"Let your fingers do the walking" was the advertising slogan for the Yellow Pages telephone directory back in the day (With the implication you could look suppliers up and phone them, rather than spend all day wandering around shops looking for something.)
This is sort of related but something I've wanted to know for the longest time:
Is there some sort of legal ramifications for using "YouTube" and "Twitter"? I've never understood why creators (not just in comics) can't just use their proper titles. I mean, movies like Kick Ass, for example, freely use MySpace and YouTube. Is there something not allowing others to do it?
I assume Youtube and Twitter have trademarks on their names, and make a certain amount of effort to protect their brand name, and that DC is too cheap to pay licensing fees.
And yes, there are reasons to do protect a brand name; I assume Youtube doesn't want competitors to claim they can watch a youtube on their site, and trademark law basically requires Youtube to be consistent in protecting their trademark.
Hmm might be DC's character Lionheart from Bloodlines, another English hero named Richard descended from a King. Don't remeber if he's Richard the III though.
I want to see King John fight Green Arrow. Because, this being the DCU, you know that he had to put up with an actual Robin Hood. I mean come on, if you're going to have Shakespearian soliloquies by Richard III, you've got to have King John defeated by an archer clad in green.
That and it would probably be Ollie's fanboy dream come true.
They want to shred the popularity of a bunch of super-villain kings trying to take over Britain because, well, they're a bunch super-villain kings trying to take over Britain. No good can come out of them having a following.
This would be amusing, except for my Ricardian self sitting in the corner twitching madly and attempting to restrain nerdrage. That's not cloning; that's the Prose Portal. I can tell because of my learnings. (And because why would Richard III speak in Shakespearean couplets? He only died 79 years before Shakespeare was even born! What are your iambs to him?)
One of these days, someone is going to avoid the evil!Richard III fail, and it will be a much more interesting story all around. Unfortunately that someone is probably going to have to be me.
Granted, but you realize that's on purpose, right? I don't think anyone is under the illusion that the real King RIchard would occasionally break out into fourth-wall breaking soliloquies.
How do you know Sharkespeare didn't base his version on the conteporary records of the King as an iambic pentameter spouting, solliloquising bastard (now lost to us)?
Yeah, it always makes me grind my teeth when I see Shakespeare's Tudor propagandist version touted as the real thing.
It's a shame, because I quite liked Paul Cornell's writing before this, but anyone who does buy into evil!Richard III like this always goes down in my estimation. Unfair, I guess, because if your only frame of reference for the man is Shakespeare's play, then it's natural to think of him as a villain.
Still, a bit of extra reading never hurt, and would give so many a whole different perspective.
Hmmm... why doesn't C.O.R. or the DCU equivalent of MI-13 come up with a clone army of its own to fight Richard's? William Wallace! Oliver Cromwell! Richard the Lionheart!
I am a bit of a Ricardian, but I think cloak-swirling witty-couplet-spouting Shakespearean Richard III actually works here. Hell, I hope they keep him around for future antics.
Also, I love this concept and will definitely buy the trade.
Founded by girl geeks and members of the slash fandom, scans_daily strives to provide an atmosphere which is LGBTQ-friendly, anti-racist, anti-ableist, woman-friendly and otherwise discrimination and harassment free.
Bottom line: If slash, feminism or anti-oppressive practice makes you react negatively, scans_daily is probably not for you.
no subject
Date: 2010-12-10 01:04 am (UTC)I suppose this sort of thing IS quintessentially English *cue Kenneth Williams' slide whistle sound*
no subject
Date: 2010-12-10 01:14 am (UTC)(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2010-12-10 01:11 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-12-10 01:31 am (UTC)Is there some sort of legal ramifications for using "YouTube" and "Twitter"? I've never understood why creators (not just in comics) can't just use their proper titles. I mean, movies like Kick Ass, for example, freely use MySpace and YouTube. Is there something not allowing others to do it?
no subject
Date: 2010-12-10 02:11 am (UTC)And yes, there are reasons to do protect a brand name; I assume Youtube doesn't want competitors to claim they can watch a youtube on their site, and trademark law basically requires Youtube to be consistent in protecting their trademark.
no subject
Date: 2010-12-10 01:40 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-12-10 06:06 am (UTC)(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2010-12-10 01:43 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-12-10 06:48 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-12-10 01:44 am (UTC)That and it would probably be Ollie's fanboy dream come true.
no subject
Date: 2010-12-10 02:43 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-12-10 03:16 am (UTC)Also: In before the inevitable Sally Floyd joke.
no subject
Date: 2010-12-10 06:48 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-12-10 04:20 am (UTC)I miss @mosexsbat.
no subject
Date: 2010-12-10 11:26 am (UTC)(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2010-12-10 06:23 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-12-10 06:46 am (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2010-12-10 03:57 pm (UTC)One of these days, someone is going to avoid the evil!Richard III fail, and it will be a much more interesting story all around. Unfortunately that someone is probably going to have to be me.
no subject
Date: 2010-12-10 07:01 pm (UTC)Granted, but you realize that's on purpose, right? I don't think anyone is under the illusion that the real King RIchard would occasionally break out into fourth-wall breaking soliloquies.
(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2010-12-10 07:14 pm (UTC):)
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2010-12-10 08:00 pm (UTC)Yeah, it always makes me grind my teeth when I see Shakespeare's Tudor propagandist version touted as the real thing.
It's a shame, because I quite liked Paul Cornell's writing before this, but anyone who does buy into evil!Richard III like this always goes down in my estimation. Unfair, I guess, because if your only frame of reference for the man is Shakespeare's play, then it's natural to think of him as a villain.
Still, a bit of extra reading never hurt, and would give so many a whole different perspective.
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2010-12-11 02:39 am (UTC)Cromwell's going to show up?
no subject
Date: 2010-12-11 03:09 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-12-11 03:30 am (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2010-12-11 01:39 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-12-13 04:18 pm (UTC)Also, I love this concept and will definitely buy the trade.