A now for a word on behalf of our ultimate sponsors - The muses of creativity

[icon_uk]

A rather lovely little webcomic about creativity















By zenpencils, based on a comment by Kevin Smith
 

Comments

[lego_joker]

Nonsense! Discouraging an artist can mean one less rival if you're also an artist!

[grumman]

Or it could mean Fox stops squatting on the Fantastic Four movie rights, so they revert back to Marvel.

On the other hand, they might also be Adolf Hitler. That's a pretty strong case against discouraging artists.

[mrstatham]

Given Fox at least seem to be trying to do better - if DOFP is any indication - I'm willing to give the next FF movie a shot. Also, what would Marvel actually *do* with those rights if they got the X-Men and the Fantastic Four back? At this point, there's basically a continuity lockout thanks to them deciding that Steve was the first superhero and then there was no-one until Tony, seemingly. And Tony himself has basically assumed the do-anything-genius role of the MCU, meaning anything Reed has to offer will be devalued, arguably.

[icon_uk]

I think Ant-Man will make it clear that Tony was not the next, just the next high-profile one.

It was hinted/revealed this week that Janet Van Dyne WILL have had a superheroic career (presumably as the first Wasp) along with Michael Douglas' Hank Pym Ant-Man career in the past.

(Which makes a little more likely my speculation (as soon as an older Hank Pym was mooted) that it would be their daughter who becomes the Wasp on the current Avengers team... well, that's my hope at any rate... maybe she'd be the MCU Stature instead of course, given that Scott Lang might not be old enough to have a daughter old enough to be Stature)

[long_silence]

Ever since the rumors of Hayley Atwell appearing in Ant-Man, presumably in a flashback to the past when Hank Pym was Ant-Man, as Peggy Carter I've been hoping that there would be some sort of 1950s Avengers in the MCU that could be explored with her Agent Carter series

[mrstatham]

That'd make sense. Fury, after all, already has an 'Avenger Initiative' in mind even at the end of Iron Man, so pre-existing superhumans could have been a thing, possibly to mop up more public HYDRA dredges following the Skull's disappearance, and other stuff.

[grumman]

"Given Fox at least seem to be trying to do better - if DOFP is any indication - I'm willing to give the next FF movie a shot."

Have you seen what they have planned for Doctor Doom? The first one was bad, but it seems they took it as a challenge to do even worse the next time around.

[mrstatham]

Given that all we've seen - I believe - is a poorly screencapped green-screen shot of Doom, again, I'm giving it the benefit of a doubt.

Besides, nothing could be as stupid as that freaking stag night sequence from ROTSS, with the awkward rubberman-dancing from Mr Fantastic. The director already has a better background than the maker of the last two movies, as well.

[donnblake]

Well, that and this.

"KEBBELL: He’s Victor Domashev, not Victor Von Doom in our story. And I’m sure I’ll be sent to jail for telling you that. The Doom in ours—I’m a programmer. Very anti-social programmer. And on blogging sites I’m “Doom”."

Source: http://collider.com/doctor-doom-new-origin-fantastic-four-movie/#U4XrvKSEUTJOjRMq.99

[mrstatham]

*shrugs* They updated the character similarly (interestingly, IMO) in the Ultimate Universe before his characterisation basically got turned into 616!Doom 2.0. I'm not incredibly fussed. They're updating the other characters in some ways, too, and this film has basically become target practice for any whiny fan for nearly any reason, like Johnny being black... Which affects next to nothing about his character.

[ablackraptor]

I'm not sure the same thing would happen, given that in the Ultimate case, its more the writers forgot/decided against the earlier characterization, and/or wanted to use a traditional version of the character. In this case, being a film set in its own universe, unless they change the people behind production for a sequel*, I doubt they're likely to do the same, and that's assuming they don't just kill him off again like almost every superhero movie does.

(*and that's assuming that they even get a sequel, which given the massively negative press and the fact Fox has done next-to-nothing to market the film (even DoFP, which was similarly attacked for its changes, had the benefit of a shitton of marketing and merchandising to garner interest from non-angry viewers), I find it doubtful that they'll make enough money to justify one)

Honestly, I'm the type of fan who doesn't mind changes so long as they either don't change what I like about the product, and usually defend said changes from the angry fans, but I can't see any logic or reason behind anything they're doing with this film.
I mean, they're turning Fantastic Four -one of the wackiest, sci-fi-focused and light-hearted Marvel property imaginable- into another dark-and-edgy 'realistic' film, completely reinvented almost everything and everyone in the film, and are going so far as to not even give them their costumes (complete with a 'lol superhero costumes are stupid' comment to justify it); I think in this case, the fans angry at the changes are completely justified here.

[drtechnobabel]

Yeah, I don't tend to fan-rage a lot either, but what really worried me in that interview was when he started talking about the 'lo-fi' and 'ultra-real' way they were portraying Doom. Doom is arguably THE supervillain in comics, and they basically turned him into Anonymous. I honestly would have been fine if they just changed his name and other smaller details, but they really screwed the pooch with one of my favorite villains around, who is my favorite precisely because he is unrealistic and over-the-top. The only way it might be able to redeem itself is if he starts like that in the beginning of the movie, but then has an accident similar to the one in the comics that drives him down the route towards his more iconic portrayal.

I so badly want to give this movie a chance, especially since I didn't find the first Fox FF movie that bad, and thought that even RotSS had its moments too (though the bachelor party scene was NOT one of them). And this is the first piece of news that is seriously making me question that. I mean come on, even the overly dark-and-gritty DC movies had the sense to give their heroes costumes. I know Chronicle was great and all, but the Fantastic Four is a completely different kind of story, and trying to make them the same (which it looks like Trask may be trying to do) will not work.

[ablackraptor]

Pretty much my exact thoughts on this. What baffles me is that they could have easily have used the Mad Thinker, who really could have worked with the Anonymous-style hacktivist thing (with the possibility of having Doom being a financial backer or something); it seems like, since Doom is their most well-known villain, instead of trying to break that mould and use other, lesser known villains, they're just shaping him to fit their story rather than using other villains who'd fit it much better.
Its like if Batman Begins used Joker as the assassin and mentor figure who trained Batman; it'd be massively out-of-character and an utter derailment of why Joker works the way he does, and ignores the fact that there are other villains who could be used, and deserve their chance to shine in film.

Honestly, I think Trask IS trying to turn it into essentially Chronicle 2; everything about the film so far looks and sounds exactly how it would have worked in a Chronicle continuation, but with the F4 brand slapped on so Fox could keep the rights to them. Its annoying since, had it just been a Chronicle sequel, or a separate film all-together, it would probably work as a nifty comic book deconstruction film ala Hancock, rather than making it, essentially, Fantastic Four without the Fantastic part.

[donnblake]

Of course, the problem with this is that it assumes that a potential career as an artist is inherently of more benefit to society than any other career that girl might follow.

[icon_uk]

Not quite sure whether that was meant in jest or not.

Maybe it's different elsewhere but where I'm from your career choices are not dictated by what would inherently benefit society, certainly not at the cost of your own wishes and talents.

Otherwise how would ANY artist ever find a career since it is almost by definition a non-essential career.

[donnblake]

There are certainly arguments to be made in favor of the arts. The argument this piece seems to be making is that the reason you should encourage artists is because of what they contribute to society, and that if you do not encourage them, they will contribute nothing to society.

Which... seems odd to me.

Edit: To clarify- I take no issue with the intended message of 'you should encourage artists' and more with the use of what's essentially a modified version of Pascal's Gambit, with a similar set of issues to those that plague that thought experiment.

[icon_uk]

It's not that they will contribute nothing to society, but they will not create anything artistically if you discourage them at the outset.

[donnblake]

No, per the narration, it's that 'you will get absolutely nothing in return. Ever."

[ablackraptor]

From a comment on the page this came from:
"Altough this quote talks about artists, I can relate it to any kind of work. Teachers, scientists, astronauts, journalists, if you discourage someone of doing what this person loves to do, we might be missing out someone who would do amazing things to his/her field"

Of course, its noted that artists in particular need encouragement because they're more often discouraged than other 'legit' professions, but still.

[icon_uk]

The whole sentence is;

"Discourage an artist, and you will get absolutely nothing in return. Ever."

So this is a specific reference to artistic endeavours.

[donnblake]

And that doesn't seem, I dunno, dishonest to you? People don't discourage artists because they don't want them to produce art, they do it because they think that that time could be better spent.

And listen, this is coming from someone working a minimum wage job to pay for food and rent while he works on his art because he can't imagine any other life path being fulfilling. I am all about encouraging artists. But I don't do it because I expect them to pay me back in art- I do it because I understand that being the only thing you can imagine yourself doing. Which is the same reason I support people who think that the most fulfilling thing for them would be a career in the sciences or business or chartered accountancy. Not because I'm weighing some sort of spurious cost/benefit equation and ignoring the side that doesn't play into the result I've already decided I want.

[stubbleupdate]

I do enjoy Zen Pencils using other peoples' words to frame his own trite stories.

[captainbellman]

And I think most of them are expressionate and well-composed, and sometimes make me feel better on days when I'm down!

[bizarrohulk]

The flip side of this argument is DeviantArt, which if nothing else proves that some artists deserve to starve.

[drtechnobabel]

You, good sir/madam, just won yourself an internet. Might want to clean out some of the nastier porn before you showcase it, though.

[sadoeuphemist]

Is it just me, or do the Dynomites designs just look really bad and tacky artistically? Just looking at the posters and drawings, I would not want to watch that movie, the characters look like they'd be super annoying.

Also, obligatory:


http://drilpencils.tumblr.com/tagged/zen-pencils

[icon_uk]

Oh I would run like hell from any material involving these ghastly looking things (Unless young niece or nephew was desperate for them... though even then....), but then look at the likes of the Teletubbies, Moshi Monsters, any number of others etc...

[sadoeuphemist]

This turns out to be the hidden cost of encouraging artists: having to live in a world where the Teletubbies exist.

[icon_uk]

True, though in fairness, I wouldn't expect zenpencils to use their spectacularly original and adorable design submissions for the next wave of kids licenseable-to-hell-and-back creations they'll be taking to Disney anytime soon, on a one-shot webcomic.