• Announcements

    • Robin

      Welcome!   03/05/2016

      Welcome, everyone, to the new 910CMX Community Forums. I'm still working on getting them running, so things may change.  If you're a 910 Comic creator and need your forum recreated, let me know and I'll get on it right away.  I'll do my best to make this new place as fun as the last one!
mlooney

NP Comic for Thursday, Jun 30, 2022

Recommended Posts

Here is.

Back in the 1980's when I read comics, keeping up with the X people was a major chore and they were all in the same continuity more or less. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I stopped trying to keep track of the entire DC universe after the 1980s Crisis on Infinite Earths. Since then I’ve mostly kept to their Superman-family group of titles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The main reason I paid any attention to the Marvel universe was the the "Champions" game I was in was more or less set in the Marvel universe.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Pharaoh RutinTutin said:

I still recall the outrage against the violence of the Keaton Nicholson movie from those whose bat-knowledge ended with West

To be fair, a lot of Americans of a certain age got most of their information about Batman from the Adam West shows.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, mlooney said:

To be fair, a lot of Americans of a certain age got most of their information about Batman from the Adam West shows.

The show was entertaining in its own way. Sure, it was silly, but so was Wild, Wild West and Lost in Space.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It depends on what you want out of the character. For people who want Batman to be funny, the Adam West version is fun. For people who want Batman to be dark and edgy, the newer films are more appealing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have superficial knowledge of a number of superheroes, but Adam West on television is the extent of my in-depth knowledge.

To me, "The Avengers" are still John Steed and Emma Peel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ijuin said:

It depends on what you want out of the character. For people who want Batman to be funny, the Adam West version is fun. For people who want Batman to be dark and edgy, the newer films are more appealing.

The 60s series was good when it was on. I wouldn't go out of my way to watch it now. I prefer the more recent movies.

Even those are a mixed bag, though, not equal at all.

Similarly, Arachnid Guy; I thought Toby McGuire's had a good balance between young, nerdy, and incompetent, and stepping out to be a superhero. Some of the more recent ones fail at this, in my opinion.

Superman is just overpowered, so I guess I don't care, then the movies take it to silly (rewinding time and such). Anyway, if you come from a red star, you get sunburn here, not superpowers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Darth Fluffy said:

The 60s series was good when it was on. I wouldn't go out of my way to watch it now. I prefer the more recent movies.

Given my ADHD problems, short shows are more watchable than longer movies.  Of course, the ability to watch a movie in chunks helps with that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Back in the 90s and early 00s when I was collecting comics, Batman and Superman each had four monthly comics, a quarterly comic, and an annual (and that's just the stuff in the main continuity). Their publications were timed so every week there was at least one comic coming out staring that character. With Batman you could usually just pick one or two series to get (except during major "event" storylines, which were actually fairly common); with Superman they were treated as a single weekly series (there was even a number on the cover telling you the order of the issues) and you were expected to get them all.

I'm not sure if Marvel did the same thing, but I'm sure there were multiple Spider-Man comics, and books about several different X-Men teams.

On 6/30/2022 at 10:38 AM, ijuin said:

It depends on what you want out of the character. For people who want Batman to be funny, the Adam West version is fun. For people who want Batman to be dark and edgy, the newer films are more appealing.

Back when I first saw the Tim Burton Batman movies, I was looking for a grim and gritty hero, so I loved it. I also loved the similar version of Batman seen in the comics in the 90s when I started collecting comics. However, by the time I saw the Dark Knight Trilogy I was starting to grow tired of such stories.

Some time after that, I saw the 60s Batman for the first time, and discovered three things: 1. That show was hilarious. 2. I actually rather like a Batman who isn't angsty. 3. Adam West was sexy.

Which version of Batman I prefer these days depends on my mood, but Adam West is certainly in the running.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/1/2022 at 2:44 PM, ChronosCat said:

Some time after that, I saw the 60s Batman for the first time, and discovered three things: 1. That show was hilarious. 2. I actually rather like a Batman who isn't angsty. 3. Adam West was sexy.

Which version of Batman I prefer these days depends on my mood, but Adam West is certainly in the running.

Burt Ward, who played Robin, was a martial artist with no previous acting credits.

The villains were played by well known actors.

I liked Julie Newmar as Catwoman in her literal cat suit. She was played as a shallow villain, with no hint of the romance between Dick Grayson and Selina Kyle. I believe it had not yet been introduced in the comics.

In fact, for the most part, the characters were shallow with no exploration of their backgrounds.

The cartoon graphics sound effects were a hoot, and Robin's ubiquitous "Holy <something related to whatever the topic was>, Batman" as well. A thing to watch for is guest appearances from random 60s shows hanging out of windows as they are climbing the building walls, there's always a brief interaction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't seen a Batman movie since "Batman and Robin", so I really can't give much of an opinion, but I'd rather see the 60's Batman than the Burton Batman films.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, mlooney said:

I haven't seen a Batman movie since "Batman and Robin", so I really can't give much of an opinion, but I'd rather see the 60's Batman than the Burton Batman films.  

The very last Batman movie I saw, The Dark Knight Rises, was good. It had a lot of background story, and the scope of things made sense, like why he has access to advanced technology. I believe a lot of the backstory portrayed is newish, and might not match golden era Batman. Anne Hathaway plays a good, but different Catwoman, not grossly different, but more positive and less criminal. Michael Caine plays Alfred, who was supposed to have actually been a batman in this version. When I looked it up, I was surprised how long ago this came out.

There is a new one that came out this year. I have not seen a movie in forever, no idea if it is good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/4/2022 at 3:02 AM, Darth Fluffy said:

I liked Julie Newmar as Catwoman in her literal cat suit. She was played as a shallow villain, with no hint of the romance between Dick Grayson and Selina Kyle. I believe it had not yet been introduced in the comics.

A romance between Dick Grayson and Selina Kyle? I don't think I've ever heard of that (except possibly in an "Elseworlds" tale); in the comics I read in the 90s and early 00s, the romance arcs around Catwoman were usually about the attraction between her and Batman.

There was in fact chemistry and hints of romance between Batman and Catwoman in the 60s show. In fact, the one of the first episodes I saw ended with her letting herself be taken to jail in the hopes that when she got out she could be with Batman (or something like that; it's been a while since I saw it). Of course, by the next episode featuring her she'd changed her mind and had broken out of jail to return to her old ways.

On 7/4/2022 at 3:02 AM, Darth Fluffy said:

A thing to watch for is guest appearances from random 60s shows hanging out of windows as they are climbing the building walls, there's always a brief interaction.

Unfortunately,  those scenes have been taken out of the Blu-Ray collection, due to rights issues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ChronosCat said:

Unfortunately,  those scenes have been taken out of the Blu-Ray collection, due to rights issues.

TV shows didn't have a clue about syndication back in those days.  WKRP in Cincinnati only got rights for the music for one showing.  This has lead to the only place you can get it, at cost per episode is Apple TV, where, I suspect Apple has rights to the music as well.   According to the page for it, some of the music is "edited", so they might not have all the rights they need.  Amazon Prime has it, but not in the US.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ChronosCat said:

A romance between Dick Grayson and Selina Kyle? I don't think I've ever heard of that (except possibly in an "Elseworlds" tale); in the comics I read in the 90s and early 00s, the romance arcs around Catwoman were usually about the attraction between her and Batman.

I got the names wrong; Bruce Wayne. That's what I get for posting a 3:00 AM.

 

2 hours ago, ChronosCat said:

Unfortunately,  those scenes have been taken out of the Blu-Ray collection, due to rights issues.

:( That sounds legal-stupid. Any value they had for the parent show is long gone, and it is exposure for a fading property. But yeah, I get it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, but thanks to current copyright law, any work that is younger than Steamboat Willie can not be used in a for-profit production without the express permission of the owner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There exist “fair use” exceptions for artistic and academic purposes, but use of a copyrighted work without permission in anything that is meant to be sold or exhibited in a pay-to-view manner is 100% prohibited.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, ijuin said:

Yeah, but thanks to current copyright law, any work that is younger than Steamboat Willie can not be used in a for-profit production without the express permission of the owner.

The sticky point is that they negotiated a license initially for those segments, and presumably they cut corners; "We only need this for broadcast." Home video was not a thing in the 1960s; 8mm film was for the few that cared to bother, and the offerings were limited. Maybe they covered syndication, but they certainly didn't cover the Internet, which was not even anyone's wet dream yet.

So, for instance, someone owns the rights to Hogan's Heros, and Col. Klink pokes his head out of the window on Batman, but they can no longer show it. A properly written fair use law would allow it, a savvy IP owner of a decrepit property would as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For situations like that, there should be a compulsory licensing requirement—the owner will be presumed to have approved it as part and parcel of approving the production of the scene in the first place, but they will be entitled to royalties from this new usage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That would make sense.  To much sense to cover the weirdness that is pre VCR television licensing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/8/2022 at 8:45 PM, ijuin said:

There exist “fair use” exceptions for artistic and academic purposes, but use of a copyrighted work without permission in anything that is meant to be sold or exhibited in a pay-to-view manner is 100% prohibited.

Unfortunately, what constitutes "fair use" is not always clear or agreed upon by all. Furthermore, not all countries acknowledge "fair use" at all. As a result things that ought to be protected by "fair use" sometimes wind up not being treated as such. (Perhaps the best example of this I know of is that reviews on Youtube of Godzilla and other Toho movies that include footage from the movies tend to get taken down for supposed copyright infringement.)

On 7/9/2022 at 2:36 AM, Darth Fluffy said:

The sticky point is that they negotiated a license initially for those segments, and presumably they cut corners; "We only need this for broadcast." Home video was not a thing in the 1960s; 8mm film was for the few that cared to bother, and the offerings were limited. Maybe they covered syndication, but they certainly didn't cover the Internet, which was not even anyone's wet dream yet.

It might be even worse than that. According to a quote on Wikipedia, some of the cameos were "uncredited, unpaid walk-ons"; it doesn't outright say it, but I wonder if there were any contracts at all for those cameos?

That said, I may have been too definitive when I claimed the cameos were removed. I thought I remembered hearing it before, but now I can't find anything actually saying it. And while I do have the collection myself, I haven't watched all the way through it (I have a bad habit of starting projects and never finishing them). Looking it up, I haven't actually watched any of the episodes that would have had the cameos in them...

All this talk of the show has gotten me in the mood to watch more, so maybe I'll be able to say for sure sometime soon.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, ChronosCat said:

Unfortunately, what constitutes "fair use" is not always clear or agreed upon by all. Furthermore, not all countries acknowledge "fair use" at all. As a result things that ought to be protected by "fair use" sometimes wind up not being treated as such. (Perhaps the best example of this I know of is that reviews on Youtube of Godzilla and other Toho movies that include footage from the movies tend to get taken down for supposed copyright infringement.)

It might be even worse than that. According to a quote on Wikipedia, some of the cameos were "uncredited, unpaid walk-ons"; it doesn't outright say it, but I wonder if there were any contracts at all for those cameos?

That said, I may have been too definitive when I claimed the cameos were removed. I thought I remembered hearing it before, but now I can't find anything actually saying it. And while I do have the collection myself, I haven't watched all the way through it (I have a bad habit of starting projects and never finishing them). Looking it up, I haven't actually watched any of the episodes that would have had the cameos in them...

All this talk of the show has gotten me in the mood to watch more, so maybe I'll be able to say for sure sometime soon.

I'd be curious what you find.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now