DC Comics is doing new versions of The Flintstones, Johnny Quest, Scooby Doo, Wacky Races

[Admiral2]

Are you comparing a comics book published in the 2016 with a 60's cartoon?

Since characters in the 2016 comic are based on the characters in the 1960's cartoon, yes.

Different medium,

Nope, same medium (2d art) different presentation.

different era,

Irrelevant, because

different audience?

Nope, same audience. Who else would read a modern comic about the Impossibles but people who are already fans of the original characters?

What does "benefit" mean in a similar context?

Benefit means the changes bring something to the overall narrative besides political correctness, and nothing you just mentioned proves that's what these changes do.

 

[JD]

And Megan Fox still gets work. What's your point?

So if Lupita Nyong'o and Megan Fox were both up for the same role, say Catwoman or Spider-Woman, you'd rather see Megan Fox get the role?

 

[Greylock Crescent]

And personally I'd land the white guy with the proper look and allocate budget money for an acting coach.

This statement is explicitly about prioritizing whiteness over talent.

I don't need to say what this represents, others can make that inference for themselves. But what a very unfortunate post for 2016.

 

[Nerys Myk]

I don't have some personal agenda based on inequality or anything like. And I'm not stuck in the Dark Ages either.

Sorry, in my experience people who use terms like "PC Agenda" and "SJW" do have an agenda. And yes it's about equality.
Dark Ages? No, we don't have to go that far back.

And personally I'd land the white guy with the proper look and allocate budget money for an acting coach.

Where would I get the money? Simple, I'd save it by not hiring the most award winning actor in Hollywood who could demand a king's ransom for starring in my movie. Instead of Tom Brady I get a rookie QB I can work with.

Most productions don't have the time to develop their leading man. They'd be on a time table and not have money to burn. Sports teams probably have more time to develop talent. Most rookie QBs have some sort of experience in the game. usually College ball. A bit different than being the worst actor ever.

Why not? It's not like nobody in Hollywood has ever done it and it's not like it's never worked out. How do you think guys like John Cena and LeBron James get work? Lynda Carter got to play Wonder Woman solely because she was a beauty queen who looked the part, and it's obvious she spent the first half of the first season of the show just learning how to act, yet who's the first person who comes to mind when you think of live-action WW? She was a newbie who ended up owning the part.

This is done all the time. When comedians get sitcoms and football players get action shows and fashion models get parts in franchises, studios are taking bets that the extra time and money spent teaching them to hit a mark and say a line without stuttering will pay off in actual production, and often times it does. The only things that would keep me from picking the guy who looks the part in the scenario you described would be impatience and desperation, and if I'm either impatient or desperate or both, then the production has a lot more problems than who gets the lead.

Again a different situation. Guys like Cena and Lebron bring a brand with them. So do most athletes and musicians who get into acting. Sometimes it works out. Sometimes its just embarrassing for all involved.
Carter actually took acting lessons for a few years after being crowned Miss World USA. And scored a couple of guest spots before landing Wonder Woman. She also had a background in performing as a singer, starting in her teen years. She didn't go directly from the pageant stage to the soundstage

Since characters in the 2016 comic are based on the characters in the 1960's cartoon, yes.

Things have changed in the last 50 years. Hell, comics have changed in the last 50 years.

Nope, same medium (2d art) different presentation.

No. Cartoons and comics are different mediums. Just as still photography and motion pictures are different. Jut as TV and motion pictures are different mediums.

Irrelevant, because[
Nope, same audience. Who else would read a modern comic about the Impossibles but people who are already fans of the original characters?

Trust me. DC isn't banking on a bunch of middle aged men on making these books successful. I think they might want a wider audience.

 

[Skipper]

Nope, same medium (2d art) different presentation.

...What..? I... What?

I'm sorry would you mind explaining what your definition of "medium"? Because, you know, even a live movie or a painting are 2d...

 

[Admiral2]

All right. Let's get everybody at once so I can get on with my day.

So if Lupita Nyong'o and Megan Fox were both up for the same role, say Catwoman or Spider-Woman, you'd rather see Megan Fox get the role?

Yes, and at this point I shouldn't have to actually tell you that. I get that you find the notion bizarre, but why the fuck do you actually care? It's highly unlikely I will ever make a movie of any kind in my lifetime, so it doesn't really matter to anybody but me how I'd cast one. Your superhero movies are safely out of my hands.

Nerys Myk and Skipper:

In artistic terms, Animation and Film are Techniques for presenting art in a dynamic fashion. A "Medium" is a tool used to create the art work being presented, which means the medium in the case of Film is the camera used to photograph the action, not what's projected in the theatre.

In the case of the cartoons we're talking about, the mediums (media) are the tools used to create the animation cells: pencils, ink and paint, which are generally the same tools used to create comics. The main difference between 2D animation and comics is the number of images being drawn. The drawing itself, however, is the exact same process, which means adapting from 2D animation to comics does not require some huge technical effort. You just create static 2D images and keep them static.

Most productions don't have the time to develop their leading man. They'd be on a time table and not have money to burn.

"Most" is not "All." The time and budget pressure varies by studio and production company. I'll argue for whatever cast and budget I feel necessary. If they say yes, great. If they say no they'll find another director. Everybody wins.

Sports teams probably have more time to develop talent. Most rookie QBs have some sort of experience in the game. usually College ball.

And the first thing any NFL scout or coach will tell you is that College Ball and Pro Football are different, which means every rookie QB is a newbie that requires development. How quickly they develop depends on coaching and practice, which is also varied.

A bit different than being the worst actor ever.

Tim Tebow was a starting QB who won games and got his team to the playoffs. Like I said, sometimes worst works out.

Again a different situation. Guys like Cena and Lebron bring a brand with them. So do most athletes and musicians who get into acting. Sometimes it works out. Sometimes its just embarrassing for all involved.

That doesn't stop studios from casting them and athletes like them. Every casting choice involves risk. If you know that going in and prepare for it, you have a better chance of making even the riskiest choice work out for you (As with Cena and LeBron in Trainwreck.)

Carter actually took acting lessons for a few years after being crowned Miss World USA. And scored a couple of guest spots before landing Wonder Woman. She also had a background in performing as a singer, starting in her teen years. She didn't go directly from the pageant stage to the soundstage

That doesn't mean she was the next Lauren Bacall, and it was evident for a good chunk of that first season that she had more work to do, so she probably got more acting instruction as production went on. You commit to a choice and do what's necessary to make it work.

Trust me. DC isn't banking on a bunch of middle aged men on making these books successful. I think they might want a wider audience.

And if that were the case concerning Future Quest, they'd have made as many changes to the characters in that book as they did to the characters in the others. They didn't. All the characters are fundamentally as they appeared on the small screen in the sixties, which means FQ is most likely to appeal to fans of those old cartoons, including all us middle-aged men.

 

[JD]

The reason I'm asking about your posts, is because I was trying to understand your attitude, and since you posted on a public BBS, I'm allowed to. If you don't want people to ask about and comment on things, they you shouldn't post them on the boards.

 

[Manticore]

And personally I'd land the white guy with the proper look and allocate budget money for an acting coach.

I have no words in response to this.

 

[dahj]

A "Medium" is a tool used to create the art work being presented, which means the medium in the case of Film is the camera used to photograph the action, not what's projected in the theatre.

There's probably twentyish different definitions of the word medium in the English language.
That isn't any one of them.

 

[Nerys Myk]

There's probably twentyish different definitions of the word medium in the English language.
That isn't any one of them.

I had a similar thought. Though it has been a few decades since I received my art degree, so maybe I've forgotten a thing or two.

 

[Nerys Myk]

And the first thing any NFL scout or coach will tell you is that College Ball and Pro Football are different, which means every rookie QB is a newbie that requires development. How quickly they develop depends on coaching and practice, which is also varied.

Being new to pro ball isn't the same as being "the worst actor ever".

Tim Tebow was a starting QB who won games and got his team to the playoffs. Like I said, sometimes worst works out.

And he was the worst QB in the history of the game? I don't think he got to the Pros by sucking at the College level.

That doesn't stop studios from casting them and athletes like them. Every casting choice involves risk. If you know that going in and prepare for it, you have a better chance of making even the riskiest choice work out for you (As with Cena and LeBron in Trainwreck.)

Who's saying it would stop them? The industry is littered with singers turned actor, athletes turned actor and models turned actor. There are different levels of risk. Taking a risk on a trained unknown is different than taking a risk on someone from a different medium and both are different than taking a risk on someone untrained or untalented.

That doesn't mean she was the next Lauren Bacall, and it was evident for a good chunk of that first season that she had more work to do, so she probably got more acting instruction as production went on. You commit to a choice and do what's necessary to make it work.

No ones claiming she's the next Bacall. But the idea she was some untrained Beauty Queen isn't quite accurate.

And if that were the case concerning Future Quest, they'd have made as many changes to the characters in that book as they did to the characters in the others. They didn't. All the characters are fundamentally as they appeared on the small screen in the sixties, which means FQ is most likely to appeal to fans of those old cartoons, including all us middle-aged men.

You no idea what the creators thoughts an motivations were. I didn't say it wouldn't appeal to us middle-aged men, just that middle-aged men isn't the target audience.

 

[S.Gallagher]

So how many female characters are there as major players in Future Quest? I realize we keep talking about this in terms of just The Impossibles, but maybe this wasn't specifically about them and was simply about wanting another woman in the cast of comic. Based of off the covers and previews there are only two other girls or women in the cast, the girl in blue and yellow, and the woman from Herculoids. So maybe they looked and the easiest way to get another female character in was to add her to the Incredibles.

The Impossibles - (actually, they were going to be called the Incredibles at one point but the name now belongs to some Disney characters). There are actually other female characters in the comic besides the ones you mentioned, some of whome don't appear on the cover. And why did this other one have to be an Impossibles member? Could have been a supporting character who helped them out. As far as I'm concerned, this version of my favourites is ruined unless this character turns out to be temporary. And I want Multi Man's original costume back!!!!!

And personally I'd land the white guy with the proper look and allocate budget money for an acting coach.

Where would I get the money? Simple, I'd save it by not hiring the most award winning actor in Hollywood who could demand a king's ransom for starring in my movie. Instead of Tom Brady I get a rookie QB I can work with.



Actually, there's Jan from Space Ghost, Gravity Girl from the Galaxy Trio, Tara from the Herculoids, Jezebel Jade from Jonny Quest and a new character working with Birdman, so that's pretty much every female character that's ever appeared in the other cartoons plus an extra.

Extra, unwanted, and needless as far as I'm concerned. There to nanny to the Social Jstice Warriors - I'm female but this addition does not make me feel included - very much the opposite, as it's my favourites who are being ruined.

Just one: do you realize this isn't the kind of change S.Gallagher is protesting?

Yes, all of the above are great examples of necessary change, but here's the thing: Ebony White is still a black male kid. Sue Richards and Lois Lane are still white women, and all three characters derived from the source material. Nobody was added, nobody's race changed. As stated over and over again, S's problem with the modern take on the Impossibles is an addition and a race change.

If you could explain why those changes were necessary, it would be appreciated.

So glad you can see where I'm coming from! As I've said, some teams work well with new characters being added from time to time - but the Impossibles is not that sort. And I could understand Karate Kid of the Legion of Super Heroes being made to look more Asian because the character WAS more Asian, (at least when his background was established), but Buzz Conroy has always been very definately European for decades. It just comes over as silly and defeats the object.

Or Roland of Gilead, right?

It's unnecessary at worst, and inspired at best.

Think about it: You could continue with the same-old, same-old. But changing a character would, at worst, feel unnecessary. It doesn't have to be (it isn't for me, and many others like me, but obviously for some - e.g. see thread above - it is). But the potential benefits of changing some characters, so as to better reflect our society, offers far more character and story-telling opportunities than blindly maintaining a decades-old status quo.

Furthermore, what's the argument for maintaining the status quo? Merely "that's how it was in the past?" In the past we had Jim Crowe laws. Was that argument any reason to keep them around? If we were to start fresh today, would we start with the (misguidedly idealized) norms of the past, or the realities of today? I'd much rather reflect the realities of today.

Well, super heroes have never existed in reality........ anyway, all-male boy bands exist today, and that's what the Impossibles are in the cartoon - so do you think all groups of musicians who are all of one sex should HAVE to recruit someone of the opposite? Yes, it would be odd if we were talking about an orchestra - but the 'Imps are a trio!!!!!

 

[Manticore]

Godwin's Law corollary I.6.v:
Any post using "SJW" or "Social Justice Warrior" unironically as a pejorative is an instant admission that an argument is without merit.

Also, if you click the "+Quote" button next to "Reply" at the bottom right of each post, you can quote multiple messages in one post and avoid spamming the thread.

 

[S.Gallagher]

Godwin's Law corollary I.6.v:
Any post using "SJW" or "Social Justice Warrior" unironically as a pejorative is an instant admission that an argument is without merit.

Also, if you click the "+Quote" button next to "Reply" at the bottom right of each post, you can quote multiple messages in one post and avoid spamming the thread.

Thanks for that 'info about avoiding too many separate posts. Don't see that my arguments are without merit, though!

 

[Skipper]

Godwin's Law corollary I.6.v:
Any post using "SJW" or "Social Justice Warrior" unironically as a pejorative is an instant admission that an argument is without merit.

Or...
It is what the SJWs want us to believe..?

Remember! They are so powerful that they added a female member to the characters of a 50 year old cartoon that is all but forgotten!

Join the dots, I say. JOIN THE DOTS!

 

[Skipper]

In artistic terms, Animation and Film are Techniques for presenting art in a dynamic fashion. A "Medium" is a tool used to create the art work being presented, which means the medium in the case of Film is the camera used to photograph the action, not what's projected in the theatre.

In the case of the cartoons we're talking about, the mediums (media) are the tools used to create the animation cells: pencils, ink and paint, which are generally the same tools used to create comics. The main difference between 2D animation and comics is the number of images being drawn. The drawing itself, however, is the exact same process, which means adapting from 2D animation to comics does not require some huge technical effort. You just create static 2D images and keep them static.

So... just to keep this straight...
A "classic" 2d animation (made with paper and pencils) and comics are the same medium. A "classic" 2d animation and a 2d animation made with graphics tablets instead of paper are two different media...?

Everyone is entitled to his/her own opinion, but I really believe that you are the only person that ever said something like that...

 

[JD]

Was there really that much of a character dynamic for a new member of the Impossibles to so drastically change it? A lot of these old cartoons didn't exactly have the deepest characterizations.

 

[Skipper]

Was there really that much of a character dynamic for a new member of the Impossibles to so drastically change it? A lot of these old cartoons didn't exactly have the deepest characterizations.

Try to watch an episode. They are 6-7 minute long. If you google it you can find a lot of sites that can stream it (I don't link them because I'm not sure that they are legit... )

 

[S.Gallagher]

Was there really that much of a character dynamic for a new member of the Impossibles to so drastically change it? A lot of these old cartoons didn't exactly have the deepest characterizations.

There was quite enough for me, even though each cartoon only lasted a few minutes. And I want to see the originals if I'm watching/reading about the Impossibles - plenty of new/unfamiliar characters to be discovered elsewhere. There are some episodes and clips on Youtube.

 

[Mr. Adventure]

Was there really that much of a character dynamic for a new member of the Impossibles to so drastically change it? A lot of these old cartoons didn't exactly have the deepest characterizations.

The thing that popped into my head reading this thread was Venus from TMNT which I don't think was so fondly remembered.