|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Oct 20, 2017 8:45:12 GMT -5
A few other pet dislikes: Making Shang Chi third-rate superhero instead of the martial arts/espionage character he'd been earlier.
Making Dr. Strange a typically wise-cracking action guy, like Spider-Man. Killing off Rachel Van Helsing somewhere or other for no particular reason. Yes, she can always be brought back by any writer who feels so inclined, but still a bad idea for the character. Jane Foster as Thor: I know it gets on a lot of people's nerves when this is criticised as they see it as a welcome improvement in more equal gender-representation and so on, but I think it's the wrong way to go about it and is really counter-productive. Is it possible that they can't use any of the elements of the original book because of the Sax Rohmer ownership ? |
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Oct 20, 2017 8:52:05 GMT -5
A few other pet dislikes: Making Shang Chi third-rate superhero instead of the martial arts/espionage character he'd been earlier.
Making Dr. Strange a typically wise-cracking action guy, like Spider-Man. Killing off Rachel Van Helsing somewhere or other for no particular reason. Yes, she can always be brought back by any writer who feels so inclined, but still a bad idea for the character. Jane Foster as Thor: I know it gets on a lot of people's nerves when this is criticised as they see it as a welcome improvement in more equal gender-representation and so on, but I think it's the wrong way to go about it and is really counter-productive. Is it possible that they can't use any of the elements of the original book because of the Sax Rohmer ownership ? You're quite right, but it is still possible to use Shang Chi, Clive Reston, Leiko Wu and Black Jack Tarr in a John Le Carré context rather than a super hero world. That was attempted (briefly, and without much success) in the '80s, when in a few stories Smith was nowhere to be seen and Fu Manchu was never named. Sure, Master of Kung Fu without Fu Manchu is a little bland... but it is better to be bland than spoiled! I don't know why Fu Manchu isn't in the public domain, though. The first novel goes back to 1913 and Rohmer died in 1959. But then intellectual property laws are a constant mystery to me. |
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Oct 20, 2017 9:31:40 GMT -5
Is it possible that they can't use any of the elements of the original book because of the Sax Rohmer ownership ? You're quite right, but it is still possible to use Shang Chi, Clive Reston, Leiko Wu and Black Jack Tarr in a John Le Carré context rather than a super hero world. That was attempted (briefly, and without much success) in the '80s, when in a few stories Smith was nowhere to be seen and Fu Manchu was never named. Sure, Master of Kung Fu without Fu Manchu is a little bland... but it is better to be bland than spoiled! I don't know why Fu Manchu isn't in the public domain, though. The first novel goes back to 1913 and Rohmer died in 1959. But then intellectual property laws are a constant mystery to me. The first three Fu Manchu books are Public Domain. All of the rest are still copyright The Rohmer Estate. The name is trademarked and the Estate is zealous and litigious, which is why Moore used a very thinly veiled Doctor in League. |
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Oct 20, 2017 10:57:58 GMT -5
You're quite right, but it is still possible to use Shang Chi, Clive Reston, Leiko Wu and Black Jack Tarr in a John Le Carré context rather than a super hero world. That was attempted (briefly, and without much success) in the '80s, when in a few stories Smith was nowhere to be seen and Fu Manchu was never named. Sure, Master of Kung Fu without Fu Manchu is a little bland... but it is better to be bland than spoiled! I don't know why Fu Manchu isn't in the public domain, though. The first novel goes back to 1913 and Rohmer died in 1959. But then intellectual property laws are a constant mystery to me. The first three Fu Manchu books are Public Domain. All of the rest are still copyright The Rohmer Estate. The name is trademarked and the Estate is zealous and litigious, which is why Moore used a very thinly veiled Doctor in League. The name being trademarked means we can't use it on the cover, but can't we use the name inside a comic? I know that several Conan books have been published without the name "Conan" on the cover, because the stories are public domain but the name is trademarked. |
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Oct 20, 2017 11:23:35 GMT -5
The first three Fu Manchu books are Public Domain. All of the rest are still copyright The Rohmer Estate. The name is trademarked and the Estate is zealous and litigious, which is why Moore used a very thinly veiled Doctor in League. The name being trademarked means we can't use it on the cover, but can't we use the name inside a comic? I know that several Conan books have been published without the name "Conan" on the cover, because the stories are public domain but the name is trademarked. It seems that the early Fu books are Public Domain in the U.S. but not necessarily in Europe. The default in most of Europe appears to be life + 70 years. So the Rohmer books are subject to copyright to 2029. They fell into the Public Domain in the U.S. before the recent rounds of copyright extensions. The problem with using Fu is that any publication outside the U.S. would appear to be a copyright infringement. |
|
|
|
Post by String on Oct 20, 2017 12:37:26 GMT -5
This was part of the problem I had with how Hickman used Shang-Chi in his Avengers run as low-level super-hero. Stark did...something to enhance his fighting power, some type of gauntlet, I don't know, Hickman never really properly explained it (or properly used Shang either)
That and how, since they cannot refer to Fu Manchu anymore, any later reference to Shang's father was very vague or mysterious.
We'll see how Marvel treats him now in his upcoming new Legacy title, due out in November I think.
|
|
|
|
Post by berkley on Oct 20, 2017 15:53:26 GMT -5
This was part of the problem I had with how Hickman used Shang-Chi in his Avengers run as low-level super-hero. Stark did... something to enhance his fighting power, some type of gauntlet, I don't know, Hickman never really properly explained it (or properly used Shang either) That and how, since they cannot refer to Fu Manchu anymore, any later reference to Shang's father was very vague or mysterious. We'll see how Marvel treats him now in his upcoming new Legacy title, due out in November I think. Hadn't heard about that until now. Who's the creative team on it? |
|
|
|
Post by String on Oct 20, 2017 18:21:12 GMT -5
This was part of the problem I had with how Hickman used Shang-Chi in his Avengers run as low-level super-hero. Stark did... something to enhance his fighting power, some type of gauntlet, I don't know, Hickman never really properly explained it (or properly used Shang either) That and how, since they cannot refer to Fu Manchu anymore, any later reference to Shang's father was very vague or mysterious. We'll see how Marvel treats him now in his upcoming new Legacy title, due out in November I think. Hadn't heard about that until now. Who's the creative team on it? My mistake, it's not an ongoing, just a one-shot. Here's the solicit: MASTER OF KUNG FU #126 CM Punk (W) • Dalibor Talajic (A) Cover by MIKE MAYHEW Shang-Chi’s Day Off Part 1 (OF 1) The Marvel Universe is full of fighters: brawlers, scrappers, weapons experts, mystical kung fu virtuosi. But there’s only one martial artist skilled enough to be called the greatest. SHANG-CHI has been a pinch hitter for a long time, stepping in for Avengers missions when no one else would do, but when no one can match your speed or skill, sometimes it’s best to work alone. To see what you’ve been missing if you don’t know Shang-Chi, don’t miss MASTER OF KUNG FU!  |
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Oct 23, 2017 7:43:00 GMT -5
Personal gripe: many writers take the expression "master of kung fu" way too literally. He's not the Earth's "Martial Artist Supreme" or anything; he just happens to have trained long enough to be considered a master of his art, arguably one among many such masters.
We've seen fighters of comparable skill. Shen Kuei seemed to be able to defeat Shang and his brother M'Nai may very well have been too. I suspect Captain America could too (although I'm not too keen on stories that have Shang Chi interact with costumed heroes apart from iron Fist).
At different times during the MoKF run, we saw Shang worry about lower performances that were due to his devoting less time to training; that's realistic, and much closer to the spirit of the character than boastful claims about his alleged supremacy. The whole deal of him being THE master of kung fu is not only simplistic and unrealistic, but also incompatible with what old readers know of him.
"To see what you’ve been missing if you don’t know Shang-Chi, don’t miss MASTER OF KUNG FU!"... only make sure you read the old Steve Englehart and Doug Moench issues first, not this new stuff.
* Now in all fairness, this diatribe targets the blurb above and not the comic itself. For all I know it is very respectful of the character, although the smirk on Chi's face is pretty uncharacteristic.
|
|
|
|
Post by masterofquackfu on Oct 24, 2017 11:30:55 GMT -5
Another one that would qualify for Wizard's old Mort of the Month...(and maybe he did in one of their issues)...HUMBUG. Yes, Humbug appeared in the Spider-Man books and was someone who gained power from the sounds of insects. I know it is quite tough to create new and interesting characters, but that creation was scraping the bottom of the barrel...hehe.
|
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Oct 24, 2017 13:06:25 GMT -5
Another one that would qualify for Wizard's old Mort of the Month...(and maybe he did in one of their issues)...HUMBUG. Yes, Humbug appeared in the Spider-Man books and was someone who gained power from the sounds of insects. I know it is quite tough to create new and interesting characters, but that creation was scraping the bottom of the barrel...hehe. I never read any comic with Humbug in it... I just assumed he was a Marvel rip-off of Ambush Bug. |
|
