Edgeymcedgename
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2024
Diseased #Comicsgate - The Culture Wars Hit The Funny Books!
- Thread starter Done
- Start date
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2013
You know, normally when so sad pathetic lolcow starts obsessing over someone in the same “job genre” as them, they try to heavily downplay any popularity or influence they may have and just claim they suck and have no talent/friends/fans whatsoever.
Zach can’t even obsessly hate someone correctly.
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2019
I'm going to do the most BASIC number crunching.
let us use these graphs of most likely audience for Drinker to go by for ticket prices and say that each one of those likes on his most liked video is a GUARANTEED ticket purchase.
That's enough of that.
Let's take the most expensive ticket because that is more kind to Richard's hypothesis. So at 14$ a pop for 199k people is about - $2.7 mil
I'm feeling nice - lets add on Nerdrotic's most liked video
That brings us to $3.02 mil so all together between Nerdrotic and Drinker they are TAKING AWAY $5 mil dollars from Disney!
Sorry Richard, but $5 mil doesn't even fucking cover Gal Gadot's waste removal. Let alone being what makes or breaks that film, or any other of these Disney failures..
So what if the trailer gets downvoted. It won't change their minds on their films. It also won't dictate whether the film survives or not. That's up to the paying customer. You want an accurate view of how many people care/support? Don't look at the subscribers, don't look at the likes, the dislikes, look at the money going to the product... You know Richard, like your failing projects.
This post isn't supposed to be scientific, it's supposed to just be super charitable, and prove a point. At the best numbers it is still nothing in the grand scheme of things. Let's also take a look at Richard's point... Disliking a video, or not buying a ticket. Well, Richard, how many sales did you take away from comic companies by putting out your scathing reviews, and inspired other reviewers with bigger audiences to do the same? Where's the outrage there, better yet where is the self-reflection.
Mr Processor
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2022
I saw this today and I immediately thought of Boi Zack. His latest video is edgy shit about how Batman should kill. Well, I assume that's what it is about. I certainly didn't watch it.
Edgeymcedgename
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2024
1. Yes he is the most literal definition of a man child.
2. Can we get a rundown on that batman video?
Vida
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2019
He doesn't really make an argument for or agaisnt it.
Instead the video is Zack talking about him rewatching the cartoon. His 2025 resolution is to watch 1 episode a day.
He notes how in the cartoon nobody dies and villians just have regular schemes and crimes rather than over the top murderous ones
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2016
Doesn't Batman not killing go back to the 1940s? IIRC he did at first, in maybe one or two issues in the late 1930s, but hasn't for longer than even the oldest of oldfags reading this site has been alive.
Somehow I think it was possibly even an editorial decision, a way of contrasting Batman from the nowadays largely forgotten The Shadow. Both being rich men about town playboys who fought crime with a secret identity, etc.
Incecticyder
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- May 22, 2024
Batman has a lot of rage and that is why he avoids killing. He would never stop if he started and he knows it.
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2018
Batman's no kill rule is necessary for the narrative. If he didnt have it the Joker would have been dead a long time ago and the story is over.
FluffyJackal
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2022
Batman doesn't kill for the same reason Superman doesn't kill, i.e. comics were basically kids stuff until about 1980. To a certain extent they still are. But of course not killing has been such a part of the characters for so long that when they do kill, it seems jarring; consider how the public reacted when the Zack Snyder films made Supes kill to save innocent lives and Bats deliberately brand criminals in hopes of getting them killed in prison.
Of course Meyer considers Batman ought to kill cuz comics about furries in tights jumping over the roofs at night with "adopted" orphans is so freaking obviously targeted at kewl super soldiers like him.
Of course Meyer considers Batman ought to kill cuz comics about furries in tights jumping over the roofs at night with "adopted" orphans is so freaking obviously targeted at kewl super soldiers like him.
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2021
To be fair I think the Batman example was worse, if you're basically setting up people to get beat to death in prison, the better option seems to me that Bruce just shoots them in the head.
I think the problem with the no kill rule is not that they exist, but they usually make the characters like turbo autists about it. I don't think Batman or Superman should kill, but I believe if you said either kill the Joker or a bus of kids dies, that Bats would absolutely be willing to end the Joker in a heartbeat. Obviously, it can never happen, because the Joker is too popular, but that's not really my point.
Its a byproduct of Comics being for kids, and I think its good for the medium, it sets itself apart, though I wish that writers didn't constantly return to that dead horse to beat it.
I remember in Shadowpact, in like the 2000's they had their own little variation, and it's what I think is the better way to phrase the idea of a no kill rule, which they jokingly call the 3 Laws of Superheroics or something to that effect.
"First Law: The lives and safety of innocent bystanders will always be protected.
Second Law: The lives and safety of you (the superhero) and members of your team will be protected to the extent that it does not conflict with the First Law.
Third Law: The lives and safety of all opponents will be protected to the extent that it does not conflict with the first two Laws.”
Incecticyder
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- May 22, 2024
I think it is worth mentioning that Superheroes embarrass law enforcement quite a bit by their very existence. They are addressing the fact that sometimes the police is just not equipped to deal with some things. Bulletproof monsters, deadly toxins and other super threats are beyond the training of most officers. They might feel the need to arrest the capes purely because they make them look bad. Murder also invites courts to judge and have the heroes reveal their identity to the public. It is a risk many heroes will not take. You can say that you murdered someone in self-defense or in defense of another but, chances are, you do not want to give your ID to anyone if you wear a mask. At least, with no lives lost or they did but it was because you chose not to rescue the bad guys as opposed to pulling a trigger, you have some grey area where you might not be called into court.
- Joined
- May 21, 2019
I've mentioned this before but the reason Batman doesn't kill is that Joker and the Penguin need to show up in issue #332 and all subsequent issues and so therefore they can't die. That's why.
Travoltron
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2018
Yes. And I think the "no guns" rule also turned out the best for Batman. The batarang and the other gadgets are way cooler than just shooting a guy.
I do wish the superhero comics would go back to catering to children instead of blue-haired lesbians or 50 year old manbabies. It sucks that parents can't let their kids read current year Batman comics.
- Joined
- May 21, 2019
It makes Batman interesting because he's not a vigilante like a lot of people claim. He's not extracting punishment for wrongs, he's more like a bounty hunter working for a bail bondsman apprehending people that have evaded the law. Bounty hunters are allowed to use reasonable force to apprehend fugitives and this is pretty much what Batman does.
Micah Curtis
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2024
In a time where we have a ton of hack writers making superheroes the least moral they've ever been, Zack wanting to make everything into the Punisher might be the dumbest fucking idea that's out there right now.
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2025
Ill never get this argument from people. Mind you my knowledge of batman starts and ends at the cartoons and a few of the movies but still, Its very clear that batman doesn't kill because that's a step too far. Hes Justice but he isn't the law, he already doesn't really have the right to fight crime in the capacity he is but he most certainly doesn't have the right to kill. He captures villains and hands them over to the state. If the state decides that they wont kill any of the villains then there's nothing that batman can do now is there? I understood this concept at 12. Is this some sort of monumental discovery?
Incecticyder
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- May 22, 2024
I am saying that there are good in-universe reasons too. If he breaks faces and legs of thugs, no one gives a damn. If he kills someone, they have to open a murder investigation with Batman giving his ID at the court. Self-defense would get him off jail but it would also open him up to other problems such as supervillain visits at his house and being attacked while out of costume.
Guns also make loud sounds and attract police and reinforcements.
Bounty hunters are a actual profession. Batman operates off the grid. He wears a mask. He keeps his identity a secret. If he were to register as a bounty hunter, he would be way more regulated and in the open. He is almost a mythical monster and it is better that way. I am sure he likes acting in a way that makes him resemble Dracula. Better have them come at you with crosses and garlick than with guns and knives.
FluffyJackal
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2022
@Dafuqisdis? may have been making fun of an old idea Richard Meyer had for a Batman elevator pitch where Batman,Inc. is a Bruce Wayne owned sort of bounty hunter / security service company and several people would be donning the costume as employees...
I remember I used to watch Zak. Boy was I fucking retarded