XPost: rec.arts.comics.marvel.universe, rec.arts.disney.animation,
rec.arts.animation
XPost: rec.arts.tv
From: psperson@old.netcom.invalid
On Sun, 10 Aug 2025 09:59:47 +1200, Your Name
wrote:
>On 2025-08-09 15:20:16 +0000, Paul S Person said:
>> On Sat, 9 Aug 2025 16:28:23 +1200, Your Name
>> wrote:
>>> On 2025-08-09 01:59:48 +0000, Iéssica said:
>>>> In article <1074mlj$m6da$3@dont-email.me>, weberm@polaris.net wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> The Creator and Producer of X-Men '97, Beau DeMayo, went on something
>>>>> of a>>>>>> posting binge on X Saturday, describing in detail the
>>>>> problems he had with>>>>>> Marvel executives while trying to do a comic
>>>>> book show that respected fans>>>>>> and the source material. In the
>>>>> process, he revealed some major truths>>>>>> about what goes on behind
>>>>> the scenes at Marvel, and it explains a LOT about>>>>>> why so many MCU
>>>>> projects go wrong. This is a MUST SEE folks, and an>>>>>> inspiration
>>>>> - clearly Beau DeMayo gets it, and we need more people like him>>>>>>
>>>>> in Hollywood! #marvel #mcu #disney>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>> https://youtu.be/ijrMi6HhGlU?si=j4HnsJ8x2kWDTcBt
>>>>
>>>> We didn't need to be told this. It has been obvious to any comic fan
>>>> since>>>> the middle of Marvel phase 2 (looking at you Age of Ultron
>>>> and Ironman 3)>>>> that they have zero issue deviating wildly from the
>>>> source material to the>>>> detriment of the story and the characters.
>>>
>>> Hollyweird has been doing that for pretty much as long as it
>>> has>existed. The lazy morons making these "adaptations" (as well
>>> as>"reboots" and "resurrections") usually think they know better than
>>> the>person who had the talent to create the thing in the first place as
>>> to>what it "should" have been rather than what it actually *is*.
>>
>> This doesn't just afflict movies.
>
>It doesn't even just afflict the video industry (TV and movies) either,
>although they are sometimes still to blame.
>
>For example, Elisabeth Beresford's books about the Wombles were
>originally released with illustrations of the creatures with flat
>snouts, then along came the TV series which stupidly changed them to
>having pointed snouts, which then in turn meant re-prints of the books
>were also changed to the new design of the creatures. Now almost nobody
>remebers the original design of the creatures.
>
>
>There are also MANY examples were a book series has had the cover
>design changed mid-run, meaning collectors were faced with either
>having a mis-matched set or having to re-buy the books they already
>owned. (The same happened with VHS and DVD releases of movies and TV
>shows.)
>
>
>
>> Disney went through a phase of DVDs of its animated classics that were
>> "restored to better than their original brilliance". A fair number of
>> fans (or fanatics) of Disney animation complained about how they looked.
>>
>> I have two CDs purporting to be the same as the original LP Motion
>> Picture Soundtrack to /Mary Poppins/, both awaiting disposal. I ended
>> up digitizing the LP because the geniuses-in-charge never bothered to
>> listen to the LP, they just read the track list. Don't get me wrong:
>> either CD will do fine for someone who never heard the LP. But they
>> aren't the same.
>>
>> And then there's /The Complete Musketeers/, a DVD set of the early
>> 70's films, whose makers never bothered to watch the films in any
>> form, and so did not show the scenes shot in daylight to be shown as
>> happening in darkness in darkness. In the theater, the results were so
>> dark that the screen was almost entirely black. On the DVD you can see
>> every single detail. Some of which details do not make any sense when
>> you can see what is going on.
>>
>> And so on, and so on. The DVD of /The Taming of the Shrew/ (Burton)
>> omits the line "He who is giddy sees the world turn 'round", making
>> the response appear pointless.
>> The reason, of course, is that they are treating the films as
>> /product/, on which no real effort is to be lavished because, after
>> all, "it's just a movie". No sense of pride in their own work at all.
>>
>>
>>> Idiotic "Political Correctness" has these days only added another layer
>>> of stupid changes. :-\
>>
>> Sometimes with interesting results.
>>
>> And, anyway, didn't Trump issue an Executive Order about that?
>
>Despite what Trump the Chump likes to believe, he doesn't control the
>entire world ... he doesn't even control the USA thanks to people with
>actual brains blocking most of his stupid ideas. His ditching of the
>"Political Correctness" stupidity is the *ONLY* sane thing he has ever
>come up with.
So sane that Hegseth is apparently trying to turn rebels and traitors
back into heroes.
However, toning down any /actual/ stupidity is always a good thing.
>The BBC, for example, will continue to fulfil checkbox quotas and do
>silly things like gender/ethnicity-swap existing characters.
IIRC, Dr Who can reformulate himself to look like anyone. So some
characters are inherently flexible.
>There are a couple of politicians here in New Zealand trying to do the
>same thing by having everyone treated the same, but the loud-mouthed
>"PC" fools are of course making a massive fuss about how it is
>"anti-Maori" because it would mean they no longer get special treatment
>simply because they are Maori (i.e. reverse-racist treatment).
Depends on the motive.
If the motive is to celebrate the arrival of equality in society, that
is one thing.
If the motive is to return to the bad old days, that is something
else.
In the long run, I would /expect/ a truly egalitarian society to be --
truly egalitarian. But the USA is nowhere near that point. Perhaps in
500 years ...
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
