Spoilers Supergirl - Season 5
- Thread starter dahj
- Start date
He knows. Just being realistic in how tiresome this has gotten. I've almost ran out of jokes about white guys pissing and moaning about all the agendas against them out there.
It is most every thread any more where some white guy is upset about a perceived slight because a show/movie has a female showrunner, or is wearing pants, or has a different political leaning than they do.
Who is President now?
I'm guessing that there's no VP?
The Speaker could be anyone, even Trump or Hillary.
I'm guessing that there's no VP?
The Speaker could be anyone, even Trump or Hillary.
Robert Redford....wait, which thread is this?
It was mentioned in the season finale that Baker's vice president, and therefore the current president, was someone named Plastino (in honor of Supergirl co-creator Al Plastino). A news report said that Plastino had appointed Col. Haley as Secretary of Alien Affairs and reinstated the Amnesty Act.
Presumably Baker appointed Plastino as his VP not long after he ascended to the presidency, much as President Ford appointed Nelson Rockefeller.
Presumably Baker appointed Plastino as his VP not long after he ascended to the presidency, much as President Ford appointed Nelson Rockefeller.
Cool.
I don’t know about that. Marvel’s use of Sandman as a fairly regular Spider-Man villain didn’t keep DC from getting the trademark on it.
And one of the stated reasons Marvel kept launching new Captain Marvel books over the years (back in the days before the current version hit it big) was that DC would be able to snap up the trademark if they didn’t. Something that wouldn’t be an issue if just appearing in a story would be enough to maintain trademark.
Last edited:
Nah, Marvel has a trademark on Thor. https://trademarks.justia.com/724/19/thor-72419350.html
But they aren't going to publish a comic called "Thor".
And, of course, DC had a Golden Age superhero named "The Sandman" long before the Spider-Man or Gaiman characters came along. Indeed, I believe the Gaiman character was at least the third DC hero called The Sandman.
I actually think Gaiman's version is very much inspired by Jack Kirby's later Sandman comics featured as back-ups in his 70s DC titles. I recently got introduced to some of them as reprints in some of the pocket-sized Blue Ribbon collections DC used to do in the early 80s (and I wish they'd still do them, I love that format), and it's already a version the mythological Sandman living in a Dreamland. But he still looked a lot like the 40s' Simon & Kirby version, superhero costume and all.
Btw, if Marvel was able to trademark "Thor", even just for the purpose of illustrated magazines and comics, would one be able to publish and then trademark King Arthur? Or Zeus?! Does Disney have trademarks on Snow White, or Mulan? At what point would a trademark registry deny such a request? Could this be done with Jesus Christ?
Last edited:
It's ridiculous isn't it, this absurd hypersensitivity to petty details and projecting a victim complex onto them?
Supergirl no longer has a miniskirt anyone notice Wolverine is no longer wearing yellow and blue spandex?
I've been binge watching "The Boys" today on @Skippers' recommendation, people babbling on claiming Miss Benoist being empowered by showing flesh could learn a great deal from the Starlight story arc.
We’re a couple episodes in. Good stuff.
I'm sorry, but I have to side with the assholes for once, but there actually was a lot of controversy about Superman losing his red trunks, I even took part in it. I had versions of the "RIP Red Trunks" avatar for years around here, and was very happy to see them return to comics. I'm a sucker for iconography, so that's why I'm also unhappy with Supergirl's change in costume.
Of course, there was no actor's comfort involved when Superman lost his red trunks, so that was all about the visual aspects. In the case of Supergirl losing her skirt on TV, I certainly understand and accept the reasons behind the change.
Right, copyright and trademark are two different things. That was my whole point: DC creating characters named Superwoman wasn't about grabbing up the trademark on the name (except that one time), because it wouldn't actually do that. Actually using it in as the title of a comic would, which they historically haven't done (except that one time).
Like someone in a black suit running around with a yellow bullseye on his chest? No one would mind going monochrome, there, no?
Similar threads
