertain and thus add additional forms of impact. Does the story exist AS the point, does the point exist to further narrative of the story, or does the story exist to help dramatize the point? The only example I think of a story doing the latter is The Richest Man In Babylon, where Clason spends an entire chapter explaining the real world historical contexts of Babylon, the people's mindsets, and what they achieved and that ties in to the fables he created. Meanwhile I don't see anyone making Superman stories for the purposes of making some grand statement or lesson about the world, unless you count Zack Snyder's films. >If Person A and Person B both say the same idea, it's either correct or incorrect both times. No, it's not. Socialists have done a fine job of proving just that when they take words like "democracy" and "social" to mean "democracy only for the enlightened" and "interacting with anything that exists". This isn't an argument of "objective truth", it's an argument of who is presenting the idea and why are they presenting it. >And again, an author saying it in an interview doesn't make it more or less valid than writing it into a character's mouth It does as it establishes the author's mindset behind the character's actions. For example, I wasted nearly two hours of my life watching Funny Games, came away wondering what Hell the point was behind everything that happened, and look up later to see the director of the film saying that there was NO point to the movie. And the moment I saw that, every ounce of intrigue I had regarding the "social commentary" and fourth wall breaking in the movie was rendered moot as the creator himself confirmed that it's just white noise. >It's so stupid that I don't think it's actually what you meant to say, and that you just didn't realize what a dumb analogy this was. Do you daydream? Wouldn't you rather be doing what you're doing in those daydreams? If so, what's stopping you? A lot of stories exist as daydreams of what could be, what could have been, or what something absolutely cannot be. They're a fiction so there's no limitation on what you can do in the story. Reality has limitations however as we live in an objective and practical world. That's what I mean by fiction being the hypothesis and reality being the experiment. >I said they're just as valid as if he expressed them in another manner. The film The Day After Tomorrow is based upon the Art Bell and Whitley Strieber's book The Coming Global Superstorm, where both guys unironically argue that the disasters, that you see in the film, will unironically and literally happen if we don't stop global warming. So which does a better job "expressing" the idea: a scientific book explaining their theories in detail or a Pedowood Blockbuster production? >obviously the point of fiction is not to convince you it is literally real Some people actually do that. That's the entire excuse behind why the 1619 Projects gets to produce literal fantasies about "black oppression" that never actually happened and get away with declaring it as being "historical fact". Not to mention all those Holohoax novels treated as "fact". And numerous other historically fictional works. >Yes, it's a silly movie, but it has some ideas I bet Zemeckis thinks are legitimate. Not in the way you would think. For example, the character of Jessica Rabbit. If your only experience with the character is through the movie, you think that she exists for the purposes of being a stereotypical femme fatale in a bog-standard mature noir story for nostalgic adults. However in a recent interview where Zemeckis talked about how a follow-up film is never going to happen under the current Yidsney admins, he also discussed that Jessica made that movie because it showed that you can have a mature story and characters for families of all ages without every having to sanitize or talk down to the kids in the audience. >You must not realize that you're accidentally saying that if the writers of those modern SJW Chicago shows just came out and told you "white people are evil!" it would somehow be more correct than them telling it through their badly written stories It certainly would alleviate the suspicions on if they're true believers or just that stupid. That's also the reason why I'm against hate speech laws on principle. It has nothing to do with someone shouting "Nigger" all day and it being "just a word", it has to do with the fact that I would rather people be honest than be afraid to express their true thoughts. That way I don't have to waste my time actually learning about a person before finding out that they're a genuine assholes that I need to avoid. Probably would still have to do that, just not as often. >Now philosophies can be stupid, but when Yoda says "Do or do not, there is no try," he isn't making a statistical claim that nobody ever fails ever, he's just saying that confidence can sometimes increase your odds of success. The think the fact that I can disagree about that being the "point" of the phrase in the context of the movie proves the argument that I'm making. Be honest, who is less ambiguous in the "point" behind a statement said: the fictional character Yoda or real life people like Jim Rohn and Matsuoka Shuzo? >The name carries history and connotations. How about you make your own history? That's what the Legacy of Kain series did. >To the fans who know the histories, the histories are important and unique stories can be told with those specific histories. To be honest, I used to be one of those guys, then I stopped caring because of how they kept taking series away from good writers, or throwing in shit writers. Hearing about what happened to the Ghost Rider comic series, where they originally meant to have Jesus be the literal Jesus before firing the series writer and his replacement changing the plot to have Jesus being a demon imposter, pretty much completed my long road of disenfranchisement towards American comics and a lot of modern iterations in general. And I haven't really looked back much since plunging myself into manga (Which are handled by the same creators from start to finish) or searching out the source material to a lot of modern material (Because I want to experience the original story, not someone's interpretation of it). You can talk about the long complicated histories made by a cavalcade of writers all you want and how that makes the characters more colorful in the possible stories one can create. I just have no interest in it because I just see someone else possibly coming in and shitting all over the hard work and effort you put in to "fix it". And I think your time would be better spent making something that you wholly own rather than something that you're effectively renting from a temperamental owner who can remove you for any petty reason they want. >Batman Beyond is a great example of something that they've tried to get to work in the mainstream DCU many times, but it just doesn't work, because a big part of the appeal is how it ties in to specific elements of the DC Animated Universe specifically. Or it could be because of the fact that it's depicting a future where Bruce eventually gives up the cowl, and it doesn't work since Batman has been constantly in print for nearly the past century and will likely still be in print a century from now unless something changes. >There are stories that can't be told because of this. Can you tell other stories? Yes. I never argued that. But there shouldn't be any stories that can't be told. Yet there are because of these laws. Those laws exist for your benefit too. Where you can write your own original shlock, make money off of it, and prevent other people from stealing your characters and story (For a limited time). I'm not saying the Copyright and the Legal system is perfect (It does need some serious reform), but don't try to bullshit me with how it's "limiting" your creativity. Even if copyright was reverted today to how it original was (Which was copyright expires after 20 years, which means anything made before 2005 is public domain), you'd still be bitching about "Muh restrictions" because you wouldn't be able to tell your Super-Sons /sm/ fanfiction as Damian Wayne and Chris Kent didn't exist until 2006. Just take what's available right now and make your own shit. Stop wasting your time on companies who are never going to hire you and hate your guts. If you want to write autistic stories about capeshit with complicated histories, how about you create own characters with their own complicated backstories, or create some stories using the characters already in the public domain? How about some autistic cross-over series about the Scarlet Pimpernel, Zorro, Spring-Heeled Jack, and Jimmie Dale all being initiates of some secret masked hero society. >I sympathize with the idea that restrictions can help to make better art, but I think legalistic restrictions from corrupt corporations and governments aren't the types of restrictions we should embrace. Why not?

>>43051 >That's not how it works. Literally any activity can be considered a work "art". Yes. We agree. My point is that it doesn't matter if it was made for profit, as practically all works are. Many of them are still good. Hell, Transformers is a straight up toy commercial, but I'll defend adamantly the artistic value of many Transformers stories. Are they children's stories? Yes. But Optimus Prime means something (as Hasbro learned when they saw the response to his fate in the original movie). Simon Furman in particular has written a lot of great stories with the series. Beast Wars has some really interesting stuff going on, especially regarding Dinobot. Beast Machines, if anything, tries to get a bit too lofty and forgets its toy commercial roots a bit too much (and thus also had toys that suffered and didn't match the show at all), and some of the biggest complaints are that its themes are too complex for the intended age group. Because Transformers is literally a toy commercial, but there is also art in there, and I'd even argue that there is a lot of good art in there. Same goes for GI Joe, whose Marvel series by Larry Hama was incredibly influential. Though I hate Bronies, I'm sure there is something in My Little Pony that is legitimately good art, despite being a toy commercial. You mention Warhammer, and all those novels are also just toy commercials. I could go on and on. >Fictional characters are not real. Nobody argued otherwise. You got from "an idea is just as legitimate not matter what form it's expressed in" to "fiction is real." The strawman at play is so bizarre that it doesn't even remotely resemble the actual point that was made. >fictional characters are just as important as living breathing humans Again, this doesn't even remotely resemble anything that was said in this conversation. The whole point of a strawman argument is that it needs to at least sort of resemble the actual argument, so that they can be confused. >ideas should be tested before being implemented No shit. Again, this is unrelated to the argument of if an idea somehow becomes more legitimate if said by an author directly or by a character the author wrote. >Spoiler I wish. I wish I had TDS so I could believe that his obvious hyperbole and negotiating tactics were literal. At least he is helping fix the immigration problems even outside his own country. Absolute hero. >Yeah, on Luke. You think the people making the movie weren't aware that it was going to have an audience? >I find history to be a better lesson than stories. History is a story. I know you mean you value nonfiction over fiction. I'm not arguing about that point, though. I'm saying fiction has value. Art has value. It is a valid and valuable form of communication. And you agree or you wouldn't be on a board set up to specifically discuss it. >Does the story exist AS the point, does the point exist to further narrative of the story, or does the story exist to help dramatize the point? You can only think of one example of the latter? There are tons. Unfortunately it's become most of modern media, as they've taken things that used to have more entertainment value and made them purely about pushing the message. Of course a good story has a balance, and a great one does both effectively. >Meanwhile I don't see anyone making Superman stories for the purposes of making some grand statement or lesson about the world, unless you count Zack Snyder's films. Again, there are tons. Superman has his share both of preachy bullshit as well as actual artistic works that happen to also effectively convey a message. Superman in particular really draws this type of "meaningful" story since he is so meaningful in American culture. Captain America gets it a lot, especially since his meaning is even more obvious, but Superman has been much more popular throughout most of their shared histories. For popular examples of Superman being used to represent things, look at The Death of Superman (and particularly the "World Without a Superman" part that comes immediately after), Kingdom Come, and Final Crisis (especially the "Superman Beyond" spinoff issues which are actually the most important issues, which helps to make the story terribly confusing, but good if you do read the whole thing). I also love Lex Luthor: Man of Steel. (It's not quite as possible, but as it's from the villain's point of view, a very significant point of the story is examining what Superman represents.) Again, I could go on and on. Superman in particular is really rife with this, to the point that it's honestly often a problem. >Socialists have done a fine job of proving just that when they take words like "democracy" and "social" to mean "democracy only for the enlightened" and "interacting with anything that exists". Then you're pointing out that they're actually presenting alternative ideas using the same words. They use Newspeak and expect normalfags to think they're speaking Oldspeak, in order to trick them. But the actual ideas being presented are different. The point still remains that an idea is either legitimate or not. The ideas you're complaining about are wrong when they're presented in Newspeak, and they'd be just as wrong if someone else presented them in Oldspeak. Some normalfags would just find it more obvious. Now, this brings up the point that fiction can be effectively used to make points in manipulative fashions. Some might say that's even the point. But I'm not about to discount all of art and its power to express meaning due to that. It can be manipulation, but it can also simply be effective communication. Of course these things are tricky, and some will try to take advantage of a blurry line between them to do one while saying they're doing the other, but in practice it's pretty easy to tell the difference. Propaganda is like pornography. I know it when I see it. But if you want to argue some people are stupid and don't know it when they see it? Well yeah I might agree. >It does as it establishes the author's mindset behind the character's actions. For example... So you didn't see a meaning, then asked, and got confirmed the author didn't intend one. Looks like you found the same meaning from both sources. And it isn't more or less legitimate either time. >That's what I mean by fiction being the hypothesis and reality being the experiment. Then what you're arguing isn't about fiction v nonfiction, it's about talk v action. Sure. That was never what I was arguing about, and I'm not about to argue against it now. >The film The Day After Tomorrow is based upon the Art Bell and Whitley Strieber's book The Coming Global Superstorm, where both guys unironically argue that the disasters, that you see in the film, will unironically and literally happen if we don't stop global warming. And you clearly don't think that the idea is any more legitimate in the book than it is in the film. You think it's an incorrect idea in the movie, and it doesn't suddenly become correct just because you read it in a nonfiction book. (Yes, an opinion book is still nonfiction, even if it's wrong. The point is that they're saying it out of their own mouths and not the mouths of characters.) >So which does a better job "expressing" the idea: a scientific book explaining their theories in detail or a Pedowood Blockbuster production? I haven't read the book, but probably the movie, because at least it has a modicum of entertainment value. Now you could argue it's manipulative, but it's getting the idea across somewhat effectively. Or maybe not, because everyone saw it as what it was, a Roland Emmerich film, and didn't really take it more seriously than Godzilla. >Some people actually do that.

[Expand Post]

You know what I mean. You mention things published as "nonfiction" that are lies. We're talking about Superman. Nobody writing Superman intends to actually make you believe there is an alien flying around saving people from disasters and supervillains. You're simply talking about liars, and that's my point. The ideas are wrong even if published as "nonfiction." They're either right or wrong, regardless of if said by a real guy or a fictional guy. >Roger Rabbit talk There. So there's another point the film expressed without the director having to just come out and say it. And he did come out and say it decades later, and the idea is just as correct or incorrect both times. Either he's right that you don't have to talk down to the kids, or he's wrong. Although ironically in this case, the fiction is precisely the "experiment" you were talking about, while him saying it in a nonfiction manner (an interview) would be more of a hypothesis. He had an idea he could just say. By putting it in the film, he put it into action and tested it. >It certainly would alleviate the suspicions on if they're true believers or just that stupid. I personally don't care about that anymore. But to stick to the point, you clearly agree with me that their ideas are stupid in the show, and they'd be just as stupid if they just stated them in interviews. It doesn't matter if a character says them or the writer says them under his own name. The ideas would be either right or wrong both times. >Be honest, who is less ambiguous in the "point" behind a statement said: the fictional character Yoda or real life people I never argued fiction was less ambiguous. Often (maybe always) making it more ambiguous is the point. But ambiguity has nothing to do with if it is correct or not. Stating an idea less ambiguously doesn't make it more correct. The idea's the same. It's just how it's expressed. >How about you make your own history? That's what the Legacy of Kain series did. That's what a lot of series did, but it's not what we're arguing about. We're arguing about if it's morally legitimate for corporations (or anyone, really) to ban the creation of certain works of art.

>longrunning comics (and other works by multiple authors) sometimes get fucked up No argument there. But sometimes the later authors are also good, or even make things better. Sometimes they take ways previous writers fucked things up and take the broken pieces and then make something better than before. Justice League International exists because corporate wouldn't let them use the members of the Justice League that people actually liked, so they were stuck with characters that DC was in the process of cancelling throughout their other series, like Booster Gold, Blue Beetle, Fire, Ice, etc.. So the creators went in a different direction with it and it became a fan favorite, and those characters that were previously failing to sell became fan favorites. JLI didn't sell the best either, but it at least stuck in the minds of fans, and years later got more popular with a more successful Booster Gold solo series, taking the character's history and turning a character that was originally a pretty significant failure into a much bigger (if still somewhat cult) success. Blue Beetle is another very similar case. DC kind of fucked up their initial attempt at Blue Beetle, after buying him, but JLI turned it around (even if it made him very different than Ditko's version) and made him a fan favorite, and later appearances in series like Booster Gold, or the series with the next Blue Beetle, made him even more popular. And I'd argue they did so because they included good stories. Yes, even Jaime Reyes, something near Patient Zero for "kill off white guy and replace him with anyone but a white guy," at least had a few good stories. (I also like the story where Ted dies. And I shouldn't keep mentioning Green Lantern, but it's the perfect example. Corporate saw Green Lantern failing and then did a rather unpopular move by making him a villain and replacing him with a new guy. Ten years later Geoff Johns comes around and is tasked with fixing it, and he didn't just fix it, he made the series more popular than it ever was. >manga (Which are handled by the same creators from start to finish) Well, sometimes they are. Not always. It's more common than American comics, but it's not like they don't have their cash cow franchises that they just keep going forever. >or searching out the source material to a lot of modern material (Because I want to experience the original story, not someone's interpretation of it). Yeah, I would usually recommend that, but I'd also recommend other stories that aren't by the original authors. I'd definitely recommend the original Hal Jordan Green Lantern stories, but I'd also recommend Geoff Johns' stuff. I'd recommend Lee and Kirby's X-Men, but a lot of people wouldn't, and would say to jump right to Giant-Sized X-Men, like 15 years later. I love everything Ditko did, but I would also strongly recommend Romita Sr's Spider-Man (and many other creators' later Spidey stories), and I've already mentioned that I appreciate much of what DC did with Blue Beetle and Question (even though, yes, they're quite different). >I just have no interest in it because I just see someone else possibly coming in and shitting all over the hard work and effort you put in to "fix it". Sometimes it's about the journey and not the destination. Or sometimes it's about the particular story you're reading and not some other story someone does later. Do you really think Dragon Ball GT or Super or Daima ruin the original manga? Do you really think any of the shit WB has been doing with Watchmen in the last decade ruins the original comic? When I'm reading old Justice League stories from the '70s, I might know in the back of my mind that some later writer said "actually, secretly, in the background of this story you're reading, Dr. Light raped Sue Dibny." But really, if I don't like that, it's easy to ignore. I actually like Identity Crisis though. I know a couple of years ago they did a story where they said that in one story from the '60s where Superman got captured by some pseudo-Soviet general, that Superman got buttraped while in the gulag. But I find it very easy to go back and read the original stories with what the specific author of those stories had in mind, and ignore sequels I don't like. On the other hand, if there are sequels I do like that I think add something good, I can remember them and they can add additional depth. Grant Morrison's Batman was good at this. It's a good run overall, and it's heavily about tying in to many old comics from throughout Batman's whole history. It makes reading those old comics even more interesting. >And I think your time would be better spent making something that you wholly own rather than something that you're effectively renting from a temperamental owner who can remove you for any petty reason they want. Sure. That's why so many creators go indie. The biggest example is of course the Image exodus of the '90s. But that isn't my point. My point is that there are certain stories that could exist that rely specifically on these specific characters and histories. Those stories should be allowed to be told. >Or it could be because of the fact that it's depicting a future where Bruce eventually gives up the cowl, Yeah but Batman will always be set in "The Present" and Beyond will always be set in "The Future." But one example of a problem is that Beyond doesn't really work if Damian Wayne exists. Return of the Joker, one of the most popular parts of Beyond, also relies heavily specifically on the DCAU version of Tim Drake. Sure, he's basically just Jason Todd, but their fates are very different and the movie relies upon that. You can't really reconcile the two easily. There are also more bits that tie in with Bruce Timm's fucking weird shipping of Bruce and Barbara, and other later stuff with later DCAU crossovers that tie into Beyond and people like it. The history of the whole DCAU is a big part of the appeal of Batman Beyond. It doesn't work the same if you try to swap out DCAU Bruce for New Earth Bruce. >Those laws exist for your benefit too. Where you can write your own original shlock, make money off of it, and prevent other people from stealing your characters and story (For a limited time). Give it a try and see what happens. There are very few cases where the average guy beats the corporation. Sometimes an already rich and famous guy wins, but we aren't all Harlan Ellison. But also, I don't care about other people using my characters. That isn't a threat to me. If you wanted to argue that copyright in regards to literally copying the work (as in reprinting the book) is something you want to defend, that would be a different argument. On a site where software piracy is so popular, you might have a hard time with that argument too, but at least it would be a different argument, and I can sympathize with at least a claim that it's less ridiculous than the claim that other people telling stories with characters you invented should be illegal. >you'd still be bitching about "Muh restrictions" because you wouldn't be able to tell your Super-Sons /sm/ fanfiction as Damian Wayne and Chris Kent didn't exist until 2006. While I take great offense to Jon Kent being made gay, I do think people should be allowed to publish those stories, if they so wish. The problem is that Warner Bros. monopolizes the creation of the stories, and then they decide that Jon Kent has to be gay now, always. >Just take what's available right now and make your own shit. I'm not saying not to do this. I'm saying it should be allowed to publish stories about whatever you want. >how about you create own characters with their own complicated backstories Because maybe the story in mind relies specifically on the history and the cultural significance of a figure that already exists. You're okay with characters being public domain, and I'm saying there is no moral difference between telling your own Zorro stories and your own Batman stories. There shouldn't be a legal difference, either. >Why not? Because I don't think state-enforced monopolies are good for the market. You might as well say that totalitarian governments are good for the people because they force the people to become more creative in ways to get around the government. It's literally what's happening here. You're saying people should become more creative in order to get around the government.

>>43063 >The strawman at play is so bizarre that it doesn't even remotely resemble the actual point that was made. Probably because it isn't a strawman? Where's the actual confusion coming from? >Again, this doesn't even remotely resemble anything that was said in this conversation. You were arguing that Superman represents American, and that we absolutely cannot "abandon" him because of how the people in charge of DC treat his character. >Again, this is unrelated to the argument of if an idea somehow becomes more legitimate if said by an author directly or by a character the author wrote. You are the only one trying to focus on that being that point. >You think the people making the movie weren't aware that it was going to have an audience? That absolutely did, which is why Yoda's phrase was not "intended" for the audience to be taken as a piece of philosophy. It was intended to advance a story about space wizards. >And you agree or you wouldn't be on a board set up to specifically discuss it. What's the actual point you're trying to make? This conversation has gone from an argument that I started that these character exist for the purposes of entertainment, and now, at least from what I'm understanding, you're arguing that we should treat these characters as just as valid as if they actually existed. I have not denied at any point in this conversation that art has value. What I HAVE denied is that art has the same value and place as history. >You can only think of one example of the latter? There are tons. Aside from probably Ayn Rand, who's entire philosophies exist within her fictional works, can you name anybody? Even Orwell's works are less a critique of Socialism and more him satirizing the Fabians about their utopia. >Again, I could go on and on. Superman in particular is really rife with this, to the point that it's honestly often a problem. So I was incorrect about my assertion earlier, as Superman "always" existed as a preachy character? If that's the case, how is it a surprise to anyone that the films reflect the comics exactly? >So you didn't see a meaning No, I saw material presented to me in a connected fashion for a narrative, was confused as to how they relate, and then told I had wasted my time and brain cells thinking about it as none of it actually matters. >You know what I mean. No, I don't. >Nobody writing Superman intends to actually make you believe there is an alien flying around saving people from disasters and supervillains. No, but they'll demand for me to believe that in a universe where an alien is flying around saving people from dinosaurs (Mentally read that wrong the first time) and supervillains that the "most powerful" thing he can do is hand his cape to some no-name nurse. And the most traumatic thing that happened in his life was being raped by a Rooskie. >But ambiguity has nothing to do with if it is correct or not. Yes, it does. >Stating an idea less ambiguously doesn't make it more correct. The idea's the same. It's just how it's expressed. No, it's not. The more ambiguous a statement is expressed, the greater room for error in interpretation that can occur. Take a simple statement like "I want to be rich". What does that actually mean? In the most "basic" level it could mean someone with lots of money. But there's multiple paths towards having lots of money, such as starting a business, gambling, hoarding, etc. Even then, how long do you want to be "rich" for, a moment or for the rest of your life? Or even what kind of "richness" as you can also be "rich" in knowledge or have a "rich" relationship with your friends and family. All ambiguity does is give you a pass to never have to actually say anything or clarify your statement. >We're arguing about if it's morally legitimate for corporations (or anyone, really) to ban the creation of certain works of art. That isn't the argument. But if you want an answer to that argument: if the company/person owns a work, yes, they do have the right to restrict someone else utilizing their creation. >>43064 >But sometimes the later authors are also good, or even make things better. I don't care. I'm not going to waste my precious time having to wade through shit just to get to "the good stuff". Especially when all that "good stuff" was immediately undone the following month. >It's more common than American comics, but it's not like they don't have their cash cow franchises that they just keep going forever. Yes, "cash cows" like Haguregumo, Cooking Papa, Patalliro!, KochKame, Tsuribaka Nisshi, and Sunset on Third Street. Some of the longest running manga in existence. >Do you really think Dragon Ball GT or Super or Daima ruin the original manga? The original manga was "ruined" the moment they introduced aliens. >Do you really think any of the shit WB has been doing with Watchmen in the last decade ruins the original comic? Not Watchmen and WB, but that certainly has happened with several other series. Everything Yidsney did to the Star Wars franchise made me absolutely sick of anything have to do with the series to where I just dropped it for several years and refuse to touch any associated SW media. My parents, despite liking some of the MCU films, have zero desire to watch a single one after seeing the actors do that Harris campaign video. I didn't touch a Nintendo game for years after all the localization shenanigans Treehouse pulled on the 3DS and Wii U. So, yes, it is possible for something coming out today to ruin people's interest in material of the past. >My point is that there are certain stories that could exist that rely specifically on these specific characters and histories. Those stories should be allowed to be told. Then you have two options, either be hired by DC and pray that you actually get to write the stories that you want or shelve the idea and move onto something. Surely there's something you want to write using your OWN OCs. >But also, I don't care about other people using my characters. That isn't a threat to me. Almost every single time I've heard someone say that in regards to their material, they are almost always the FIRST people to began using the DMCA ban-hammer whenever someone begins making fanworks they don't like. So don't be surprised by my saying that I don't believe you. The only exception I've seen to this was Atari under Nolan Bushnell, but that could be explained by them being too busy getting the next game out the door than having the freedom to waste their time with lawsuits. >The problem is that Warner Bros. monopolizes the creation of the stories, and then they decide that Jon Kent has to be gay now, always. So make your own "Not Supersons" series. Both of the protagonists didn't exist 19 years ago, so there's really nothing being lost if you start from scratch and just carry forward the concept of two superhero kids being the bestest of friends and getting into dangerous shenanigans and adventures. >I'm saying it should be allowed to publish stories about whatever you want. And if you want to do that, spend the 300 million required to buy out WBD so that you can. Outside of that, give up and move on. >Because maybe the story in mind relies specifically on the history and the cultural significance of a figure that already exists.

[Expand Post]

Then stop wasting your time and obsess over characters that you can actually use. >Because I don't think state-enforced monopolies are good for the market. Why? Don't you want to be compensated for your work? If the answer is "No", why are you not already doing it? >You're saying people should become more creative in order to get around the government. Yes because that's how the system is works. The laws are the rules of the game, now figure out how to legally exploit them in order to attain your wealth.

>>43065 >Probably because it isn't a strawman? Where's the actual confusion coming from? The point I actually said and the point you are arguing against are completely unrelated. >You were arguing that Superman represents American, and that we absolutely cannot "abandon" him because of how the people in charge of DC treat his character. Superman represents many things, and a corporation shouldn't have a government-enforced monopoly over a piece of culture like that. Related to that, yes, the corporation hiring people who hate what he represents to do stories to deliberately undermine those things doesn't undo what he represents. They want it to, but it doesn't, and you shouldn't play along with them when it comes to that. >That absolutely did, which is why Yoda's phrase was not "intended" for the audience to be taken as a piece of philosophy. It was intended to advance a story about space wizards. They knew the audience was going to hear the line. Where is the logic in saying "they knew the audience was going to hear the line, and that's why they didn't intend for the audience to actually think about it"? It advances the story and also is a piece of philosophy. Most things in most stories are that, even when not intended by the author. A writer's philosophies inform his work even when unintended. Again, some people take this too far and then just make all work blatant propaganda, but that doesn't invalidate the fact that there are messages in art, but some are more subtle or more elegantly expressed. >you're arguing that we should treat these characters as just as valid as if they actually existed. I never said anything remotely close to that, and neither did anyone else. I said that it doesn't matter who speaks an idea. An idea's validity has nothing to do with the speaker. Reality is not subjective. Yes, this even applies to if a fictional character is the one to speak the idea. Someone still wrote it in real life, too, so no ideas are actually "from" a fictional character. There's always a real person behind them. But this shouldn't even be a point, because either way ideas' validity doesn't depend on the speaker. >What I HAVE denied is that art has the same value and place as history. I never said anything remotely against this idea. I don't know how you reached that point in an argument about copyright law. Saying that characters can represent ideas has nothing to do with any argument about history. >Aside from probably Ayn Rand, who's entire philosophies exist within her fictional works, can you name anybody? Even Orwell's works are less a critique of Socialism and more him satirizing the Fabians about their utopia. Basically all the blatant SJW propaganda that's come out in the last few years (and plenty before that, too). That's why it sucks so bad. It's all about their message with no thought to the artistry of it. >So I was incorrect about my assertion earlier, as Superman "always" existed as a preachy character? If that's the case, how is it a surprise to anyone that the films reflect the comics exactly? It's more that Superman has often had more philosophies more obviously attached to him because he quickly came to represent things in the wider culture. Most of his stories are still less blatant about that, and are pretty straight sci-fi action, but he does have his share of more preachy stuff, and more stuff that... well what's the good version of preachy? I listed a few in my last post that are about what Superman represents but are good. But there are bad examples too. You know who has it worse? Wonder Woman. It's way too common that she is treated as feminism incarnate, instead of a character, and thus she has relatively few good stories, as far too many are just propaganda (and since it's a stupid philosophy, they're not even good at being artistic about it). >No, I saw material presented to me in a connected fashion for a narrative, was confused as to how they relate, and then told I had wasted my time and brain cells thinking about it as none of it actually matters. So again, you didn't see a meaning, and the author agreed. The same message came from both the work and the author directly, and it was just as valid (or not) both times. >No, but they'll demand for me to believe (stupid bullshit) Yup. Some stories are bad, and sometimes the ideas they put forward are bad. Would those ideas be any more valid if the authors just came out and said them in an interview? No. They'd still be just as stupid. >Yes, it does. No, the idea remains the same. Ambiguity just has to do with how it's presented. If I hint at an idea or if I say it outright, it's the same idea. You're confusing the idea for the presentation. >The more ambiguous a statement is expressed, the greater room for error in interpretation that can occur. Yeah, but that doesn't have to do with the idea itself. What you're saying is that you can get different ideas out of it. Fine. And some of those ideas might be more valid than others. Fine. But each of those ideas would be just as valid (or not) if spoken without ambiguity by a person (in this case, probably the reader, but it could be anyone else, including the author). >if the company/person owns a work, yes, they do have the right to restrict someone else utilizing their creation. Depends on what you consider "the work." But in general I'd disagree. This is the main thing I've been arguing about the whole time. >I don't care. I'm not going to waste my precious time having to wade through shit just to get to "the good stuff". Especially when all that "good stuff" was immediately undone the following month. You don't have to. If you do, then I wouldn't argue it's "good stuff." A lot of times it summarizes the old stuff so you don't have to read it (but it is extra good if you did). Claremont's X-Men would be an example here. You don't have to read Lee and Kirby's if you don't want to, a lot of people don't think it's great (but it is Kirby, so it's still pretty good). If you don't want to read it, just skip to Giant Sized X-Men #1. You can still enjoy it, and a lot of people do. Other times later stuff recontextualizes it so the old stuff is now better in context, because it has a better payoff. Booster Gold Vol 1 is pretty boring on its own, but with the context of JLI and Booster Gold Vol 2, it becomes the first part of a story that does pay off later. (Again, I wouldn't say it's bad, but it gets better as the story picks up.) Other times retcons just do away with bad story elements (frequently other retcons) so you don't need to think about them anymore. Like that horrible fucking retcon where they said that Gwen Stacey fucked Norman Osborn and had his goblin babies during a brief period when she moved to England in the late '60s. Just a few years ago they retconned the retcon to make it so it was a lie the whole time. Good. Sometimes retcons can be good. Of course, everyone pretty much just ignored the Goblin babies thing anyway, because it was fucking stupid, but if you really just couldn't get it out of your mind, then fine, someone got rid of it. >Yes, "cash cows" like... >The original manga was "ruined" the moment they introduced aliens. So you acknowledge another example of a cash cow you clearly think went on too long.

[Expand Post]

>Star Wars I'll certainly never touch the new stuff after seeing the first movie Disney put out, but I'll still enjoy the originals just as much. I guess we're different in that way. I just don't watch the new shit, and commercials and shills for the new shit aren't enough to make me hate the old movies. >MCU Again, I can hardly even stand to watch Endgame because of Carol Danvers being in it, but everything up to Infinity War? Yeah I can watch those. I can understand hating actors for shit they do in real life, but it's not enough to make me not pirate and enjoy a movie from before they got that bad. Maybe I wouldn't pay for it, but I can enjoy it for free. >Nintendo Again, I think it's crazy to say you can't enjoy playing Super Mario Bros. 3 from like 1988 because of something some localizers on the other side of the world did 30 years later. I feel extremely strongly about all these issues, and hate the people involved, but I can still enjoy the work. I can still watch Ferris Bueller, and Matthew Broderick got away with killing two people. I don't care if the kid who played Mickey in The Little Rascals murdered his wife like 70 years later. He was a funny kid. I don't care if "Jeepers Creepers" is what the director's child victim said as he was getting raped, it's still an okay movie. >Surely there's something you want to write using your OWN OCs. Yeah but that's not what we're talking about in this conversation. It is just dodging the point about the morality of a government enforced monopoly on art or pieces of our culture. It's insane that there are any pieces of art that you aren't allowed to make. >Almost every single time I've heard someone say that in regards to their material, they are almost always the FIRST people to began using the DMCA ban-hammer whenever someone begins making fanworks they don't like. Well fuck those people. I don't understand the logic. People have made tons of stuff based on, say, Frankenstein. It doesn't threaten the original novel. The original will always exist. There are tons of Sherlock Holmes stories by Doyle, and then more by other people. The fact that there are Batman stories where he meets Holmes does not hurt Doyle's original stories. >Supersons They're informed by the specific histories of their worlds and related characters. Damian Wayne also did sort of exist going back to 1987, with an appearance even in Kingdom Come. His history goes to quite a while before his first major appearance, and of course it's all tied up with the wider history of Batman, especially regarding Ra's al Ghul. But you know what? All of this is secondary, because in the end, it's just absurd that a government gives a corporation a monopoly over certain ideas. >And if you want to do that, spend the 300 million required to buy out WBD so that you can. Outside of that, give up and move on. <Just let the corporation fuck you in the ass. Don't have the money to win? Don't even talk about it on the internet. Don't question corporations or government. >Then stop wasting your time and obsess over characters that you can actually use. >stop wasting your time <DrCoxAtAFuneral.jpg >Why? Don't you want to be compensated for your work? If the answer is "No", why are you not already doing it? You don't need a state enforced monopoly to be compensated for your work, you just need to make a product people want. Competition is better than monopoly, especially since we aren't even talking about the original purpose of copyright, being the actual copying of texts. I'm not even arguing about whether I should be able to print my own copies of specific DC comics and sell them. I think that's a second argument that could be had, but frankly it's a wholly different argument from saying "nobody can publish new stories with these ideas." >Yes because that's how the system is works. The laws are the rules of the game, now figure out how to legally exploit them in order to attain your wealth. >The system is always right. What are you doing on this site, of all places? If you're just gonna kiss government ass, maybe don't spend your time on a website that pretty much automatically gets you put on a watchlist.

>>43067 >Superman represents many things, and a corporation shouldn't have a government-enforced monopoly over a piece of culture like that. Then don't allow them. Make your own piece of culture. >It advances the story and also is a piece of philosophy. To be quite honest, I've been increasingly coming to the conclusion that philosophy is a waste of time. >An idea's validity has nothing to do with the speaker. Yes, it does. What's the purpose behind the speaker saying it? >Someone still wrote it in real life, too, so no ideas are actually "from" a fictional character. Yes, they are. >There's always a real person behind them. So a "real person" (Frank Oz) is talking to another "real person" (Mark Hamill) in order to teach him to use magic in order to raise a spaceship out of a swamp? >I never said anything remotely against this idea. This entire argument has been about you trying to declare that fictional characters and stories have just as much "meaning" and influence as events that actually happened and people that actually existed. And, no, history is not a "story". A story implies there's a beginning and an end. History doesn't end, and the jury is still out on where things began. >Basically all the blatant SJW propaganda that's come out in the last few years (and plenty before that, too). No, they exist to prove a point. It's why they waste so much time on oppression narratives and tropes. >Most of his stories are still less blatant about that, and are pretty straight sci-fi action Does Supes exist to push a message or to tell a story? > and more stuff that... well what's the good version of preachy? There is none. >I listed a few in my last post that are about what Superman represents but are good I've never read a single one of these but here seems to be the short of them: <The series where Superman is killed <The series where Superman allows violence to overrun the world <The series where Superman has a midlife crisis <And the series where the guy angry with Superman because he caused him to lose all his hair actually has "deeper" motivations in that he's trying to "save" people from someone who has never expressed nor performed any harm or ill intent towards anyone That isn't really as powerful as you think it is. >If I hint at an idea or if I say it outright, it's the same idea. No, it's not. A "hint" is just a vague description. It doesn't actually steer people towards the point you're making. >You're confusing the idea for the presentation. Probably because the presentation is just as important as the idea. >Yeah, but that doesn't have to do with the idea itself. Yes, it does. If the idea is left ambiguous, it gives the person the ability "change" what the idea is if they don't like your interpretation or conclusion. Or just to make you look "stupid" because the person refused to actually explain themselves. Let me give you example: what do you think of if I say the word python? Did you think of: Monty language Nordic mag snake Colt gun If you didn't, then you're an idiot. >A lot of times it summarizes the old stuff In my experience with comics, they never do or just outright tell you to read the previous stuff (Which then tells you to read other previous stuff). And the few times I do get invested, they retcon all the important bits and show me that all I did was waste my time as none of it matters and can be changed with the flick of a pen. You keep talking about how there are "better" comics out there, how about series that have NONE (As in absolutely devoid of all this cross-series cross-universe autism bullshit that no one actually cares about, forget even making sense of) and can just tell a straight story from beginning to end? >So you acknowledge another example of a cash cow you clearly think went on too long. It's not that the series went on "too long". I do like some parts from the Z Saga (Mostly anything having to do with specifically Gohan), but everything took a nosedive in quality starting with Raditz. >It's insane that there are any pieces of art that you aren't allowed to make. You can make them as much as you want, you just don't own them. An open secret about copyright is that any fanwork you make automatically becomes property of the rights holders. Meaning that Sega owns all those Sonic fangames, all those Genshin Impact fanfictions belong to miHoYo, Disney owns all the Squirrel Girl lewds, etc. And they don't have to pay you a dime for it. >People have made tons of stuff based on, say, Frankenstein. It doesn't threaten the original novel. The original will always exist. There are tons of Sherlock Holmes stories by Doyle, and then more by other people. Because people placed great importance on those original stories and preserving them every way they can to the point that any fanfiction based off of them can never be considered "better" than the original (Even if it is of a better quality). >Don't have the money to win? Why don't you find a way to get the money so that you can win? >You don't need a state enforced monopoly to be compensated for your work That is true. Worst Koreas solution to vidya piracy was turning every game into an MMO. >you just need to make a product people want And when your product is pirated, or just stripped of it's assets and rebranded as something else, what do you do then? >Competition is better than monopoly But competition does happen through the creation of monopolies. By you creating a product that only you can produce. And the success of that product then entices other people to either creation something similar but different enough to be considered original or create a product for a market that you're not appealing to. That's also why copyright used to be so brief, as it enticed flash-in-the-pan ideas where you can milk as much as you can out of an idea before you have to get off your duff and actually make something new.

[Expand Post]

>especially since we aren't even talking about the original purpose of copyright, being the actual copying of texts. I'm not talking about European copyright, I'm talking about American copyright. >What are you doing on this site I first came for the lewds and the hilarity, and just never left.

These blocks of text are autistic and cluttering. Have a care for other anons reading who aren't part of your spat.

>>43068 >>43067 >>43065 >>43063 >>43051 Have sex Incels

>>43071 Incel is not a name.

Why is the spic board more active, is it because beaners have nothing better to do with their lives?

>>43159 because they have less options of image boards

>>43159 It was a whole site & they weren't divided by an exodus.

Castlevania Nocturne S2 Trailer

>>43167 Looks fucking gay

>>43168 correct, you can thank konami for allowing their ip to be adapted by that faggot pajeet Adi Shankar

Neil Gaiman's now a rapist, by his own rules of believing all women, & allegedly made a woman he anal raped lick her own shit off his cock.

>>43172 Considering we're talking about a perverted jew who supports flooding other countries with rapefugees, I'm immediately siding with the women on this one. Even though I strongly believe in "innocent until proven guilty," I can't for the life of me see these being false accusations. It seems way too in character for someone like Neil.

>>43185 LOL