...Following in the massive footprints of the " Incomprehensible Idiot  " thread , I present...........

  ME !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Views: 1945

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

It doesn't seem to offer schedules for previous days.

...A belated thank you, Richard. I am now watching the prime-time run of the Gayle King CBS interview with R. Kelly concerning - those - allegations. I wonder what kind of ratings it will get?

  I'd have a hard time hook-singing you any R. Kelly song beyond that Bugs Bunny basketball theme, but nonetheless!!!!!!!

...I just finished watching 194o's original version of D.O.A., starring Edmund O'Brien. I will presume that most here are familiar with the film's presence/MacGuffin. My question is - How plausible is it that drink-slipped in iridium eod ..absolutely without hole of cur, kill someone in a few days - But allow them to.ru n around, with no visible bodily effect, until the poison (SPOILER ) takes effect.  And they drop dead then and there? Even if they"re really deferermined. I know, I know, it's only a movie.

...My Pandora threw a version of a classic of 80s rap/electro - Newcleus' " Jam On It "...which features at least one of the greatest Superman pop-song referenced of all time!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (The version Pandora threw up is a re-recording, not the original.) In early rap, the Sugarhill Gang dropped - indeed, dissed - the Man of Tomorrow as well:-)! The Newcleus cut was enough of a hit to make the Billboard Hot 100 pop chart, back in the 80s, rare for rap then - and yours truly contributed, by buying it...the 7-inch version:-)!!!!!!!!!!! (I was always kinda thrifty.)

Is anybody seeing SHAZAM! the first weekend? I am signed up to AMC Theater's A List program, and they sent me a thing saying that first-week viewers of the. IMAX version would get a free comic book. However, I always tend to prefer " normal " flat versions of movies. I suppose thfe free comic might be just a reprint of the few-months-back first issue? Or even just a reprint of the first couple stories of th he 2£12 revamping?

Is it still DC canon that Thomas and Martha Wayne were shot coming home from a revival movie house double feature of the silent and sound versions of...what? Douglas Fairbanks and Errol Flynn's ROBIN HOODs (the latter on in the background now)? I remembered likewise two ZORROs, but just now looked up and found that Flynn did not make a ZORRO flick. Black-costumed and masked nobleman (with a mansion?) seems a more direct spark for the Dark Knight than brightly-clad unmasked laughing homeless (if aristocratic) rambler Robin Hood. I believe Zorro is still copyrighted - and not to AT&T. If DC decided to de-emphasize the past-mentionec double feature concept, could that be the reason?

Reading Wikipedia's history of the Marvel UK imprint, I saw that Neil Tennant (future Pet Shop Boy), when he was head editor of Marvel UK, not only edited the reprinted American stories for British pubication by
anglisizing the dialogue - he also females redrawn to be more modest, fitting U.K. standards. In 1974 or so. Does anybody have any postable side-by-side examples of this?

Emerkeith Davyjack said:

Is it still DC canon that Thomas and Martha Wayne were shot coming home from a revival movie house double feature of the silent and sound versions of...what? Douglas Fairbanks and Errol Flynn's ROBIN HOODs (the latter on in the background now)? I remembered likewise two ZORROs, but just now looked up and found that Flynn did not make a ZORRO flick. Black-costumed and masked nobleman (with a mansion?) seems a more direct spark for the Dark Knight than brightly-clad unmasked laughing homeless (if aristocratic) rambler Robin Hood. I believe Zorro is still copyrighted - and not to AT&T. If DC decided to de-emphasize the past-mentionec double feature concept, could that be the reason?

Since TV's Green Arrow has used so much of the Batman tropes and enemies, maybe this turn about is fair play?

I don't think simply mentioning an old Zorro movie in a story would violate copyright in any courtroom.

Emerkeith Davyjack said:

I believe Zorro is still copyrighted - and not to AT&T. If DC decided to de-emphasize the past-mentionec double feature concept, could that be the reason?

Richard Willis said:

I don't think simply mentioning an old Zorro movie in a story would violate copyright in any courtroom.

What he said. Merely mentioning the title of an existing work doesn't violate copyright. 

I expect that it's simply a matter of writers sticking to the important part of the story -- the Wayne family was on a night on the town at the movies and some anonymous gunman attacked them -- and not worrying about the specific details.

Especially as most of those specific details were added later: that the movie was The Mark of Zorro, that the gunman had a name, the whole business of Martha Wayne's pearl necklace falling apart (which, as many people have noticed, doesn't make sense, so there is a secret origin for the necklace).

In the first Joe Chill story, I was struck by the image of Chill accosting the Waynes --- not in a dark alley but on a brightly lit street corner with traffic.

I've always felt that giving the murderer a name was a bad call. I think it's much more poignant that he was an anonymous thug who got clean away.

The Zero Hour event had the world recreated back to prehistory. IIRC, the only thing that changed for Batman is that he never knew who killed his parents.

ClarkKent_DC said:

I've always felt that giving the murderer a name was a bad call. I think it's much more poignant that he was an anonymous thug who got clean away.

Reply to Discussion

RSS

Welcome!

No flame wars. No trolls. But a lot of really smart people.The Captain Comics Round Table tries to be the friendliest and most accurate comics website on the Internet.

SOME ESSENTIALS:

RULES OF THE ROUND TABLE

MODERATORS

SMILIES FOLDER

TIPS ON USING THE BOARD

FOLLOW US:

OUR COLUMNISTS:

Groups

© 2019   Captain Comics, board content ©2013 Andrew Smith   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service