|
mind the walrus posted:YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND I'VE BEEN SAYING THIS FOR YEARS OH GOD It's not that hard to mistake it for something innocent, in a lot of the UK it specifically refers to digging implements (we don't even have that particular slur afaik) so I didn't know the other meaning either until a few years ago. E: New page, let's get back on topic; I really like how Judge uniforms kinda break expected comic costume conventions on simplicity while still being fitting and readable: 
Disproportionation fucked around with this message at 20:09 on Sep 9, 2016 |
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 20:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 10:09 |
|
|
The root etymology is unrelated, and the racial use is virtually unheard of, especially intentionally. It's not something to worry about, unless the alt-right starts using it again.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 20:16
|
|
|
Yeah that is why I said it was a poor choice of words and not "that phrase is racist as gently caress." It was just an unfortunate coincidence.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 20:37
|
|
|
It's like the term spook. You can use it to talk about ghosts or government agents, but make sure the context is clear, because in some parts it has another meaning.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 20:58
|
|
|
Likewise, you can say you have a chink in your armour as long as you're not talking about this.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 05:34
|
|
|
Perry Normal posted:Likewise, you can say you have a chink in your armour as long as you're not talking about this. fyp
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 17:21
|
|
|
This is great material awesome stuff
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 15:05
|
|
|
I've been making my way through the Morrison Batman stuff and man, that Batman Inc. costume just did not work. I can't get my head around getting rid of Batman's (and Superman's) trunks. The costume just looks all off without them. Which I guess reminds me of how much I liked Paul Pope's Batman. Though granted I don't know if it would work if anyone but Pope drew it. Speaking of which, what are some other costumes that are artist-specific? edit: also his monster teeth were dope as hell 
Vulpes Vulpes fucked around with this message at 01:51 on Sep 13, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 01:48
|
|
|
God daaaaaamn I love Paul Pope's Batman. It's weird because I hate 'realistic' costumes when it results in Nolan-style body armor but I love this 'realistic' Batman where he just looks like a crazy hobo in a grey sweatsuit with a bunch of junk strapped to his belt. Rafael Grampa's another one with a very artist-unique batsuit. I love his Batsymbol which is made up of a few triangles:  As well as his Luchador Wolverine 
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 02:24
|
|
|
Ramon Villalobos has awesome designs and I'm just gonna link his tumblr because all his stuff rules. He reminds me of Frank Quitely, but a bit more...dynamic, maybe?
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 02:41
|
|
|
Luchador wolverine is great
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 03:13
|
|
|
Vulpes Vulpes posted:edit: also his monster teeth were dope as hell Never seen that before. I wonder if it was inspired by the pulp hero The Spider, who wore fangs, a wig, a fake nose, and a fake hunchback to make himself look creepy when he was out fighting crime. (This was before comics introduced the idea that you could just slap on a domino mask and no one would be able to recognize you.)
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 11:37
|
|
|
Travis343 posted:God daaaaaamn I love Paul Pope's Batman. It's weird because I hate 'realistic' costumes when it results in Nolan-style body armor but I love this 'realistic' Batman where he just looks like a crazy hobo in a grey sweatsuit with a bunch of junk strapped to his belt. I love all of his work so much. The luchador Thor is really cool too.  I actually made a custom action figure of his Daredevil and he shared it on his Instagram account! I was pretty pumped. Im going to make the wolverine at some point too.  
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 15:34
|
|
|
I do like the idea of Batman having easily removable prosthetic to make himself look more terrifying at a glance. Though it makes me picture him forgetting he has them in, trying to talk to Gordon, and then hastily turning around and slipping them out praying that Gordon doesn't say anything.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 16:19
|
|
|
Imagine the conversation where he forgets he has them in: "CURRISHIRER GORRUH I HAGH THU THALK THU YOOO" with slobber spraying everywhere i.e., totally bad rear end
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 16:34
|
|
|
Flesh Forge posted:Imagine the conversation where he forgets he has them in: "CURRISHIRER GORRUH I HAGH THU THALK THU YOOO" with slobber spraying everywhere So Bale's batman then
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 17:09
|
|
|
Exactly!
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 17:30
|
|
|
Roth posted:DC's current direction with their movies seems to be them pushing against the whole "Superfriends" perception they think most people have. An actual Superfriends movie would probably do better than what they've actually been producing at this point.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2016 03:51
|
|
|
NotAnArtist posted:So Bale's batman then That explains so much.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2016 04:04
|
|
PoptartsNinja posted:An actual Superfriends movie would probably do better than what they've actually been producing at this point. I just don't understand why DC is afraid of being successful for the 'wrong reason' (being fun).
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2016 23:32
|
|
|
Lurdiak posted:I just don't understand why DC is afraid of being successful for the 'wrong reason' (being fun). I reckon it's because the company has inmates running the asylum and they want their childhood heroes taken very seriously. It's part of the Aquaman issue-you've got all these grown up nerds with an inferiority complex who perceive themselves and their lifelong hobbies as the target of mockery, so there's a bit of overcompensation at work.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2016 23:45
|
|
|
WickedHate posted:I reckon it's because the company has inmates running the asylum and they want their childhood heroes taken very seriously. It's part of the Aquaman issue-you've got all these grown up nerds with an inferiority complex who perceive themselves and their lifelong hobbies as the target of mockery, so there's a bit of overcompensation at work. This is the creative side, to be sure. Geoff Johns' last Aquaman series is practically Exhibit A. On the business side you have bean counters who see Marvel dominating the "all-ages family" demographic and think "then we have to hit the edgy, hip teen/young adult demographic to be successful." This works directly against the fact that Marvel's entire ouvre was a youthful, edgy subversion of the superhero template DC established. DC has always been the Coke to Marvel's Pepsi in terms of culture, but Marvel has always been Coke to DC's Pepsi in terms of finances. This dissonance actively hurts their bottom line but not nearly enough for anyone up high looking at returns to care.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2016 23:50
|
|
|
mind the walrus posted:This is the creative side, to be sure. Geoff Johns' last Aquaman series is practically Exhibit A. Except for when Marvel almost went bankrupt and had to sell off their most successful properties to stay afloat, forcing them to build a brand around the reject C-listers nobody else wanted to make movies about. I'm not actually sure what the finances of Coke vs. Pepsi even mean, to be completely honest?
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2016 00:50
|
|
|
I think it means that coke has always been ahead by a fairly wide margin no matter what Pepsi tries.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2016 00:52
|
|
|
Travis343 posted:Except for when Marvel almost went bankrupt and had to sell off their most successful properties to stay afloat, forcing them to build a brand around the reject C-listers nobody else wanted to make movies about. That was because Marvel overextended and essentially tried to become their own 100% independent entity from production to distribution to merchandising. Their implosion is a big reason Diamond got a stranglehold on US distribution. Even at the time it was considered this big "wait what?" moment that signified the end of the 90s "bubble." quote:I'm not actually sure what the finances of Coke vs. Pepsi even mean, to be completely honest? Coke is the market leader over Pepsi, at least if you compare only the colas. Coke's marketing reflects this with all of its more traditional "Santa Claus" and "people going out to have fun" ads which make Coke seem like this good ol' American Normal Rockwell stalwart. Hell I think the US Santa Claus is a direct invention of Coca Cola's marketing. Pepsi meanwhile markets itself as the hipper, edgier alternative to coke-- more sexualized ads, celebrity spokespeople like Ray Charles or Britney Spears, a generally more 'of the now' vibe. So you have Marvel, which is the market leader and has been almost constantly since the 1960s, owned by Disney and by far the dominant mainstream superhero outfit--so they get to market themselves as the more traditional US heroes. Captain America and Iron Man occupy the same place in the mainstream zeigeist as Superman and Batman. The rub is that all of Marvel's poo poo was a direct subversion of the poo poo DC was putting out. So you have DC in the lesser market position but their characters are actually the more traditional good ol' America characters... so what direction do you take them in? DC and the WB follow marketing wisdom and are skewing younger, hipper, and "in the now" but as we've seen that's counter-intuitive and doesn't play to the character's strengths when the most faithful young adult demographic are neckbeards-- there's a reason the best-regarded DC adaptations of the last 5 years are the CW shows and CBS' Supergirl--save Batman. Because Batman is the lowest common denominator of superheroes, even lower than Superman and is super flexible from a creative angle. But on the other hand if they tried to compete directly with Marvel/Disney as the more conventional heroes--modernized of course, the "2010 version of the 1970s Superman" for example--would they really succeed or eat dirt? It seems the answer that everyone at the WB/DC is more comfortable with is--lower potential returns but more guaranteed than otherwise.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2016 01:01
|
|
|
Lurdiak posted:I think it means that coke has always been ahead by a fairly wide margin no matter what Pepsi tries. That is a poo poo metaphor for a lot of reasons.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2016 01:51
|
|
|
mind the walrus posted:That was because Marvel overextended and essentially tried to become their own 100% independent entity from production to distribution to merchandising. Their implosion is a big reason Diamond got a stranglehold on US distribution. Even at the time it was considered this big "wait what?" moment that signified the end of the 90s "bubble."
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2016 01:52
|
|
|
Skwirl posted:So many wrong things in this. Cool. I don't really care. It's armchair thoughts.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2016 02:09
|
|
Skwirl posted:That is a poo poo metaphor for a lot of reasons. Hey I didn't make it.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2016 02:16
|
|
|
mind the walrus posted:So you have DC in the lesser market position but their characters are actually the more traditional good ol' America characters... so what direction do you take them in? DC and the WB follow marketing wisdom and are skewing younger, hipper, and "in the now" but as we've seen that's counter-intuitive and doesn't play to the character's strengths when the most faithful young adult demographic are neckbeards-- there's a reason the best-regarded DC adaptations of the last 5 years are the CW shows and CBS' Supergirl--save Batman. Because Batman is the lowest common denominator of superheroes, even lower than Superman and is super flexible from a creative angle. But on the other hand if they tried to compete directly with Marvel/Disney as the more conventional heroes--modernized of course, the "2010 version of the 1970s Superman" for example--would they really succeed or eat dirt? It seems the answer that everyone at the WB/DC is more comfortable with is--lower potential returns but more guaranteed than otherwise. I'm really confused here - are you saying Snyder's movies are 'younger, hipper, and in the now' or the CW shows are? I would say Snyder's movies are the opposite of that, they seem to be laser-targeted at the kind of comic nerd who passionately argues that superheroes are the modern mythology - the movies are big, operatic, and grandiose, and actively alienating to children and most critics. You say the 'younger, hipper, in the now' approach has failed for DC, but then you say that the CW shows have been the best-regarded adaptations of DC properties. If those aren't 'younger, hipper, in the now' then what the heck is?
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2016 02:18
|
|
|
Lurdiak posted:Hey I didn't make it. In the 90's I called them WCW (DC) and WWF (Marvel) I guess you could call DC Coke and Marvel Pepsi, but I'm more of a Coke drinker, and a Marvel reader.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2016 02:21
|
|
|
TouchToneDialing posted:I love all of his work so much. The luchador Thor is really cool too. You had every excuse and reason to use Luchathor here and.... didn't...
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2016 02:25
|
|
|
WickedHate posted:I reckon it's because the company has inmates running the asylum and they want their childhood heroes taken very seriously. It's part of the Aquaman issue-you've got all these grown up nerds with an inferiority complex who perceive themselves and their lifelong hobbies as the target of mockery, so there's a bit of overcompensation at work. Honestly they should of just went full ham with Aquaman and embrace it like Batman the brave and the bold did. But every writer who gets a go at Aquaman keeps trying to make him a badass and be 'see Aquaman isn't lame anymore!!!" for the fiftieth time.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2016 04:38
|
|
|
One way to resolve this little infight: is this a Marvel or a DC costume design?
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2016 04:59
|
|
|
The lack of a cape says Marvel but the simple colour blocking and lack of detailing, featureless head, and 90s neck chain says DC.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2016 07:25
|
|
|
It's a Marvel, but it's a lazy Marvel. Fill-in artist on a tomorrow morning deadline Marvel.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2016 09:30
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:One way to resolve this little infight: is this a Marvel or a DC costume design? It's early and I haven't had coffee and my eyes are gooey but I was sure this was some variation on Venom when I saw it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2016 11:34
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:One way to resolve this little infight: is this a Marvel or a DC costume design? Is that a chain around his neck?
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2016 11:37
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:One way to resolve this little infight: is this a Marvel or a DC costume design? I don't know how accurate this wiki is, but Pepsi Man sounds boss. quote:Powers: Enhanced Speed, Pepsi Summoning, Time Pause quote:Super Speed - Pepsiman can run at incredible speeds. though he lacks in accuracy, often leading to serious accidents. quote:Pepsiman was created as a result of scientist Satoru Shujinko accepting the power of the Holy Pepsi into his heart. After awaking from his transformation, Satoru, now Pepsiman, returns to the Pepsi headquarters of Japan at which he works. On his way into the building, he hears a cry from a distressed citizen, made thirsty by the slowly expanding sun. He then saves the citizen, as well as the planet, and assumes his rightful place as Pepsiman. quote:During his battle against the Eternal Moon, Pepsiman is forced to reflect on his enthusiasm to become, essentially, a corporate slave and walking advertisement. Pepsiman soon overcomes this conflict, however, when he remembers the joy people experience upon being supplied with soft drinks, and chooses to continue his life as Pepsiman. quote:Tools and Weapons
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2016 12:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 10:09 |
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:One way to resolve this little infight: is this a Marvel or a DC costume design? Marvel decided that the Silver Surfer just wasn't him enough so they gave him a chain and took him to a car painting place
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2016 13:14
|
|
