http://collider.com/x-men-movies-comics-chris-claremont/
-
mh-newressistance — 9 years ago(November 08, 2016 03:24 AM)
I was saying they weren't paid at all, because Disney doesn't pay for good reviews. They're sour because they were probably expecting a ton of cash (the way Fox and WB probably would do it) and got nothing.
You can't back it off, pal. You just can't. You've said this, so stand by what you said and don't try to turn tables on WB or Fox. You said it clear, multiple times, that Disney pays people to say good things about MCU. Don't act like you didn't do that, because you did. When I said that Bob Layton hated Iron Man 2 and 3, you said: "He probably said that because Marvel didn't pay him enough." That's your very own words. There is no two ways about it. You blatantly admitted that Disney pays people to say good things about their movies.
Again, other studios probably paid for their good word of mouth so these guys were upset when Disney wouldn't play that game and just expect good reviews for being good. Like Dr Strange.
Pal, you look funny with your attempts to escape from your own words. You never specified anything about other studios or anything. You just said, "He probably said that because Marvel didn't pay him enough." There is no explanation to that other than the fact that you DO believe that Marvel would pay someone to say good things about their product. Don't try to justify your own infelicity. -
samhmd-7489 — 9 years ago(November 08, 2016 04:28 AM)
You can't back it off, pal. You just can't.
I'm not, I'm pointing out that I said the opposite of what your accusing me of saying.
You blatantly admitted that Disney pays people to say good things about their movies.
I said that they weren't paying anyone enough, which means they weren't getting paid at all beyond whatever their royalties are.
Pal, you look funny with your attempts to escape from your own words. You never specified anything about other studios or anything. You just said, "He probably said that because Marvel didn't pay him enough."
Which suggests he wasn't getting paid to say good things to begin with. Reading comprehension. -
mh-newressistance — 9 years ago(November 08, 2016 07:35 AM)
I'm not, I'm pointing out that I said the opposite of what your accusing me of saying.
Yes you are. That's what you implied. That's how you presented it. I don't care about your excuses. You owned yourself, pal.
I said that they weren't paying anyone enough, which means they weren't getting paid at all beyond whatever their royalties are.
No, you said they weren't paid enough by MARVEL. Those are your very own words. Don't deny it.
Which suggests he wasn't getting paid to say good things to begin with. Reading comprehension.
I'm not just talking about this topic. I'm talking about every topic in which you brought it up. As I mentioned, when I said that Bob Layton hated Iron Man sequels, you said, don't deny it, that he just didn't received his paycheck from Disney. Those are your words. My reading comprehension is not the problem. It's just your logic (or lack of thereof) sometimes makes fool out of you. -
samhmd-7489 — 9 years ago(November 09, 2016 05:03 AM)
Yes you are. That's what you implied.
Then you misunderstood.
No, you said they weren't paid enough by MARVEL.
Which means they weren't paid by Marvel outside of whatever Royalties they get. Easy.
I'm not just talking about this topic. I'm talking about every topic in which you brought it up. As I mentioned, when I said that Bob Layton hated Iron Man sequels, you said, don't deny it, that he just didn't received his paycheck from Disney.
Which means he wasn't paid by them, easy. If they'd done what FOX did and throw a ton of cash like they did with Claremont he wouldn't say anything bad. But Disney doesn't bribe, so he's upset. -
That_Guy_Son — 9 years ago(November 04, 2016 03:02 PM)
So I think the Disney corporate publishing attitude is: why would we go out of our way to promote a title that will benefit a rival corporations X-Men films when we could take that same energy and enthusiasm and focus and do it for our own properties?
This isn't anything new. In fact, they've actually said that's what they are doing.
"Truth sounds like hate to those who hate truth." -
That_Guy_Son — 9 years ago(November 04, 2016 03:09 PM)
The funny thing about this is that Marvel wasn't promoting any of those books/characters before they could make movies of them. Only when the only movies they were making was X-men and Spider-man, no one had a problem with them promoting only X-men and Spider-man. Now that Marvel is saying, "Why don't we promote these other hundred comic series we have?" people are going nuts because X-men aren't getting top attention.
You guys are like some whiny little kids that want all the attention while other kids are ignored.
Inhumans can't replace X-men because the series are nothing a like.
"Truth sounds like hate to those who hate truth." -
That_Guy_Son — 9 years ago(November 04, 2016 03:40 PM)
That wasn't Disney. There was a committee between Disney and the filmmakers that they got rid of after Age of Ultron. Also, there is way more talk of studio micromanaging from Sony and Fox and even WB.
"Truth sounds like hate to those who hate truth." -
samhmd-7489 — 9 years ago(November 04, 2016 03:11 PM)
After Disney's acquisition of Marvel, there has been a deliberate campaign to bury X-Men in all medium leading to where we are today. Regardless of how Fox is killing it, Disney is not going to promote X-Men like Guardians of the Galaxy or their own X-Men replacement, the Inhumans.
Why should they?
X-Men fans no longer read the comics when the current version of nearly every X-Men is bastardized in order to make the Avengers and Inhumans look good (see their recent crossover series), and the number of X-Men is intentionally dwindled by the Terrigen Mist in favor of the Inhumans population.
It's called making the characters more than a bunch of pristine do-gooders with the same flat characterization.
One can no longer take the comics seriously when Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver's origins are retconned just to spite X-Men
You realize that originally they weren't Magneto's children either, right?
I am glad that Marvel Comics is annihilated by DC Rebirth because of how arrogant Disney is and thinks we will buy whatever they make. Sure there is a new line of "ResurreXion" titles coming, but it is merely a corporate gesture that shows their efforts to replace X-Men with Inhumans do not work, and announcing these titles in the same year of "Death of X" merely reveals their desperation to gain the fans of X-Men, their best-selling titles, back.
X-Men hasn't been selling well for over a decade.
This is true, Tom, and that is why a lot of good writers have moved on (except Chris Claremont, who you pay not to write comics) and X-Men readers no longer care.
That's more to do with X-Men writers tending to be hacks. -
samhmd-7489 — 9 years ago(November 04, 2016 04:03 PM)
You just give me back my questions.
Disney should give money to a rival that is antagonistic to them?
Character assassination is not "making the characters more than a bunch of pristine do-gooders with the same flat characterization".
Finally bothering to show that maybe mutants aren't all a bunch of victims is developing the Mutant storyline. It's years overdue.
So the problem is now on X-Men writers since 2000. Good.
Even Claremont. None of them were capable of properly developing the Mutant storyline. -
samhmd-7489 — 9 years ago(November 04, 2016 05:52 PM)
No one has declared all mutants as saints
The movies do.
Saying that X-Men are presented as nothing but "a bunch of victims" is a straw man you have been championing for years and the ideal "Mutant storyline" you want has been found in many X-Men comics.
The only time it was ever done to any degree was in Ultimate X-Men.
And no, just because you don't like how the X-Men are acting now doesn't make it "assassination". -
samhmd-7489 — 9 years ago(November 05, 2016 04:28 AM)
First you claim it is just the movies that make us believe all mutants are saints, and now you are dismissing nearly all of the X-Men runs. Got it.
Most of them keep going for the "Nasty Humans" element and none really seem to realize that the X-Men are partially responsible themselves.
A prefect continuation of Zack Snyder's defense for his version of Superman:
He didn't alter the existing Superman in the comics, he made a new (if flawed) take right from the start.