- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Brie Larson in Captain Marvel Costume (Updated with EW Cover)
Posted on 1/26/18 at 10:54 am to Freauxzen
Posted on 1/26/18 at 10:54 am to Freauxzen
quote:
I'm confused at the people who get so mad at this one, because it wasn't DC originally and using an "original" name is along the lines of being historical of which the comic is not DC, DC are the ones who killed it, logically Captain "Marvel" makes sense under Marvel, etc.
It has nothing to do with DC "ceding" the name and everything to do with Marvel taking the name of one of the most important characters of the golden age and slapping together a character so that they could keep anyone else from using it.
At least when they rushed out a Spider-Woman character, they were grabbing a name that was unimportant and was a good fit for their universe.
Folks lost their shite over Fox and Sony keeping rights to Marvel characters just so they could keep Marvel Studios from using them. Imagine if a lapse in judgement on Marvel's part resulted in the complete rights to Spider-Man becoming open game and DC put out their own version and prevented Marvel from using the name on any comic covers or in any other media titles.
I'd have been happier had Marvel grabbed the rights to the actual Captain Marvel when they were available, and either put out a separate book to maintain the rights or tuck him away on an alternate Earth in their universe. National making Fawcett's decision to exit comics their best alternative sucked. Marvel making sure that the character and his family could never return under their own names was just pouring salt into the wound.
3
Posted on 1/26/18 at 11:09 am to Fewer Kilometers
quote:
It has nothing to do with DC "ceding" the name and everything to do with Marvel taking the name of one of the most important characters of the golden age and slapping together a character so that they could keep anyone else from using it.
Sure, but they did this when Captain Marvel was effectively gone. How would they know DC would buy the rights a few years later?
quote:
Following a trial in which DC Comics sued Fawcett Comics for breach of copyright, claiming Fawcett's Captain Marvel was too similar to Superman, the latter stopped publishing Captain Marvel.[2] In the late sixties Marvel gained the trademark "Captain Marvel" with their first series.
DC started with Captain Marvel in 1972.
quote:
Folks lost their shite over Fox and Sony keeping rights to Marvel characters just so they could keep Marvel Studios from using them. Imagine if a lapse in judgement on Marvel's part resulted in the complete rights to Spider-Man becoming open game and DC put out their own version and prevented Marvel from using the name on any comic covers or in any other media titles.
Sure, if DC would have created and owned Captain Marvel from the beginning, but they didn't.
quote:
I'd have been happier had Marvel grabbed the rights to the actual Captain Marvel when they were available, and either put out a separate book to maintain the rights or tuck him away on an alternate Earth in their universe.
You are probably right on this one. Not sure why they didn't as everyone was in a "buying old properties" mode in the 60s.
I guess I'm just saying, if none of us read or owned a Fawcett Captain Marvel, then I just don't see the big deal. We've all only read Shazam! for the most part.
Posted on 1/26/18 at 11:10 am to Fewer Kilometers
quote:
t has nothing to do with DC "ceding" the name and everything to do with Marvel taking the name of one of the most important characters of the golden age and slapping together a character so that they could keep anyone else from using it.
Only it was DC, not Marvel, who sued the original Captain Marvel into oblivion. Fawcett Comics were a competitor to DC in the 40s/50s, and DC successfully sued Fawcett that their Captain Marvel character was too similar to Superman. The character went dormant once Fawcett stopped publishing superhero comics in 1953.
Marvel came along and picked up the rights in 1967, and made their own Captain Marvel. DC tried to relaunch Captain Marvel in the 80s but had to call him Shazam.
Blaming Marvel for DC suing Fawcett into nothingness, before Marvel even existed, is a neat trick. Fantastic Four wasn't published until 1961. DC had 8 years to get Captain Marvel/Shazam without any competition, and instead was content to simply crush their competitor. DC's gripe is that Marvel was a better litigant than Fawcett.
Posted on 1/26/18 at 11:20 am to Fewer Kilometers
Paige from the OT is hotter
Posted on 1/26/18 at 11:52 am to Marfa
quote:
Paige from the OT is hotter
Pics?
Posted on 1/26/18 at 12:06 pm to Baloo
quote:And something that I didn't do.
Blaming Marvel for DC suing Fawcett into nothingness, before Marvel even existed, is a neat trick.
The argument of "yes they sucked, but the other guy sucked worse" doesn't relieve Marvel from their guilt.
As I said before, DC forced Captain Marvel out and Marvel added the indignation of stripping the character of its name.
The original Captain Marvel was available for licensing in the 1960's. It wasn't a dead character and could've been licensed by anyone interested in bringing the character back. Marvel could've just bought the reprint rights and put out a quarterly reprint book so that they could trademark the dormant name and keep anyone else from using it.
Instead Marvel took the name and made sure that the original Captain Marvel and the Marvel Family would be damaged goods for whoever licensed them in the future.
Posted on 1/26/18 at 1:01 pm to Fewer Kilometers
quote:
As I said before, DC forced Captain Marvel out and Marvel added the indignation of stripping the character of its name.
So when something is out of trademark, people should still treat it as if it were in trademark? Is that the argument?
Basically, once a word is trademarked in some form, regardless of the legality, no one should ever use that previously trademarked term differently again?
quote:
Instead Marvel took the name and made sure that the original Captain Marvel and the Marvel Family would be damaged goods for whoever licensed them in the future.
Was it really "damaged goods" if they were unsure someone would ever buy the Captain Marvel property? Or was it "Hey, we're Marvel, the Captain Marvel moniker is available legally, that's convenient. I mean it makes sense for us to put out a Captain Marvel book because we're, you know, Marvel. Let's do it."
Posted on 1/26/18 at 1:51 pm to Green Chili Tiger
Time for me to weight in. Iron Man comic wise is above Captain AMerica in terms of strength and below Hulk, Thor, Captain Marvel, and Spider-Man. The thing he has going for him is brains.
As for Carol Feat.
Hulkbuster suit
Thor kicking Iron Man arse.
Carol Danving Wailing into the Hulk Face point blank
and the results?
Finally they should have given her this uniform.
Might have worked better for bree.
As for Carol Feat.
Hulkbuster suit
Thor kicking Iron Man arse.
Carol Danving Wailing into the Hulk Face point blank
and the results?
Finally they should have given her this uniform.
Might have worked better for bree.
Posted on 1/26/18 at 1:58 pm to Duzz
I mean she clearly has the tits for that outfit :(
Posted on 1/26/18 at 2:11 pm to Duzz
quote:
Carol Danving Wailing into the Hulk Face point blank
quote:She got punched into space after that.
and the results?
Posted on 1/26/18 at 2:19 pm to Fewer Kilometers
This is a very unflattering costume.
Posted on 1/26/18 at 2:26 pm to LSUBoo
Yes, it is.
They could have done better.
They could have done better.
Posted on 1/26/18 at 3:05 pm to Freauxzen
quote:No. Business is business.
So when something is out of trademark, people should still treat it as if it were in trademark? Is that the argument?
quote:It wasn't out of convenience or coincidence. It was to take that specific name out of circulation. M.F. Comics was publishing their own Captain Marvel comic when Marvel filed for the trademark. Marvelman was the British offshoot that took the place of Captain Marvel in the 50's after Fawcett ceased publication. They had to change that name eventually because of Marvel. At this point the companies sue each other at the drop of a hat. I think Hasbro is still suing DC for creating a character named Bumblebee seven years before the Transformers existed.
Or was it "Hey, we're Marvel, the Captain Marvel moniker is available legally, that's convenient. I mean it makes sense for us to put out a Captain Marvel book because we're, you know, Marvel. Let's do it."
Posted on 1/26/18 at 3:11 pm to Green Chili Tiger
I fricking hate the Kree Star on her.
Shoulda stayed gone with the two piece after she was wholly Carol again.
Updated from leotard to a a black flight suit with her lightning bolts, sash and given Kamala just one bolt. Knock it off with the man face and dyke hair they keep trying to push.
Shoulda stayed gone with the two piece after she was wholly Carol again.
Updated from leotard to a a black flight suit with her lightning bolts, sash and given Kamala just one bolt. Knock it off with the man face and dyke hair they keep trying to push.
Posted on 1/26/18 at 3:46 pm to ZappBrannigan
quote:
Knock it off with the man face and dyke hair they keep trying to push.
Speaking of this, Kamala in the new Exiles book. Woof.
Posted on 1/26/18 at 3:49 pm to ZappBrannigan
In this Hollywood era of #metoo and girl power, you will never see a sexualized costume on a female character. There's not a movie executive alive that has the stones to stand up to the accusations of exploiting women. So you'll get these costumes that have all the charm of, as someone earlier so aptly pointed out, a hazmat suit.
Hell, they'd probably cast that flat chested chick with the underbite from the Pirates of the Caribbean movies, put her in a turtleneck, and make a Power Girl movie.
Hell, they'd probably cast that flat chested chick with the underbite from the Pirates of the Caribbean movies, put her in a turtleneck, and make a Power Girl movie.
Posted on 1/26/18 at 4:10 pm to SoFla Tideroller
quote:
here's not a movie executive alive that has the stones to stand up to the accusations of exploiting women. So you'll get these costumes that have all the charm of, as someone earlier so aptly pointed out, a hazmat suit.
Between Wonder Woman, Harley, and the last version of Catwoman, Warner seems to be keeping it fairly slutty.
Posted on 1/26/18 at 4:59 pm to Fewer Kilometers
quote:
Between Wonder Woman, Harley, and the last version of Catwoman, Warner seems to be keeping it fairly slutty.
Better slutty than bland like a nun in a covenant.
Posted on 1/26/18 at 4:59 pm to Fewer Kilometers
DC has no issues keeping their women in the outfits or close redos that still look like them.
But they also told a better story with Multiversity than Marvel has been doing with it's main lines for years now.
But they also told a better story with Multiversity than Marvel has been doing with it's main lines for years now.
Posted on 1/26/18 at 5:02 pm to Duzz
quote:
Better slutty than bland like a nun in a covenant.
I was using slutty in the complementary sense.
Page 5 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News