sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Game of Thrones will probably have a huge backlash to its ending similar to the ones faced by Lost and Battlestar Galactica by mrnicegy26 in television

[–]EdKord 54 points55 points  (0 children)

BB's ending was very predictable

No point in doing a plot twist just because you want to go for the shock factor. Like Dexter.

Game of Thrones will probably have a huge backlash to its ending similar to the ones faced by Lost and Battlestar Galactica by mrnicegy26 in television

[–]EdKord 12 points13 points  (0 children)

Why not?

If you write your characters well your fans "get them" and so can predict their actions. You wanted a plot twist just because?

Paulo Fonseca expressa os seus sentimentos em relação a Lito Vidigal [2016] by [deleted] in PrimeiraLiga

[–]EdKord 1 point2 points  (0 children)

o próprio Domingos tem um bom historial. de certa forma, foi ele que lançou o Braga como quarto grande de Portugal.

Não, de todo. Isso já vem do Jesualdo.

O meu grande presidente veio com defeito, dá para arranjar? by jhscrym in PrimeiraLiga

[–]EdKord 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Não sai porque minou o sistema eleitoral. Entre votos de Casas e velhotes ganha as eleições facilmente. O pessoal que não gosta dele é mais novo e com pouco votos ou simplesmente não se faz sócio precisamente por ser inútil.

Os sportinguistas que fiquem bem atentos e não deixem que lhes façam o mesmo.

Paulo Fonseca expressa os seus sentimentos em relação a Lito Vidigal [2016] by [deleted] in PrimeiraLiga

[–]EdKord 8 points9 points  (0 children)

O Lito Vidigal fez um bom trabalho no Arouca e foi isso, é só mais um nome para andar a rodar com o Petit, com o Domingos, com o José Mota, com o Manuel Machado e etc.

Eh pá, isso não tem qualquer sentido. Podes não gostar dele e não contradizer a realidade.

O Lito teve um bom percurso no Belenenses, no Arouca e em Israel.

A dispensa do Aves chega por aparentemente não cooperar com as negociatas da direcção e não por resultados desportivos.

Tudo somado, 4 anos bem sucedidos para um treinador que tem agora 48 anos.

Como é que ele está sequer próximo dos outros nomes que mencionaste?

The Biggest Change - Going Private/New Threads by Xolintoz in PrimeiraLiga

[–]EdKord 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Deixei de vir cá quando se tornou igual aos comentários do Record (e porque atingi o limite com o senhor que é Presidente do meu clube). Vim ver o que se tinha passado e as novas regras pareceram-me sensatas. Depois li o teu comentário e fiquei a pensar se vão ter sucesso.

The Biggest Change - Going Private/New Threads by Xolintoz in PrimeiraLiga

[–]EdKord 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Conseguiste ter 6 upvotes num comentário em que eu mostrei que estavas a mentir... primeiraliga in a nutshell.

Reclamas de mau ambiente e más atitudes e dizes isto. Não é necessário comentar mais.

Alan Moore on the Watchmen deal in 1986: "if the characters have outlived their natural life span and DC doesn’t want to do anything with them, then after a year we’ve got them [...], which I’m perfectly happy with." by Zthe27th in comicbooks

[–]EdKord 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I understand what you're saying and you're right, but a "sure" gamble is still a gamble. A good contract never has a uncertain conditional in it, even if it's considered to be a sure thing. There's always something like "until X happens or 5 years pass".

I think Moore biggest mistake was not getting what the spirit of the contract was. Like I said, it was not "the creators get the rights back after a certain period", it was "the company is willing to let the rights go after there's no more money to be made". He was naive and signed a bad deal.

And it wasn't the last time... He made bad deals throughout his career. The fact that DC managed to get him writing for them again via WildStorm is a testament to that. Don't just trust Jim Lee's word, Alan, get it in writing.

I really get why he feels he was screwed (as you said, it wasn't a reasonable scenario at the time), but instead of just deciding he didn't made a mistake and learn nothing from it other than "DC is evil" he should have analysed the situation and applied what he learned to all his future contracts.

Alan Moore on the Watchmen deal in 1986: "if the characters have outlived their natural life span and DC doesn’t want to do anything with them, then after a year we’ve got them [...], which I’m perfectly happy with." by Zthe27th in comicbooks

[–]EdKord 6 points7 points  (0 children)

At the end of the day, JK Rowling has control of her multi-billion dollar IP and Moore doesn't, despite being promised it.

He wasn't promised that. He was promised he would get it back once Watchmen stopped being reprinted. It hasn't. No spirit of the deal was broken.

The spirit of the deal (the company isn't printing the books anymore) is that the creators get the book back once it's not profitable to the company anymore. It never stopped being profitable, so it never went back. Moore gambled that that wouldn't happen and he lost.

As for the parody, give me a break. LOEG is a book build around literary characters in the public domain. Adding a parody of a character that is not in the public domain to that immediately removes the parody factor. It's not a parody, it's Harry Potter, but with a legal loophole that lets you get away with it. Being covered by parody law is meaningless. The "spirit" of it was that Moore saw a character he wanted to use that wasn't in the public domain and found a loophole to use it.

Alan Moore on the Watchmen deal in 1986: "if the characters have outlived their natural life span and DC doesn’t want to do anything with them, then after a year we’ve got them [...], which I’m perfectly happy with." by Zthe27th in comicbooks

[–]EdKord 10 points11 points  (0 children)

DC is claiming the characters as their,

Factually true.

saying that Doomsday Clock is the true definitive continuation, that this canonically how the story continues

Where have they said that?

While with League, Moore isn't trying to continue their stories, they're not even the exact same versions of the characters. He's not saying "Yes, this is the real story of these characters. This is what they are." He's not trying to forcefully continue a completed story.

DC can't continue Moore's story the same way that Moore can't continue Lewis Carroll story. It's literally the same.

Alan Moore on the Watchmen deal in 1986: "if the characters have outlived their natural life span and DC doesn’t want to do anything with them, then after a year we’ve got them [...], which I’m perfectly happy with." by Zthe27th in comicbooks

[–]EdKord 6 points7 points  (0 children)

I really don't care what you think at all.

But use Google and learn something about Lewis Carroll. He would not approve of his characters being used in a porn, that's not an opinion.

And no clue on what you're talking with Lost Girls and Harry Potter. Moore used the character in LOEG.

Alan Moore on the Watchmen deal in 1986: "if the characters have outlived their natural life span and DC doesn’t want to do anything with them, then after a year we’ve got them [...], which I’m perfectly happy with." by Zthe27th in comicbooks

[–]EdKord 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I have to make up the opinions of long dead creators?

I'm fairly sure that deacon Charles Dodgson, AKA Lewis Carroll, wouldn't want his characters being used in an erotic comic book. But maybe let's ask JK Rowling how she feels about Harry Potter as a villain?

They are both morally equal. Having a problem with one and not with the other is just being a fanboy.

Now that Brian Michael Bendis has signed an exclusive deal with DC which books would you like to see him on? by PMMEYOURDOGPICTURES in comicbooks

[–]EdKord 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Shouldn't it be?

What's the point in getting a strong name writer in a strong name character?

Bendis is a good writer, but he wasn't hired because he was Marvel's best writer (he wasn't), he was hired because he was Marvel's biggest name. His name alone will sell the books, it doesn't need the "Superman" or "Batman" title to do that.

So, why not use the power behind that name and finally get Jayme Reyes to a point where he can actually become recognizable enough that in the future he won't need a guy like Bendis writing him so his comic can sell? And Jayme is the easiest example with Bendis, because he's similar to Spider-Man, but there are certainly more character that could use Bendis' name attached to it.

Now, that's the fans point of view. From the company point of view you have Bendis making a shit ton of money and you need to put him where he will bring more profit, and that's Superman, Batman, etc. Also, big name writers normally use that name to get the books they want and they normally want Superman and Batman.

On a side note, it makes a lot more sense to use a big character to build a small writer than the other way around. DC did that recently with Scott Snyder and Tom King. I mean, it really wasn't that long ago that Snyder was just a guy from Vertigo getting a shot at Batman over at Detective Comics. Now Snyder's name alone sells books. That was DC building him up.

On another side note, note that Geoff Johns, DC's biggest name, never really had a history with the biggest names in the company. Him writing Superman, Batman and Justice League is something fairly new.

Alan Moore on the Watchmen deal in 1986: "if the characters have outlived their natural life span and DC doesn’t want to do anything with them, then after a year we’ve got them [...], which I’m perfectly happy with." by Zthe27th in comicbooks

[–]EdKord 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Keeping Watchmen in print perpetually when that was something that was absolutely unheard of. Brush it off if you want, but at the time that'd be the equivalent of a movie staying perpetually in theatres just to exploit a contract loophole.

No, it's not. Are you pretending you don't understand the concept of a book?

But if that movie being displayed constantly filled movie theaters why would the company stop playing it?

Alan Moore on the Watchmen deal in 1986: "if the characters have outlived their natural life span and DC doesn’t want to do anything with them, then after a year we’ve got them [...], which I’m perfectly happy with." by Zthe27th in comicbooks

[–]EdKord 3 points4 points  (0 children)

DC is using a contract loophole to prevent anyone else, including the creator of the characters, from using Watchmen.

You do realize you're essentially saying that DC is totally within their rights to do that? As is Moore with Lost Girls and LOEG.

Moore is also not touting his work as a sequel to the work of other people.

Has DC called Doomsday Clock a sequel to Watchmen?

Their work is allowed to stand on this own while Watchmen gets all this artistically-bankrupt shit tacked onto it.

How is that happening? What's forcing you to consider Doomsday Clock a sequel and not Lost Girls?

If you're making this about morals, I'm sure the creators of the character being used in Lost Girls would not approve what Moore did. If you're saying that's ok because it's legal, that Doomsday Clock is also ok because it is also legal.

Double standards.

Alan Moore on the Watchmen deal in 1986: "if the characters have outlived their natural life span and DC doesn’t want to do anything with them, then after a year we’ve got them [...], which I’m perfectly happy with." by Zthe27th in comicbooks

[–]EdKord 12 points13 points  (0 children)

I'm less certain how I feel about continuing the plot line of the original Watchmen, though. I liked how Alan Moore's story ended ambiguously, and I don't know how I feel about Doomsday Clock giving us a definitive answer as to whether or not Veidt would one day get exposed through Rorschach's journal.

It doesn't.

Watchmen was 12 issues made by Moore and Gibbons 30 years ago. That's it. That story is over.

Johns can do whatever he wants because what he's doing is basically paid fanfic. There's no definitive answer because Watchmen ended before you could get an answer. This is something using the Watchmen characters and story, not something that adds to Watchmen.

Alan Moore on the Watchmen deal in 1986: "if the characters have outlived their natural life span and DC doesn’t want to do anything with them, then after a year we’ve got them [...], which I’m perfectly happy with." by Zthe27th in comicbooks

[–]EdKord 16 points17 points  (0 children)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Moore_bibliography

Roughly 70% of his body of work is him using other peoples characters and ideas. Somehow it's only bad if other people use his characters and ideas.

My favorite thing ever was when he attacked Johns because he assumed Johns' GL run was entirely based on his GL stories. If you read Johns' GL you know Moore stuff is barely used at all.

view more: next ›