The Ultimate Superheroines Forum

I feel like this thread has really gone off the rails.

shevek wrote: ↑

2 years ago

theScribbler wrote: ↑

2 years ago

The clincher at that time in video, Billy didn't talk about angry comics pros on twitter. Billy didn't say 'angry comics pros.'

Billy did say "some people..." Is that the same? No it isn't.

All you had to do to have it be true was to leave out four words:
'and blatant political leanings.'

So you're saying if any forum member were to write "DC Comics" they'd be saying "Twitter mob?"

Youtube channels you watch must be pretty weird. Do they have their own dictionary? Is it online?

"DC Comics" and "industry pros" are the same thing.
So Everyone who works for DC is an industry pro? Does this include customer service, secretaries and assistants, janitors, window washers, maintenance crew? Are you for real? You don't seem like you're for real?

Going to answer briefly so I can go back to more productive things, and you can compose another obsessive ultra-literalist rant in response,
where you keep harping on four words. Thank God you didn't do that when JFK said "Ich bin ein Berliner" or Lee Harvey Oswald would have assassinated a Jelly Donut.

You mean "Going to double down on lies some more with six medium paragraphs and add info I will not source cause I have a penchant for making stuff up?"

shevek wrote: ↑

2 years ago

Yes, "some people" is Billy Tucci's polite way of referring to those on Twitter (and elsewhere) who have been attacking Willingham and writing hit-pieces against him. Yes, it is the same, and it is *understood* within the context of the people watching the channel, who, unlike yourself, do *not* need a dictionary to figure out the meaning.

Misrepresentation...

First, you called them 'angry comics pros on Twitter,'

shevek wrote: ↑

2 years ago

The clincher really begins around 1:50:00 on that video. When Billy talks about angry comics pros on Twitter...

Now you soften and camouflage that to 'those on Twitter.'

shevek wrote: ↑

2 years ago

Yes, "some people" is Billy Tucci's polite way of referring to those on Twitter

I wasn't arguing 'some people on Twitter' vs 'those on Twitter.' cause that would be virtually the same.

The lie was just what I said it was. Tucci said 'some people' and you said he said 'angry comics pros.' Not what he said, Not what he meant. He meant what he said: some people. That's not shevek code for 'angry comics pros' no matter how much you wish it were.

You lied about what Tucci said just as i proved you did. You've not escaped yet again.

Wearing shevek self-deceiving colored glasses betrays you again and everytime.

shevek wrote: ↑

2 years ago

No, I didn't say DC Comics equals Twitter mob.

That's exactly what you said. Learn to read your own words. You have such a terrible time understanding anyone elses writing, but your own writing!?

shevek wrote: ↑

2 years ago

This includes Jim Lee, who just happens to be the headliner at the Con we're vending at this weekend. In the POPXP video, Willingham explains why: Lee promised Willingham by phone call that he would be present at a Zoom meeting to defend him in his fight against the DC brass, but when push came to shove, Lee did not show up, and in fact, was told by the DC brass *not* to be there.

Source? No one can take you at face value as you lie far too much.

shevek wrote: ↑

2 years ago

So yes, I'm for real.

No. Still not.

shevek wrote: ↑

2 years ago

Willingham said that this happened at the Zoom meeting where he was told to basically lump it with regards to the enforcement of his contract.

Source? No one can take you at face value as you lie far too much.

shevek wrote: ↑

2 years ago

And yes, there was financial acrimony involved in his split from DC and his decision to put Fables in public domain, and a strong belief in the power of copyright.

Yes, sort of. I already sourced this.

'strong belief in the power of copyright' = more like 'strong belief copyright law needs radical transformation.'

shevek wrote: ↑

2 years ago

But there was also an ideological component.

No. That was your injected lie.

Now I will say, you can think that. But attributing it to Bill in this way...

shevek wrote: ↑

2 years ago

That's why someone like Bill Willingham, who turned his entire Fables oeuvre into public domain as a protest against DC's terrible business practices and blatant political leanings,...

...makes you the failed, always failing, liar that you are. Now you could've broken it up to make it true. You can separate Bill's stated intentions, and then add your jumping to conclusions with shevek agenda glasses on. As in...

"That's why someone like Bill Willingham, who turned his entire Fables oeuvre into public domain as a protest against DC's terrible business practices will be fine. Now, I shevek want to add, as I have my own bizarro agenda most everyone can spot from a mile away, that I think Bill also did this because of DC's blatant political leanings. Now Bill didn't say that, and I have no proof and I'm usually wrong, but this is just how I feel when I'm in my weird must-include-shevek-agenda-somehow-in-this-here-post mood. Which is really how I feel all the time."

See. Simple. And this would turn your lying about Bill into not lying about Bill. And include you owning your shevek agenda.

shevek wrote: ↑

2 years ago

Whether you choose to believe that is one thing.

Well since "But there was also an ideological component" comes from you: of course I don't believe it. Plus he did a whole blog post where he didn't claim this at all.

shevek wrote: ↑

2 years ago

Whether you compose obsessive rants against me with power-point presentations and continuous usage of the word "liar" is another. Everyone except yourself apparently understands the difference.

Non sequitur. Nomad would sterilize you.

Everyone can see your lies. That's what's understood.

I see there are lots of crazy shevek posts in here. I like when SHL took you down. Maybe I'll explore those. I'll look into this later.

shevek wrote: ↑

2 years ago

Onward.

Is this equivalent to your prior post...

shevek wrote: ↑

2 years ago

I'm done with your frankly unhinged attacks, and I'm on to the much more productive world of Comicons!

Are you going to keep ending your posts this way. And then reply again anyway? It's fine if you do. Just makes your every post end on a lie. Not surprising.

Been awhile since I've been on the board, good to see it's the same old folks derailing/ruining things.

RedMountain wrote: ↑

2 years ago

Been awhile since I've been on the board, good to see it's the same old folks derailing/ruining things.

Apologies, man. Maybe it's one of the reasons SHIP is dying
[It isn't. I'm just kidding. Carry on folks.]

SHL wrote: ↑

2 years ago

I am pretty sure this conversation happened in another thread already

'Superheroine fetish' of course isn't dying. Arguably - its never been more popular.

What is dying is 'high end superheroine fetish filmmaking'. And I think the mechanics of 'why' are rather easy to understand - the audience who consumes that kind of content has come to have not just high end expectations of the content but micro-niche needs in order to justify the purchase. It isn't enough that the content is shot well, directed well and perfectly casted - they need it to perfectly catered to what THEY need to get off and as time goes on that becomes more and more specific. And while the audiences needs become more demanding and more specific - the directors who produced high end content will eventually age out. Wether that be from doing it too long (two + decades) or leaving their 40s/50s into their 60s, thinking about retirement etc. That becomes a high end content killer because - young and new directors don't stand a chance to produce content thats high end enough to even be considered by an audience thats micro niche - high end only.

It takes time to become good at filmmaking. Even more time to become good at action filmmaking. Even more time to become good at superheroine high end filmmaking with special effects, fight scenes and perfectly made costumes.

I think in the next ten years you will see some of the biggest names of this genre leave. And you will probably see a couple young filmmakers come and try their hand. But I don't see a reality where new talent will stand a chance to a audience like this ones, with how specific and high end the communities taste has become.

But there will always be an OnlyFans model wearing cosplay shooting some hardcore scenes. You just won't get a 60 minute epic with a full blown action scene and storyline included.

P.S. whats up with all the ageism on here lately? I have noticed this 'special butterfly' attitude lately with people thinking they can speak for all members of a similar age group. I am in my 30s. I grew up on Lynda Carter and 66 Batman reruns. You don't have to be in your 60s to get '60s kink'.

Thanks for writing this SHL. I found it enlightening. I think the genre will continue to evolve as most do. I just hope the girls stay in shape and start properly grooming again!

GWalb wrote: ↑

2 years ago

Does every discussion on these forums have to turn into a pointless, inane political argument?

I just scrolled over that back and forth stupidity like I was driving past a kindergarten recess break.

I apologize if it's already been mentioned but a perfect example is the Supergirl character in The Flash. Could she be any more androgynous? She's looks like a teenage boy with boobs. Maybe she's a trans boy with a dick? Compare that to Helen Slater's character in the original. No warm blooded male would possibly deny which one is sexier, more attractive and just better.

And for the record Helen Slater Supergirl was before my time. But I loved her and also the girl who played Lex's girlfriend in Superman IV. Both gave me pre teen boners before I know what was going on.