Good day, my envoys of envelopes. My banana gambit did not work, and I've been captured by the intelligent apes. They seem amazed that I can talk, but also annoyed that I spend all my time making jokes about them throwing their poop at things. They did take all my bananas, though, the furry little bastards. Anyways, on with the mail…
When it comes to creator's rights, I'd say that we're largely supportive. But, there's one creator that sets himself apart – to the point where he receives constant ridicule for much beloved, mega franchise he gave birth to – obviously I'm talking about George Lucas.
But, with Disney promising us multiple directors and screenwriters, along with several movies over the next few years, I'm wondering if there will be a point where we miss the old fellow and his penchant for midichlorians.
What do you think needs to happen to Star Wars for us to want George back?
Well, the future Star Wars movies will need to suck, but they'll need to do more than that. However crappy we thought the prequels were, we all instantly accepted them as part of the Star Wars universe. That is to say, we considered them bad Star Wars movies, but still intrinsically part of the franchise.
There was something about them that felt like Star Wars. It's weird, and I don't know if I can articulate exactly what it was, but just because a movie features Jedi knights and lightsabers and stuff doesn't mean it will truly feel like an authentic Star Wars film. If Disney can't get this nebulous "feel" right, then whether they're good or not, Star Wars fans will bitch, and I guarantee they'll also start clamoring for George to take control again. And he'll probably flip us all the finger, because why would he subject himself to all the criticism and hate he got during the prequels?
Relatedly, a nice side-benefit of the sequels and upcoming stand-alone Star Wars movies is that the better they are, the more we'll appreciate George Lucas for creating the franchise in the first place. Though I guess if the new movies are shitty we'll also come to appreciate Lucas and his work more. Either way, time heals all wounds, even midichlorians. Whatever we thought about the prequels, the fact of the matter is the only reason we were so emotionally devastated by them is because Lucas created a franchise that completely consumed us to the point where we got that attached. At the end of the day he deserves far more praise and thanks than scorn.
So with everything Kevin Feige has been saying (or not saying) about Captain Marvel lately many fans have used this to point out that other fans are biased towards Marvel in the diversity debate. "DC may not have put out a Wonder Woman movie, but Marvel doesn't have any female lead ones either".
I think that this isn't quite as black and white as they're implying. If I asked average non-comic book readers, prior to the big movies being released, to name three superheroes from both publishers I'm betting the top lists would look like this (after telling them which publisher each belonged to): DC-Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, and Marvel: Wolverine, Spiderman, Hulk. These are the ones that had their own TV shows, they had their own action figures. People who didn't read comics knew who they were through pop culture and references in other TV shows.
This is why DC leaving Wonder Woman out is worse than Marvel waiting to make a Captain Marvel one. Wonder Woman has a lot more name recognition than a lot of the other DC heroes, where Captain Marvel is still not known much outside of the comic book readers making the decision to green light a lesser known character harder. I think the big female names of Marvel are characters like Sue Storm, Jean Grey or Rogue, who are part of a team and not solo heroes.
So it this a valid argument, or am I really just biased? Should I be blaming Marvel for not making a character like Captain Marvel more prominent before this in comics and TV Shows so that a live action theatrical release would be easier?
I think it's a valid argument. Wonder Woman isn't just the best-known superheroine in the world, she's one of the best-known superheroes period. It should be way easier to make a Wonder Woman movie than a movie based on one of Marvel's heroines, and the fact she had a long-running TV show in the '70s gives the character a proven track record for attracting mass audiences. I definitely think that makes DC/WB's inability to make a superheroine movie more egregious than Marvel's.
And let's not forget that Warner Bros. at one point had a Wonder Woman movie script written by Joss Whedon and then elected not to make that movie. That's both insane and incredibly galling.
I don't think this means we need to let Marvel off the hook; they've made a ton of movies at this point, and it's way past time they evened their playing field and gave us a Black Widow or Captain Marvel movie (or both). But the fact of the matter is Marvel has brought the Guardians of the Galaxy, Batroc the Leaper, and Howard the Duck to movie screens before WB/DC has managed to make a Wonder Woman movie. That's insane.
You say in your article about the finale to walking dead that a practical ending could not possibly include a cure. You further explain that by saying it's because of the rotting nature of the corpses. My question to you is, why does the cure have to be for the zombies?
Remember everyone is infected...everyone...which includes the living. Why can't a cure be found for the living which will prevent them from becoming zombies when they die? Couldn't that be possible?
I will agree, there's no way Rick survives to the end. However, one way for him to go would be the finale and he would be the test subject for the cure that works.
If the "cure" only "cures" living people from turning into zombies after they die, then that's nice and marginally helpful, although it doesn't really do anything about the millions of zombies wandering the countryside. It's like putting a band-aid over a bullethole wound. Yes, it's probably better than not putting a band-aid over it, but it doesn't really address the main problem.
As for Rick, um, if he dies as the test subject doesn't that mean the "cure" kills him? Even if he doesn't turn into a zombie, I don't think anyone else will be running to stand in line for that particular medicine.
Dear future fake postman,
When you read books in a world created by multiple authors, but not really actively writing collaboratively, how do you address discrepancies between significant plot points? This becomes particularly difficult when we Malazan mega-fans get in debates about what "actually happened." For example when, say, a certain Elder God Erikson firmly established as male (gender being very important when it comes to his deities) turns up as a female at the end of an Esselmont book, or the two authors provide conflicting accounts of the alleged outcome of a certain emperor's assassination, or something as simple as just the ages and appearances of various mortal characters between the two authors, how do we side who was right?
As a mega-fan sometimes finding myself debating the finer points of Malazan lore in the trenches of the internet, is it acceptable for me to just cite to the author I prefer and stick with him? Or do I have to roll over and support my less-favored author when he actually spends significant time developing a character or event that my favored one only mentions in passing?
Please help. World at stake. K thanks.
It's tough for me to answer this, not knowing the specific details of the Malazan books or the points in contention in particular, but I do feel like I can safely advise you STOP ARGUING ON THE INTERNET. Seriously. I know it's hard to avoid, especially when you're passionate and love something and everyone else is so stupid and wrong. But even if the facts were on your side, all the logic in the world will not make them change their opinions, and if the source material is such that there are technically multiple legitimate facts, then it's even more a recipe for meaningless agony than usual.
Personally, you have every right to choose the author and facts that you prefer. But if it's just a matter of preference, then all you're doing is arguing your opinion to someone else who has a different opinion, which is not an debate that can be objectively decided. You don't have to support the contradictory shit you don't like, and you can even argue that its shit, but unless you can prove this other author did all his writing while on smack or something, the other shit is going to be just as valid as the shit you like. That sucks, but I don't see a way around it that even the most level-headed debater would agree with.
Look, arguing online is the worst. I more or less get paid to do it, and it still crushes my soul. And this is a fight that you can never win, even if you were having it with rational, non-online people. You're better off using your time and energy going into bookstores with a magic marker and crossing out all the passages you don't like in the other dude's books.
The Skye Is Falling
I have a question regarding the comic book version of Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.
While looking for clues on the internet about the questions left open on the first season of the TV show, I found several rumors saying that Skye has a good chance of becoming Captain (Ms.) Marvel.
But since the idea of making a comic version of Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D is to allow them to interact more freely with known heroes... Do you think that this invalidates the Captain Marvel rumors?
Yeah but that's like reason #337 that Skye isn't Captain Marvel. The much more important reasons include the fact that Marvel Studios isn't going to introduce a new potential movie franchise character in the TV series, that they'd inevitably cast a star of greater magnitude for Captain Marvel than Chloe Bennet, that if they'd had any intention of using the character as Captain Marvel it's likely Skye would have the tiniest similarities to the character of Carol Danvers, and she does not. At all.
The Agents of SHIELD TV series is such a drop in the pop culture bucket compared to the Cinematic Universe that they're not going to bother to truly introduce any new characters or major setting developments there, because they just can't assume that all the movie viewers watch the show. It's not worth the hassle.
In related news, when Googling to figure out the name of the actress who plays Skye, I discovered Skye's legal name was at one point apparently "Mary Sue Poots." That delights me to no end.
I have questions about two different matters.
1) First, since Avatar: The Legend of Korra is prepping for it's fourth and final season, what do you think the show should show and cover? A:LoK is different from A:TLA in that the latter, there was one long plotline involving Aang's battle with the Fire Lord (and nation). A:LoK however, have been mostly one-season plotlines. There haven't been an overarching series plotline as far as I can see. I doubt that the fourth season will change that. Therefore, how do you think the A:LoK should end? What would be awesome to see in this final season?
2) Second, I would love to hear your feelings about the newest episode of Doctor Who. I found the episode to be lame, yet Capaldi to be great. Yet, my wife and I had a hard problem understanding him. Did you have any issues like that?
1) I 'm guessing the fourth and final Legend of Korra season will tie in very directly with The Last Airbender, in that the former generation and the new generation come together to fight some ancient evil. Now, whether that will be a resurrected Ozai (the main bad guy of Airbender) or some other, more nebulous foe, I expect to see the old and new Team Avatars fighting side-by-side. It's the last season, so why not devote it entirely to the hardcore fans? And if Nickelodeon's pulled the show off the air meaning virtually no one is watching it except for fans at this point, why not go crazy? Admittedly, I may be biased, because, I desperately want to see elderly Toph at this point hand some bad guys their asses.
2) I agree with you and CJ; Capaldi was excellent, while the episode itself was "enh." I love the complete lack of romantic tension between the Doctor and his companion, which is completely refreshing; but the general plot felt entirely like stuff we'd seen before, and on several occasions. It's possible that showrunner Steven Moffat was trying to keep things familiar for the introduction of the new Doctor, but I'm kind of worried we're going to get the same-old same-old, only now with a Scottish accent.
And speaking of, I'm not ashamed to admit I had to pull up the captioning on my TV to figure out exactly what Capaldi's Doctor was saying, so yeah, you're not the only one who had that problem. I wonder if American Who audiences are big enough that the BBC would ask Capaldi to enunciate a bit more clearly? I hope not. The idea of America having even the tiniest bit of influence over Doctor Who sounds like a terrible, terrible thing to me.
Do you have questions about anything scifi, fantasy, superhero, or nerd-related? Email the email@example.com! No question too difficult, no question too dumb! Obviously!