Diseased #Comicsgate - The Culture Wars Hit The Funny Books!

[Flexo]

There wasn’t a need for the original either. If they made something good we wouldn’t be having this conversation. The need for it is as immaterial as people asking for it.

Well.... this blogger makes a compelling case that... yeah there kind of was.

https://arkhavencomics.com/2024/08/27/1990s-gothic-superheroes-the-crow/

So yes, Dark Fantasy called to us in a way that it hadn’t for other generations. The Crow wasn’t the first dark hero but he was ours in a way the rest couldn’t be. Eric Draven and his girl were trying to make their way in the world and were brutally murdered for it, his girl got it the worst being raped before her wedding day and dying in a hospital 30 hours later. The outrage spoke to us.​

Brandon Lee was a Gen-Xer himself. He’d lost his father at an age where a father’s death shatters a boy’s security. He would spend the rest of his life in Bruce Lee’s shadow and would emerge from it only in death.​

 

[Incecticyder]

"No one asked for this" is what YouTube grifters pass off as an opinion because they are too spineless to hold actual opinions.

It's mostly used as a watered-down stand-in for "progressive propaganda, White erasure, and troon normalization" because these grifters don't ever want to address the actual problems customers have with modern media. All they want to do is be the place that also dislikes the thing to grift money.

Addressing the real reasons why modern media is garbage is something they avoid like the plague because that could cause them to get demonetized or deplatformed.

What I mean is that the movie was not made to fill a niche/do justice to a good premise/because they wanted to entertain. It was made for cynical reasons such as a cash grab and nostalgia bait.

 

[The Tall Man]

What I mean is that the movie was not made to fill a niche/do justice to a good premise/because they wanted to entertain. It was made for cynical reasons such as a cash grab and nostalgia bait.

I'm saying this doesn't tell me anything other than that you probably didn't like the movie.
There are cash grab and nostalgia bait movies that are loads of fun.

I haven't and will not watch it because, at a glance, it already looks like miscegenation propaganda.

Edit:
Lol Hollywood has dropped all subtlety, the two main bad guys.

#KillChalkRoaches

 

[Mr Processor]

I'm saying this doesn't tell me anything other than that you probably didn't like the movie.
There are cash grab and nostalgia bait movies that are loads of fun.

I haven't and will not watch it because, at a glance, it already looks like miscegenation propaganda.

Edit:
Lol Hollywood has dropped all subtlety, the two main bad guys.
View attachment 6367213
#KillChalkRoaches

Basically, the changes you are noting ended up having a big impact on the other areas of the plot. The original was a fairly simple vengeful undead creature taking revenge on his murderers sort of like High Plains Drifter. While Eric was more humanized than Eastwood's more enigmatic drifter, he was still a somewhat mysterious supernatural entity.

However, now that we've changed Shelly into a black woman she needs to be a bigger character in the movie. She needs to be more active in the story. More of the movie is sacrificed to show Shelly and Eric as a happy couple, instead of just being a short plot point as the setup for the supernatural plot. Also, instead of an angry revenant out for blood, new Eric is recruited by "the forces of good" with the promise that Shelly will be returned to life if he succeeds. By the end of the movie, Eric has done what his masters commanded he do and dies, with Shelly being resurrected by his noble sacrifice. The two movies share a name but don't really have very much in common.

 

[That Other Dude's Persona]

The original Crow really isn't any good. There's an unstoppable hero that kills a bunch of gangsters and since he's so unstoppable there's literally zero tension or excitement.

Even if watching Hong Kong action in a western film five years before The Matrix didn't excite you, the bad guys trying to find Eric's weakness and eventually figuring out it was the crow that was making him immortal was a big part of the plot.

@Oopstomanyrequests429 RCM is right about media literacy.

 

[Incecticyder]

I'm saying this doesn't tell me anything other than that you probably didn't like the movie.
There are cash grab and nostalgia bait movies that are loads of fun.

I haven't and will not watch it because, at a glance, it already looks like miscegenation propaganda.

Edit:
Lol Hollywood has dropped all subtlety, the two main bad guys.
View attachment 6367213
#KillChalkRoaches

Nope! I am not saying anything like that. What I am saying is that a movie should always aim to make money without feeling like a cashgrab. It is a job and it has to make money but it is also entertainment and thus it cannot be cynical about it. I am not going to see it either because the trailers did not impress me either. If the director or the writer had an interesting vision that would improve upon the original then fine, we might have something fun in here. But what I get from this is that they wanted to use the name, have a pre-written premise and virtue signal. Fun and audience enjoyment were never in the equation. Just virtue signaling done cheap using another man 's work in order to draw an audience.

Basically, the changes you are noting ended up having a big impact on the other areas of the plot. The original was a fairly simple vengeful undead creature taking revenge on his murderers sort of like High Plains Drifter. While Eric was more humanized than Eastwood's more enigmatic drifter, he was still a somewhat mysterious supernatural entity.

However, now that we've changed Shelly into a black woman she needs to be a bigger character in the movie. She needs to be more active in the story. More of the movie is sacrificed to show Shelly and Eric as a happy couple, instead of just being a short plot point as the setup for the supernatural plot. Also, instead of an angry revenant out for blood, new Eric is recruited by "the forces of good" with the promise that Shelly will be returned to life if he succeeds. By the end of the movie, Eric has done what his masters commanded he do and dies, with Shelly being resurrected by his noble sacrifice. The two movies share a name but don't really have very much in common.

The moment they added a diverse purse-puppy, they removed a character, changed the atmosphere and the premise. The Crow was hardly a masterpiece but it was one of those plots that did not lent itself to alterations in the script.

Even if watching Hong Kong action in a western film five years before The Matrix didn't excite you, the bad guys trying to find Eric's weakness and eventually figuring out it was the crow that was making him immortal was a big part of the plot.

Indeed. He was invulnerable like a horror movie monster with one weakness and chased around normal humans. The twist is that moral alignment was reversed. The undead creature is the good guy and the normal humans are criminals.

 

[The Tall Man]

Basically, the changes you are noting ended up having a big impact on the other areas of the plot. The original was a fairly simple vengeful undead creature taking revenge on his murderers sort of like High Plains Drifter. While Eric was more humanized than Eastwood's more enigmatic drifter, he was still a somewhat mysterious supernatural entity.

However, now that we've changed Shelly into a black woman she needs to be a bigger character in the movie. She needs to be more active in the story. More of the movie is sacrificed to show Shelly and Eric as a happy couple, instead of just being a short plot point as the setup for the supernatural plot. Also, instead of an angry revenant out for blood, new Eric is recruited by "the forces of good" with the promise that Shelly will be returned to life if he succeeds. By the end of the movie, Eric has done what his masters commanded he do and dies, with Shelly being resurrected by his noble sacrifice. The two movies share a name but don't really have very much in common.

That sounds like a really lame movie.
They turned a revenge story into a "save the brown princess" movie.
There are many weird definitions of "woke" out there, but I think my personal one, "Brown people good, White people bad," often fits woke media better.
White guy sacrificing himself by killing other White people to save an innocent Brown woman. This is the wet dream of some faggot infected with White guilt.

Nope! I am not saying anything like that. What I am saying is that a movie should always aim to make money without feeling like a cashgrab. It is a job and it has to make money but it is also entertainment and thus it cannot be cynical about it. I am not going to see it either because the trailers did not impress me either. If the director or the writer had an interesting vision that would improve upon the original then fine, we might have something fun in here. But what I get from this is that they wanted to use the name, have a pre-written premise and virtue signal. Fun and audience enjoyment were never in the equation. Just virtue signaling done cheap using another man 's work in order to draw an audience.

Fair enough, I still think that's a bit naive, but most people underestimate the importance of art and the power of propaganda.

If someone makes a piece of media that is propaganda against my own race, that will be my number one concern. I guess unless someone makes propaganda demonizing me or my family directly, that would be worse.

 

[Olórin of Hype]

The Crow is a power fantasy every male has with his first and or second girlfriend.
"I would totally come back to life and murderblast anyone who hurt you babe. That's how much I love you babe. You're my world babe."
It's why it's a classic, it calls back to a time in your life when you felt really untouchable. It's fun to relive that for a little while.

Borderlands (the movie) is not a power fantasy. It's a Boomer's attempt at translating a 15 year old ADHD version of Fallout into something 50 year olds can wrap their heads around. The AARP gold card casting choices didn't help it but they weren't the biggest problem. The Borderlands movie has nothing to do with the game series it's based off of beyond a few haplessly translated designs.

Just like the new 'The Crow' movie has NOTHING to do with the original, and attempts to warp the power fantasy into a romance story akin to Twilight.
Which robs it of it's appeal. The story isn't Eric Draven coming back to life, the story is you're coming back to life to beat the ass off of people who hurt your girl. The new movie completely abandons that POV because (most) women can't rationalize it.

Why does the new Transformers movie suck? Because it's not a vehicle (pun intended) for the audience to experience the world of the Transformers through. It's a fan fiction about the writers experiencing the world of the Transformers.

Why does Rings of Power suck? Because it's a vehicle for the writers to punish Tolkien's "backward thinking".

Are you getting it yet?
The audience isn't a factor anymore. The writers are "going on an adventure" and "you're gonna fucking pay for it, CIS SCUM!"

 

[Gee Willows Wilson!]

He’s literally a bigger fag than YMS who went into the lion’s den (so to speak) to defend his movie opinions on EFAP.

EFAP are a bunch of pedantic fags, but I would love for them to set their eyes down on Zack since he's not just saying mean things about their friend Drinker, but is critiquing the grift as a whole while also sporting some fancy shite takes for piss poor movies. Zack might hold his own against Drinker or Nerdrotic, but EFAP are proud in the minute details they pluck out of the film that contributes to the wider problems with the film itself. They also don't do the moral "I paid a ticket to see this piece of shit!" so he wouldn't even be able to say anything there and it might even ruin his chances further considering he has PTSD boomer brain and they can just boot up a shitty cam copy any time to keep fresh points.

Does Zack have some good points against the griftsphere? Sure! But he's not the person to be putting them out there, especially since he's being adamant about being a faggot and not call out his friends who either have done the same thing, or are currently doing the same thing. He also can't sit there and say these guys are losers but also they sway the market of Hollywood simply by putting out 15k+ view videos.

Pick a lane Zack. Also advertise your campaign buddy, time's ticking. And put out your backed up books.

 

[FedPostalService]

We’re all forgetting the original The Crow movie has a really good soundtrack album too. Stick it on and you’re in any metal club in that time period.

 

[Incecticyder]

Zack might hold his own against Drinker or Nerdrotic

No, he will not. His arguement boils down to "You never made a movie/show and thus you only destroy what others made" etc etc. False equivalency. If I go to a dinner and the chicken has been undercooked, am I supposed to keep my mouth shut and eat because I do not own an eating establishment? If I get shoes and they are torn after a few weeks of normal usage, am I supposed to not complain about it because I never worked at a sweatshop? IDIOT! If the Drinker or Nerdrotic paid money to watch the show/movie then their critique is worth as much as anyone else 's. Customers have every right to review products.

Does Zack have some good points against the griftsphere? Sure! But he's not the person to be putting them out there, especially since he's being adamant about being a faggot and not call out his friends who either have done the same thing, or are currently doing the same thing. He also can't sit there and say these guys are losers but also they sway the market of Hollywood simply by putting out 15k+ view videos.

Neither side is perfect but Zack is way worse than them. He is a snake who bet on the pendulum shifting against them in the vague future or some shit.

 

[Gee Willows Wilson!]

No, he will not. His arguement boils down to "You never made a movie/show and thus you only destroy what others made" etc etc.

He wouldn't even have that going for him, since Drinker has published multiple novels, a graphic novel Zack himself collaborated on, and now has a low budget crowdfunded movie based on his characters and stories, so even that Zack won't have against him.

What I mean by Zack is going to hold his own again Drinker is that, from other discussions Drinker has had with people who disagree with him, he's very cordial and not generally a passive-aggressive homo like Rags and Fringy are on EFAP. He wouldn't be able to hang with them where every little fuck up he makes in words or thoughts will get ripped apart and hounded by the EFAP guys, unlike with Drinker. My original thought isn't based on actual point counter point, just that he won't have to defend every little thing he said against Drinker.

 

[Rupin]

Who’d have thought not respecting your fanbase would have consequences? Zack sure didn’t…



EDIT: this will probably make funding in the last couple hours, I just found this EMail quite ironic.

 

[Train Operator]

These faggots are so boring we're now just talking about the fucking crow. lol

 

[Testefy-AI]

I'm glad he didn't discover cuties when he started this bullshit.

The best intel says that Ya Boi RICHIE probably has nightly Cuties watch parties with Stu-y. It gives them the chance to celebrate their shared devotion to the Down Syndrome haircut.

 

[Miniluv]

Who’d have thought not respecting your fanbase would have consequences? Zack sure didn’t…

View attachment 6367639

EDIT: this will probably make funding in the last couple hours, I just found this EMail quite ironic.

This is more begging than the Zeroes have ever done.

 

[ronnal]

Who’d have thought not respecting your fanbase would have consequences? Zack sure didn’t…

View attachment 6367639

EDIT: this will probably make funding in the last couple hours, I just found this EMail quite ironic.

I don't understand why he would make this as a comic book. You'd think if he really wanted to tell the story of the most influential comics, that he would just make this as a video series. Making that kind of project as a scripted documentary sort of thing would be a much more efficient way of getting this info across instead of needing to publish and draw an entire book.

 

[Captain Manning]

These faggots are so boring we're now just talking about the fucking crow. lol

Well, I was bitching about One More Day in the supporters forum the other day. We could do that here if you want.

Fuck Joe Quesada. Only good thing about him is his name reminds me of quesadillas.

Mmmmm... quesadillas.

I don't understand why he would make this as a comic book. You'd think if he really wanted to tell the story of the most influential comics, that he would just make this as a video series. Making that kind of project as a scripted documentary sort of thing would be a much more efficient way of getting this info across instead of needing to publish and draw an entire book.

He said he's aping Ed Piskor's Hip Hop Family Tree. Piskor's book is about the history of hip hop. Zack thought it would be a brilliant idea to do one on the history of comics.

 

[Incecticyder]

He wouldn't even have that going for him, since Drinker has published multiple novels, a graphic novel Zack himself collaborated on, and now has a low budget crowdfunded movie based on his characters and stories, so even that Zack won't have against him.

What I mean by Zack is going to hold his own again Drinker is that, from other discussions Drinker has had with people who disagree with him, he's very cordial and not generally a passive-aggressive homo like Rags and Fringy are on EFAP. He wouldn't be able to hang with them where every little fuck up he makes in words or thoughts will get ripped apart and hounded by the EFAP guys, unlike with Drinker. My original thought isn't based on actual point counter point, just that he won't have to defend every little thing he said against Drinker.

I fully agree. He might try it with Nerdrotic (though even he has a catalog of NSFW material so he can argue that he created something). Zack is underequiped to defend a lot of his more recent positions.

Who’d have thought not respecting your fanbase would have consequences? Zack sure didn’t…

View attachment 6367639

EDIT: this will probably make funding in the last couple hours, I just found this EMail quite ironic.

He has some rich paypigs that fund everything at the last second. Even they might get sic of him one day though.

I don't understand why he would make this as a comic book. You'd think if he really wanted to tell the story of the most influential comics, that he would just make this as a video series. Making that kind of project as a scripted documentary sort of thing would be a much more efficient way of getting this info across instead of needing to publish and draw an entire book.

I cannot begin explaining all the reasons as to why he should not be making such a project. The medium is the least of his problems.

Well, I was bitching about One More Day in the supporters forum the other day. We could do that here if you want.

Fuck Joe Quesada. Only good thing about him is his name reminds me of quesadillas.

Mmmmm... quesadillas.

The fact that the man resposible for the most brand damaging comic of the decade (that was attached to the most brand damaging event of the decade) became the boss of Marvel is surreal to me. "You destroyed our flagship title. Here is the power to do more damage."

He said he's aping Ed Piskor's Hip Hop Family Tree. Piskor's book is about the history of hip hop. Zack thought it would be a brilliant idea to do one on the history of comics.

It is a GREAT idea! If only someone more capable was behind it. And maybe that hypothetical person could get some big names to write comments. If only Zack did not burn every bridge there was. Then again, I doubt you could condense the history of comics in such a small amount of pages unleash you made a lot of cuts,

 

[FluffyJackal]

The Drinker gives reasons for disliking it that I don't think were contradicted by Zack's review.

Exactly! It seems that Meyer cares more about putting down the Drinker than to disagree with his critique

Zack has become a very niche critic of very niche critics