DC probably should've never hired Card to begin with, at least not for one of its flagship characters. But I'll agree that what Sprouse did was highly unprofessional and he should suffer for it as well.
Friction at DC
- Thread starter A beaker full of death
- Start date
- Status
DC probably should've never hired Card to begin with, at least not for one of its flagship characters. But I'll agree that what Sprouse did was highly unprofessional and he should suffer for it as well.
Well, they had no problem hiring Frank Miller to write Batman despite his fascist views.
I had no interest in engaging with you in the first place, your posts across this thread suggest your grasp on logic is as shaky as your grasp on the English language.
I was addressing someone else when you launched in with a totally unfounded assumption on my political stances, that bore little relationship to the point I made, and then have the nerve to wonder why I am not taking you seriously.
As I said, hilarious.
Different day, my friend.
The world's changing. We're becoming more tolerant of people different than ourselves and less tolerant of people who use race, religion and sexual orientation as tools to drive division among us.
If you want to try, go ahead. However, I don't think you'll get much support. It's also a weak conservative attack, "Oh, you must be intolerant of ideas if you don't tolerate intolerant people."
But, anyway...
It's an interesting question. I bet they will continue to hire him. He's a very popular artist, he's work attracts an audience, and he sells books. Perhaps if he regularly did this, but, if not then it would be rather a stupid business decision, don't you think? Unprofessional in THIS instance or not, he still makes the company money. They are going to continue to work with him.
I guess you'll have to not buy his books.
Freedom of speech! Except for those using it to protest!
1. For some it's not about legal definition. It literally is about Freedom. Because it has nothing to do with you personally, you don't see that.
2. Card is free to continue to produce his art. He's a writer. He doesn't need anyone to hire him. He can write, anytime, anywhere he wants. Probably most of his money comes from his novels, not the occasional comic he does. So, he's not being stopped from writing. "Oh, but, he's being stopped from making a living." No, he's being stopped from working at DC. He can continue to write and sell his novels.
Lovely straw man, but no one is talking about banning it. That's clearly against the First Amendment. If a store wants to sell it they are free to do so. If a store DOESN'T want to sell it, they are free to do so. Just as people are free to protest the selling of the book or not.
The concept of Freedom of Speech is so distorted, that people think they are protected that they should be able to say anything and then scream "FREEDOM!1!" and not be called out.
The First Amendment protects us from the Government. It shouldn't protect us from each other.
I am SURE they think they are trying to make the world a better place. So? What's your point? That you think I'm so closed minded or something? OSC believes in certain things that make the world a better place. A lot of bigots do.
I don't flee from it. I know I can. I know I have free will to buy another book. Just like I have free will to join a protest. And as far as absolute thought and action control?
Your tin hat is showing.I love how the ONLY way to express free will in your mind is to NEVER join a group doing something you believe in.
Hey, if you want to come out and say gay men and women shouldn't be allowed to marry, just say it. You don't have to hide it in obfuscation.
It's hard living in your echo chamber. Actually, most polls did show Obama leading... but, that's a little OT.
The reality is: gay marriage has consistently shown more and more approval. It's getting approved in more and more states. I could bring you a flash light for your echo chamber if you like.
FREEDOM!1!
Oh, so you're not going to answer the question about whether or not you are consistent in your thinking. Rather, turn it into an attack. Nice. Transparent. But... nice tactic.
Last edited:
Frank Miller is not a fascist.
Sprouse said the controversy was distracting him in his work being a bit coy about his views. Doesn't make it less unprofessional if you feel that way about him but just saying he hasn't truly declared a position on the topic (at least in the linked article).
The other thing is that the internet extends both the lifespan and accessibility to things in people's personal life. Something that might have only been known to the hardcore is out there for all. A fleeting statement in passing can now live indefinitely. Look at how many people fired for silly Facebook/Twitter things that no one had to see in the first place if they weren't being nosy about that person (and those are just the ones that have been posted).
The other thing is that the internet extends both the lifespan and accessibility to things in people's personal life. Something that might have only been known to the hardcore is out there for all. A fleeting statement in passing can now live indefinitely. Look at how many people fired for silly Facebook/Twitter things that no one had to see in the first place if they weren't being nosy about that person (and those are just the ones that have been posted).
Whereas I thought Sprouse was the person who came out looking best in this situation. He gave a very diplomatic statement that didn't burn bridges with anyone and made it clear that the chatter was distracting and he had to step away.
Do I think this burns his bridge with DC? Absolutely not. For one thing, DC values Sprouse far more than they value Card. Yes, DC says they're going to look for a new artist, but I can't actually see them looking very hard. Sprouse's decision very clearly gave DC the excuse to pay Card his kill fee and pull the plug on the story.
Plus it meant that retailers who had publicly said they weren't going to carry the first print issue with Card's story because they didn't want to financially support Card can now, in good conscience, order it. In that sense, Sprouse saved the book and did DC a favor. The work of the other artists and writers in the book now aren't being damaged by the Card blowback.
It was the other artists issue that really had me on the fence about Adventures of Superman #1. It's okay for me to not buy Orson Scott Card's novels; the only person affected by that is Card as my withholding purchase means he's one less copy toward earning out his advance -- and lower sales on his books mean his publishers will offer him lower advances in the future because Card's work doesn't sell. But Card wasn't the only creator in Adventures of Superman #1. I wanted to support Sprouse and Chris Samnee, but I didn't want to support Card. Did my love of the character and Sprouse and Samnee outweigh my detestment of Card? I hadn't sorted out that calculus yet. Now I don't have to solve the problem; Chris Sprouse solved it for me.
A subject not germane to this thread or forum, so please drop it, now.
wha?
All I know about Miller's politics is the way he lambasted Reagan and decried the perceived corruption of government to an almost paranoid level in DKR. What makes him a fascist?
Which leads to a key issue here: artists express themselves through their art. There are few artists (though some, true - mainly a few actors) whose public stances on issues have so offended me that I can no longer enjoy their craft. F'rinstance, I'm a huge Harry Belafonte fan. I think he's a great entertainer and a lovely man. He's also a real humanitarian. Politically, I think he's an absolute nutjob. I still love his singing and performances, though, and would be horrified if he were prevented from performing.
Back to my first question, though, I really don't know what this is about: how is Miller a fascist?
All I know about Miller's politics is the way he lambasted Reagan and decried the perceived corruption of government to an almost paranoid level in DKR. What makes him a fascist?
Which leads to a key issue here: artists express themselves through their art. There are few artists (though some, true - mainly a few actors) whose public stances on issues have so offended me that I can no longer enjoy their craft. F'rinstance, I'm a huge Harry Belafonte fan. I think he's a great entertainer and a lovely man. He's also a real humanitarian. Politically, I think he's an absolute nutjob. I still love his singing and performances, though, and would be horrified if he were prevented from performing.
Back to my first question, though, I really don't know what this is about: how is Miller a fascist?
.
There is absolutely no proof, not a single bit of it, that would label Frank Miller a fascist. There's a lot of commentary and op-ed crap and opinions that slam him that way, but there is no proof. He has never expressed fascist opinions or beliefs of any sort.
Certain elements think he's a fascist just because, for example, he dared to criticize the Occupy movement, but that's hardly conclusive.
Certain elements think he's a fascist just because, for example, he dared to criticize the Occupy movement, but that's hardly conclusive.
Last chance, folks. Let's please return to the topic of the thread and not continue this irrelevant sidebar
Aaaaand that's about as far as I need to go with this particular thread.
There are no liberals. There are only Right-Wing conservatives and Left-Wing conservatives.
(Well, okay, there are liberals-- but they are few and far between.)
Until the early nineteen 70s, alcohol was responsible for all art, it was impossible to separate alcohol from any part of life, (IMPOSSIBLE!) so really alcohol is an unrealistically legal performance increasing drug for art and the only way to judge whether the ultracaustic effects are acceptable is to compare all art before 1972 to all art after 1972.
I thought as much.
The website for the national organization for marriage is displaying their own financials.
http://www.nationformarriage.org/site/c.omL2KeN0LzH/b.5493925/k.A78A/Financial_Reports.htm
They spent a total of 7 million dollars in 2011 on "everything" of which 1.1 million was lobbying for their cause and another 1.1 million was listed as "other" which could be harmless or could mean that they have a wet works black ops team ready to use against anyone one who is too especially gay.
1 million dollars?
That's Doctor Evil shit.
Orson has an archaic value system, and he seems to have attached himself to an organization that has no teeth. The message existing is more important than the message getting anywhere functional where it might actually accomplish anything like ending homosexuality.
With unlimited money (and time) how hard would it be to end homosexuality?
(Moving along.)
How much does it cost to buy a senator?
A million dollars a year could buy three Senators for an hour.
I'm more disturbed that Orson is a Mormon, all religion is equally Batshit, but white Jesus coming back down to earth centuries after the crucifixion to enslave the red Indians, dictating that they must obey the white Indian angels so that America is habitable and ready for when the white men show up?
What's more likely?
Orson writes a Superman story where Kal fire bombs a church with his heat ray vision which foolishly allows Gay marriage, or a story where Clark Kent is asked to join the Mormon tabernacle Choir on Christmas Eve (for a News paper article?) and has a nice night out Carolling? Dude has Superlungs. If he wants to sing like an angel, he'll sing like a fricking angle and it's a crime to deprive the new 52 of his voice... Super-Ventriloquism is (was?) one of his listed super powers. Even if his singing voice is shitty, Clark could just use his Super-Hypnosis to make the audience think that he is amazing to listen to.
http://www.bestplaces.net/religion/state/kansas
There's a 15 percent chance that Clark Kent was raised Catholic (Or about a hundred percent chance that he was raised Catholic if his origin point was still set in 1938.), but as soon as baby Kent had soaked up enough sunlight to kick in his "super intellect" who would he have seen through first as a fraud? Father Christmas or Joseph Smith?
I need a drink.
I thought as much.
The website for the national organization for marriage is displaying their own financials.
http://www.nationformarriage.org/site/c.omL2KeN0LzH/b.5493925/k.A78A/Financial_Reports.htm
They spent a total of 7 million dollars in 2011 on "everything" of which 1.1 million was lobbying for their cause and another 1.1 million was listed as "other" which could be harmless or could mean that they have a wet works black ops team ready to use against anyone one who is too especially gay.
1 million dollars?
That's Doctor Evil shit.
Orson has an archaic value system, and he seems to have attached himself to an organization that has no teeth. The message existing is more important than the message getting anywhere functional where it might actually accomplish anything like ending homosexuality.
With unlimited money (and time) how hard would it be to end homosexuality?
(Moving along.)
How much does it cost to buy a senator?
A million dollars a year could buy three Senators for an hour.
I'm more disturbed that Orson is a Mormon, all religion is equally Batshit, but white Jesus coming back down to earth centuries after the crucifixion to enslave the red Indians, dictating that they must obey the white Indian angels so that America is habitable and ready for when the white men show up?
What's more likely?
Orson writes a Superman story where Kal fire bombs a church with his heat ray vision which foolishly allows Gay marriage, or a story where Clark Kent is asked to join the Mormon tabernacle Choir on Christmas Eve (for a News paper article?) and has a nice night out Carolling? Dude has Superlungs. If he wants to sing like an angel, he'll sing like a fricking angle and it's a crime to deprive the new 52 of his voice... Super-Ventriloquism is (was?) one of his listed super powers. Even if his singing voice is shitty, Clark could just use his Super-Hypnosis to make the audience think that he is amazing to listen to.
http://www.bestplaces.net/religion/state/kansas
There's a 15 percent chance that Clark Kent was raised Catholic (Or about a hundred percent chance that he was raised Catholic if his origin point was still set in 1938.), but as soon as baby Kent had soaked up enough sunlight to kick in his "super intellect" who would he have seen through first as a fraud? Father Christmas or Joseph Smith?
I need a drink.
Aaaaand that's about as far as I need to go with this particular thread.
Superman used to have sex with a mermaid with a fish vagina.
His stance on bestiality is pretty clear.
Humans are dooable.
That much is clear...about many in this thread.
- Status
Similar threads
