Perhaps the reason the "every abortion in the world (doesn't) make you stop for a second and re-evaluate life" is because we don't "hear about every abortion?"
The fact that you tie your inner most feelings and beliefs into what you "hear" (implying media) only proves that you watch too much TV.
it is a prisoner's first duty to escape. it is a species first duty to survive.
your application of the "prime directive" simply prooves that you watch too much TV.
I wasn't saying that everyone should behave the way I do... reread my post. What I said is that I wouldn't behave in the same fashion as the original poster and that his/her logic was completely foundationless... AND I wouldn't waste time and effort trying to convince everyone that my way is the proper way.
you obvioulsy misread my post... because I WASN'T "doing the same thing that the parent post was doing"... that was my point.
all of what your post tries to compartmentalize is complete conjecture on your part. You have offered no evidence that ANYBODY classifies life in the manner that you've described, other than yourself... it all looks good on paper and even follows a certain logic... but in reality you may be the only person on earth that thinks that way.
Personally I'd let the dog get run over before I pull the plug on a human. And frankly if I had to decide on whom to push out of the way of a moving truck, I'd pick my pregnant wife over an adult chimp... But even so, I wouldn't waste 8 paragraphs trying to convince the world that my decision makes sense... it's just what I feel.
That being said this "argument" all boils down to one factor: "could that embryo have been me?"
No one was questioning CNN's ability to report news. The original post was about international vs local news... his point being that local news was the only acceptable news source on a story like this.
You then interjected with your pointless "CNN sucks." It was offtopic for this thread. I've tried three times to bring you back on topic, but to no avail.
Your ego seems to keep this "argument" going... I'm not saying you're wrong...I'm saying that you are debating a point no one in this thread is discussing. You're completely arguing with yourself.
Yes my remarks are inflammatory. How would you like it if somebody butted into your conversation on how much CNN sucks to tell you that NBC is on at 10pm every night? "Who cares?" would be your reply right? That's what I have said here in this thread... but yet you keep coming back. Oh well.
So once again I ask you, please remove your head from your ass.
1. CNN world coverage isn't the same as domestic. It's completely different editors, reporters... headquarters...
so again, you don't know what you're talking about. When in Europe, I would watch CNN and get completely different stories than back at home. Columbine is the perfect example... it was a minor story in Europe, when back at home it was ALL that was on TV. The context and quality of stories overseas is much better than at home.
2. The shooter using cstrike as a prep tool was admitted by the shooter. Thus this is a statement of fact and not somebody's opinion.
My point was that just because he lives in
Germany doesn't nullify CNN's world presence. They claim to have up to a
billion viewers worldwide. Since there are only at most 280 million Americans,
(and I guarantee that not all even own televisions let alone watch CNN) how
do you account for the 250% error? Could it be that actually more people
outside of the U.S. watch CNN than we simple uninformed moronic Americans?
At an apparent ratio of 3 to 1?
So instead of you actually adding an informed
opinion, you went off on a ridiculous tangent about how stupid CNN's coverage
is... funny, that's completely not what I was talking about. I was trying
to correct the knee jerk nationalistic response that some random German dude
had! He is obviously threatened by anything American... even to the point
where he is denying that CNN even broadcasts outside of Atlanta! Of course
we all know that only local news can truly cover a story well (sarcasm)... so any reporter
not functioning on an official German news team should just leave the country
now. What bull shit.
And he and I both agreed that there is
absolutely a link between violent video games and school shootings.
In fact the third point in his post was simply restating what I had already
said. Now, neither of us said that this was the main cause... nor
was it a direct link. What we said was that the shooter (like ALL of the
American school shooters) had been planning this attack OPENLY! He
had talked about it to other people before he actually committed the deed!
The use of violent video games is just a piece of the preparation. He practiced
strategy and tactics on his computer... using cstrike more as a simulator
and less like just a game. These are the facts as being reported on both
local German and worldwide news media. Of the 16 people shot... 13 were
teachers. Not random at all, but planned strategic elimination... choosing
his targets.
It's apparent that you think that the argument
at hand is "violent games breeds killers!" And no one in this thread was
saying that (perhaps the first poster presented the point for the negative
argument). So you defending an argument that no one is arguing is completely
ignorant. But, so as not to continue this into a flame war, let me explain
our point again. It takes more than just violent video game playing to create
a school shooter. According to the Secret Service's findings (as shown last
Friday on 60 minutes 2), the chronic external pressures seem to push these
kids into a world where there is very little distinction between fantasy
and reality. They are so angry and feel so limited in their other options
that death and killing seem to be completely viable escape routes. Violent
video games to a kid in this position is just practice... part of the fantasy.
Little by little it wears down his last reservations or the few vestiges
of the reality of what he is about to do...
If you can't see that then you're completely
blind.
Thank you for completely fogging the entire
point with your lame completely off topic post. You joined a discussion
to add your own irrelevant opinion... no facts anywhere. And frankly, who
cares what you think?
Slashdot is completely ruined by the script kiddies. Most of these people are complete morons...
1. CNN is the WORLD leader in news. Like it or not... most people internationally watch CNN for news. If you don't know that, then you've never left the country. Any one who has ever travelled (or like me WORKED) for any period of time in Europe knows how BIG CNN is. It is watched by more people internationally than any other network (news or otherwise). So for you to claim CNN as an AMERICAN news station only is COMPLETELY NAIVE. Besides, CNN is not the only network to report the EXACT SAME THING! My primary news source is BBC world... and they said the exact same thing...
My point was that he didn't SNEAK THE GUNS! This isn't anything at all like what happened at Columbine. THAT WAS MY POINT! The kid was in possesion of the guns HIMSELF. (and as you pointed out he was 18, so he wasn't a kid.) So the comment "somehow he got a gun" is just plain stupid.
2. Of couse his parents didn't know that! That was my point. The original comment was "somehow... without his parent knowing." It's not a big secret is it? His parents were completely non-involved in his life. Most articles atribute this to their separation. Again, the comment was stupid... there was no guess work here, we know EXACTLY why his parents were out of the loop.
3. I just said that it needs more than that to run mad and go amok. Why don't you people actually read what you're responding to?
Another fine example of why the Slashdot moderation system is complete shit. I get a response that for the first point is a complete falsehood, the second is a complete misinterpretation of my original point and the third just rehashes what I originally said!
I think that comic books kind of regulate themselves? I've seen a few documentaries that discuss how there was this "code" of what can and can't go into a comic book.
The example they use was of the Spider-man where Peter's friend was dealing with a drug addiction in the sixties. It was a very anti-drug message, but the code forbade the issue from being published because comics could NEVER include themes of drug use in ANY form. But, Marvel went ahead and published anyway...
The point is, I don't think comic books are regulated by any GOVERNMENT agency... they just all agreed to self-censorship.
you should read the CNN article linked in the original post:
1. He was using guns that he LEGALLY owned. I infer then, that they were HIS guns... so there was no "somehow he got a gun." 2. His parents were separated, and the article is quoted as saying he had bad relations with both. So there is no "without his parents knowing." 3. The article also says that he "was a gun club marksman who used his training to shoot many of his 16 victims -- 13 teachers, two pupils and a police officer..." so this isn't just some random steal your grandfather's shotgun and go on a shooting spree. 4. According to the secret service report released a few days ago, the ONLY thing that all American school shooters had in common was that they WARNED everyone it was going to happen, and it was never a spur of the moment decision. There was NEVER any sign of insanity... these were normal kids who under great chronic pressure finally decided that they would rather risk dying than "deal with it" anymore. They said that most shootings could be stopped if people would just learn to see the signs. (completely UNLIKE a demented individual, these kids were crying out before hand.) Obsession with violent video games IS one of the signs. BUT, it is only one of many. by itself it means nothing. This shooting (acording to the article) ALSO falls along these guidelines. So there is no "he was disturbed."
And finally.
As to your OGC joke... I guess 16 people being murdered just isn't as funny as it used to be.
I spent most of my summers in Utah. (Layton, between Ogden and Salt Lake... exactly half a mile from the causeway out to Antelope Island actually...) So you don't need to tell me how repressive Utah can be.
BUT, I remember VIVIDLY what actually happened with those stupid labels.
MTV changed music. There was a huge resurgance in music purchasing. In fact, there were various rumors at just prior to MTV's big boom that the music industry was going to go under. Then all of a sudden we teens were supposedly buying music again (possibly due also to the new CDs that were appearing... don't ask me, we couldn't afford a player).
The problem was a lot of the music was mostly SHOCK crap. Overproduced trash with "explicit" lyrics intended to make the teenagers believe that they were buying stuff that they're parents would hate. This is YEARS before rap (1989 was the first appearance of Yo MTV raps... and the death of real music). Before then, MTV was produced for mid-western teenagers... no inner city stuff at all. In fact Michael Jackson was the most "Black" that MTV ever showed (thus complaints from the African-American "communities"... rightfully so, and thus Yo MTV raps was created to appease the complainers... sigh).
So it was all just a big setup. A scam. Here the production companies were producing trash DESIGNED to be perceived as TABOO, they were piping it directly into the most naive and sheltered parts of America... and along came the politicians wives!
You don't think that the record companies thanked their lucky stars? This gave them MORE publicity than they could ever dream of! Every kid in America WANTED all these dirty albums that pissed off Wachington DC. It played right into the record execs' hands.
So, NO. There was no story here. There was no censorship. Just a bunch of wives with nothing to do, that in any other country would have been ignored... except they inadvertently stumbled onto the perfect marketing machine...
The VH1 movie was stupid. The press took that whole music labelling thing and promoted it like they did the OJ Simpson trial. It was completely a non-story.
No one ever told the record companies that they should censor themselves (THAT came to be when Ice-T did his "cop killer" album). All these politicians wives wanted was a label on the album that told parents what was on the album without having to purchase it first. If the record companies would have self-regulated like the comic book or movie industries, then the wives would have gone away.
In fact the music industry probably blew the whole thing out of proportion not to fight for free speech, but it was free publicity!
How can it be considered "free speech," if it's
copyrighted? I don't get how the software companies can hide behind
the first amendment to produce the game, but then discard this argument after we purchase the game. If I were to say that MY
rights to do what I want with the software are being infringed by
THEIR copyrights, they would say that the game ISN'T free speech.
Somebody explain this apparent hypocrisy to me please.
No shit. I wasn't saying Jack would do a walk-on. I wanted to know why is name wasn't in the credits anywhere. Or why there wasn't a billboard strategically placed in the background with his picture?
Yes, I know that he isn't widely reckognized as a a big contributor to Spider-Man, but come on... 1. Stan Lee sure does down play his role at Marvel quite a bit. 2. Jack Kirby touched EVERYTHING at Marvel back then. He BUILT Marvel, they should at least give him some type of recognition somewhere in the biggest movie in thier history.
Fantastic Four, Hulk and Thor were all done by the Kirby and Lee
team. When Spider-Man came along in August of 1962, Lee felt that
they were spreading themselves too thin... and Lee also wanted
something a bit more "edgy and dynamic."
Until this time, Jack Kirby had been
drawing all of the company's new characters, but Spider-Man ended up
in the hands of another artist. Kirby drew several pages of a
version of Spider-Man, but he never completed a story. Kirby's
version was as bold and dynamic as the rest of his work, but Lee
wanted something a bit more offbeat and edgy. Steve Ditko was the
artist to provide it, and Lee asked him to illustrate the initial
Spider-Man adventure. The now famous cover for the first story was
drawn by Kirby and Ditko together. "Steve Ditko was a fine
artist," says Kirby, "and he did a fine job on Spider-Man."
So no, Kirby wasn't the lead guy on this, but obviously he had
input on the project. NOTHING went through Marvel back then without
Kirby being involved. Almost a full year later, when they were
working on Iron Man in March 1963:
Don Heck had the honor of drawing the
initial Iron Man story, a rare opportunity in the days when Jack
Kirby seemed to get first crack at just about everything. In fact
Kirby did have a hand in Iron Man. "He designed the costume,"
says Heck, "because he was doing the cover. The covers were
always done first."
Keep in mind that these quotes are taken from a MARVEL publication, and Stan Lee is notorious for down playing Kirby's role. So we know Kirby drew the cover for Spider-Man, thus he obviously
was involved in the initial stages. Beginning with the Fantastic
Four in November 1961, Kirby was the driving force behind Marvel's
art. And he obviously had a hand in EVERYTHING that Marvel did in
those early years. So why not give him credit? Stan Lee being the
face of Marvel without Kirby is like Steve Jobs being the face of
Apple Computers without Wozniak.
Kirby isn't here to defend his work, and I was just wondering what
he'd think of Spider-Man the movie.
PS. I'm not putting Ditko down at all... he also deserves the
credit. He's a hometown boy after all. Besides, no one is going to
read this thread way down here... which is a shame, because I would
really like to hear some "experts" discuss this. Have you
noticed how all the moderated (+5) stuff is by people who haven't
seen the movie... and is all completely off-topic? Slashdot sure has
gone down the tubes... sigh.
Where was he credited? Not a flame, I really looked and couldn't find it. I wanted to see him get some reckognition for THE Marvel movie.
"Steve Ditko created the original cover, then collaborated with Jack Kirby on the final version when Stan Lee asked for another angle." -Five Fabulous Decades of the World's Greatest Comics. page 94.
Marvel wouldn't be where it is without him. It's a shame that Stan Lee sucked up all the spotlight.
On the other hand, giving Jack movie credits might be like giving equal credits to Bob Kane and Frank Miller for a Batman flick.
With all of the contributors over the years, I'm sure they ALL deserve credit... but Stan Lee seems to take a little too much.
1. Mary Jane as white trash... huh? 2. Very slow on the ground. You can tell this when all the kids at the matinee start talking... nothing to keep their attention. 3. no web cartridges? damn. How many plots rely on him running out of web fluid? 4. Stan Lee cameo... give me a break. Wasn't Jack Kirby involved with Spiderman? Where's his credit?
Other than that, I couldn't keep the smile from my face. Will see it at least 2 more times I'm sure.
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps the reason the "every abortion in the world (doesn't) make you stop for a second and re-evaluate life" is because we don't "hear about every abortion?"
The fact that you tie your inner most feelings and beliefs into what you "hear" (implying media) only proves that you watch too much TV.
get a life.
it is a prisoner's first duty to escape.
it is a species first duty to survive.
your application of the "prime directive" simply prooves that you watch too much TV.
I wasn't saying that everyone should behave the way I do... reread my post. What I said is that I wouldn't behave in the same fashion as the original poster and that his/her logic was completely foundationless... AND I wouldn't waste time and effort trying to convince everyone that my way is the proper way.
you obvioulsy misread my post... because I WASN'T "doing the same thing that the parent post was doing"... that was my point.
I feel very bad for you. If you live in a world that cold... I pity you. Truly.
A miscarriage is losing a child... without the comfort of any memories of the child's smile.
you obviously have never been involved with one up close... and if you have then you may want to consult a psychiatrist.
no
all of what your post tries to compartmentalize is complete conjecture on your part. You have offered no evidence that ANYBODY classifies life in the manner that you've described, other than yourself... it all looks good on paper and even follows a certain logic... but in reality you may be the only person on earth that thinks that way.
Personally I'd let the dog get run over before I pull the plug on a human. And frankly if I had to decide on whom to push out of the way of a moving truck, I'd pick my pregnant wife over an adult chimp... But even so, I wouldn't waste 8 paragraphs trying to convince the world that my decision makes sense... it's just what I feel.
That being said this "argument" all boils down to one factor:
"could that embryo have been me?"
if you say so.
I suggest you reread the thread.
No one was questioning CNN's ability to report news. The original post was about international vs local news... his point being that local news was the only acceptable news source on a story like this.
You then interjected with your pointless "CNN sucks." It was offtopic for this thread. I've tried three times to bring you back on topic, but to no avail.
Your ego seems to keep this "argument" going... I'm not saying you're wrong...I'm saying that you are debating a point no one in this thread is discussing. You're completely arguing with yourself.
Yes my remarks are inflammatory. How would you like it if somebody butted into your conversation on how much CNN sucks to tell you that NBC is on at 10pm every night? "Who cares?" would be your reply right? That's what I have said here in this thread... but yet you keep coming back. Oh well.
So once again I ask you, please remove your head from your ass.
1. CNN world coverage isn't the same as domestic. It's completely different editors, reporters... headquarters...
so again, you don't know what you're talking about.
When in Europe, I would watch CNN and get completely different stories than back at home. Columbine is the perfect example... it was a minor story in Europe, when back at home it was ALL that was on TV. The context and quality of stories overseas is much better than at home.
2. The shooter using cstrike as a prep tool was admitted by the shooter. Thus this is a statement of fact and not somebody's opinion.
Please remove your head from your ass.
Jesus Christ are you stupid.
No one was talking about how accurate CNN's coverage was. Angel'o'sphere's comment was:
"And you should not believe what CNN is writing. After all CNN is an american news station, the incident happend in germany."
Check out the email attached to his Slashdot ID: angelo.schneider@nOspaM.oomentor.de . Do you notice the German domain?
My point was that just because he lives in Germany doesn't nullify CNN's world presence. They claim to have up to a billion viewers worldwide. Since there are only at most 280 million Americans, (and I guarantee that not all even own televisions let alone watch CNN) how do you account for the 250% error? Could it be that actually more people outside of the U.S. watch CNN than we simple uninformed moronic Americans? At an apparent ratio of 3 to 1?
So instead of you actually adding an informed opinion, you went off on a ridiculous tangent about how stupid CNN's coverage is... funny, that's completely not what I was talking about. I was trying to correct the knee jerk nationalistic response that some random German dude had! He is obviously threatened by anything American... even to the point where he is denying that CNN even broadcasts outside of Atlanta! Of course we all know that only local news can truly cover a story well (sarcasm)... so any reporter not functioning on an official German news team should just leave the country now. What bull shit.
And he and I both agreed that there is absolutely a link between violent video games and school shootings. In fact the third point in his post was simply restating what I had already said. Now, neither of us said that this was the main cause... nor was it a direct link. What we said was that the shooter (like ALL of the American school shooters) had been planning this attack OPENLY! He had talked about it to other people before he actually committed the deed! The use of violent video games is just a piece of the preparation. He practiced strategy and tactics on his computer... using cstrike more as a simulator and less like just a game. These are the facts as being reported on both local German and worldwide news media. Of the 16 people shot... 13 were teachers. Not random at all, but planned strategic elimination... choosing his targets.
It's apparent that you think that the argument at hand is "violent games breeds killers!" And no one in this thread was saying that (perhaps the first poster presented the point for the negative argument). So you defending an argument that no one is arguing is completely ignorant. But, so as not to continue this into a flame war, let me explain our point again. It takes more than just violent video game playing to create a school shooter. According to the Secret Service's findings (as shown last Friday on 60 minutes 2), the chronic external pressures seem to push these kids into a world where there is very little distinction between fantasy and reality. They are so angry and feel so limited in their other options that death and killing seem to be completely viable escape routes. Violent video games to a kid in this position is just practice... part of the fantasy. Little by little it wears down his last reservations or the few vestiges of the reality of what he is about to do...
If you can't see that then you're completely blind.
Thank you for completely fogging the entire point with your lame completely off topic post. You joined a discussion to add your own irrelevant opinion... no facts anywhere. And frankly, who cares what you think?
oh my god, and they moderated you up?!
Slashdot is completely ruined by the script kiddies. Most of these people are complete morons...
1. CNN is the WORLD leader in news. Like it or not... most people internationally watch CNN for news. If you don't know that, then you've never left the country. Any one who has ever travelled (or like me WORKED) for any period of time in Europe knows how BIG CNN is. It is watched by more people internationally than any other network (news or otherwise). So for you to claim CNN as an AMERICAN news station only is COMPLETELY NAIVE. Besides, CNN is not the only network to report the EXACT SAME THING! My primary news source is BBC world... and they said the exact same thing...
My point was that he didn't SNEAK THE GUNS! This isn't anything at all like what happened at Columbine. THAT WAS MY POINT! The kid was in possesion of the guns HIMSELF. (and as you pointed out he was 18, so he wasn't a kid.) So the comment "somehow he got a gun" is just plain stupid.
2. Of couse his parents didn't know that! That was my point. The original comment was "somehow... without his parent knowing." It's not a big secret is it? His parents were completely non-involved in his life. Most articles atribute this to their separation. Again, the comment was stupid... there was no guess work here, we know EXACTLY why his parents were out of the loop.
3. I just said that it needs more than that to run mad and go amok. Why don't you people actually read what you're responding to?
Another fine example of why the Slashdot moderation system is complete shit. I get a response that for the first point is a complete falsehood, the second is a complete misinterpretation of my original point and the third just rehashes what I originally said!
and it gets moderated!
I think that comic books kind of regulate themselves? I've seen a few documentaries that discuss how there was this "code" of what can and can't go into a comic book.
The example they use was of the Spider-man where Peter's friend was dealing with a drug addiction in the sixties. It was a very anti-drug message, but the code forbade the issue from being published because comics could NEVER include themes of drug use in ANY form. But, Marvel went ahead and published anyway...
The point is, I don't think comic books are regulated by any GOVERNMENT agency... they just all agreed to self-censorship.
yes/no?
actually... I would think that Germany will never ban guns ever again.
The last guy to try that (and, from what I understand, actually succeeded) in Germany was Adolf Hitler.
besides, according to that CNN link... the kid used guns that he legally owned.
you should read the CNN article linked in the original post:
1. He was using guns that he LEGALLY owned. I infer then, that they were HIS guns... so there was no "somehow he got a gun."
2. His parents were separated, and the article is quoted as saying he had bad relations with both. So there is no "without his parents knowing."
3. The article also says that he "was a gun club marksman who used his training to shoot many of his 16 victims -- 13 teachers, two pupils and a police officer..." so this isn't just some random steal your grandfather's shotgun and go on a shooting spree.
4. According to the secret service report released a few days ago, the ONLY thing that all American school shooters had in common was that they WARNED everyone it was going to happen, and it was never a spur of the moment decision. There was NEVER any sign of insanity... these were normal kids who under great chronic pressure finally decided that they would rather risk dying than "deal with it" anymore. They said that most shootings could be stopped if people would just learn to see the signs. (completely UNLIKE a demented individual, these kids were crying out before hand.) Obsession with violent video games IS one of the signs. BUT, it is only one of many. by itself it means nothing. This shooting (acording to the article) ALSO falls along these guidelines. So there is no "he was disturbed."
And finally.
As to your OGC joke... I guess 16 people being murdered just isn't as funny as it used to be.
You need to watch a little less TV me thinks.
do you know how frustrating it is to post the same opinion before you (twice actually), and not have anyone read it?
I brought this up before...
and above in this very thread also
The moderation system is just so frustrating these days...I spent most of my summers in Utah. (Layton, between Ogden and Salt Lake... exactly half a mile from the causeway out to Antelope Island actually...) So you don't need to tell me how repressive Utah can be.
BUT, I remember VIVIDLY what actually happened with those stupid labels.
MTV changed music. There was a huge resurgance in music purchasing. In fact, there were various rumors at just prior to MTV's big boom that the music industry was going to go under. Then all of a sudden we teens were supposedly buying music again (possibly due also to the new CDs that were appearing... don't ask me, we couldn't afford a player).
The problem was a lot of the music was mostly SHOCK crap. Overproduced trash with "explicit" lyrics intended to make the teenagers believe that they were buying stuff that they're parents would hate. This is YEARS before rap (1989 was the first appearance of Yo MTV raps... and the death of real music). Before then, MTV was produced for mid-western teenagers... no inner city stuff at all. In fact Michael Jackson was the most "Black" that MTV ever showed (thus complaints from the African-American "communities"... rightfully so, and thus Yo MTV raps was created to appease the complainers... sigh).
So it was all just a big setup. A scam. Here the production companies were producing trash DESIGNED to be perceived as TABOO, they were piping it directly into the most naive and sheltered parts of America... and along came the politicians wives!
You don't think that the record companies thanked their lucky stars? This gave them MORE publicity than they could ever dream of! Every kid in America WANTED all these dirty albums that pissed off Wachington DC. It played right into the record execs' hands.
So, NO. There was no story here. There was no censorship. Just a bunch of wives with nothing to do, that in any other country would have been ignored... except they inadvertently stumbled onto the perfect marketing machine...
that was VERY offtopic.
The VH1 movie was stupid. The press took that whole music labelling thing and promoted it like they did the OJ Simpson trial. It was completely a non-story.
No one ever told the record companies that they should censor themselves (THAT came to be when Ice-T did his "cop killer" album). All these politicians wives wanted was a label on the album that told parents what was on the album without having to purchase it first. If the record companies would have self-regulated like the comic book or movie industries, then the wives would have gone away.
In fact the music industry probably blew the whole thing out of proportion not to fight for free speech, but it was free publicity!
I don't understand.
How can it be considered "free speech," if it's copyrighted? I don't get how the software companies can hide behind the first amendment to produce the game, but then discard this argument after we purchase the game. If I were to say that MY rights to do what I want with the software are being infringed by THEIR copyrights, they would say that the game ISN'T free speech. Somebody explain this apparent hypocrisy to me please.
I brought this up before...
Just read my other thread....
I don't feel like repeating myself.
No shit. I wasn't saying Jack would do a walk-on. I wanted to know why is name wasn't in the credits anywhere. Or why there wasn't a billboard strategically placed in the background with his picture?
Yes, I know that he isn't widely reckognized as a a big contributor to Spider-Man, but come on...
1. Stan Lee sure does down play his role at Marvel quite a bit.
2. Jack Kirby touched EVERYTHING at Marvel back then. He BUILT Marvel, they should at least give him some type of recognition somewhere in the biggest movie in thier history.
That's not true at all.
Fantastic Four, Hulk and Thor were all done by the Kirby and Lee team. When Spider-Man came along in August of 1962, Lee felt that they were spreading themselves too thin... and Lee also wanted something a bit more "edgy and dynamic."
Taken directly from the pages of Five Fabulous Decades...: (thank God for viavoice)
Until this time, Jack Kirby had been drawing all of the company's new characters, but Spider-Man ended up in the hands of another artist. Kirby drew several pages of a version of Spider-Man, but he never completed a story. Kirby's version was as bold and dynamic as the rest of his work, but Lee wanted something a bit more offbeat and edgy. Steve Ditko was the artist to provide it, and Lee asked him to illustrate the initial Spider-Man adventure. The now famous cover for the first story was drawn by Kirby and Ditko together. "Steve Ditko was a fine artist," says Kirby, "and he did a fine job on Spider-Man."So no, Kirby wasn't the lead guy on this, but obviously he had input on the project. NOTHING went through Marvel back then without Kirby being involved. Almost a full year later, when they were working on Iron Man in March 1963:
Don Heck had the honor of drawing the initial Iron Man story, a rare opportunity in the days when Jack Kirby seemed to get first crack at just about everything. In fact Kirby did have a hand in Iron Man. "He designed the costume," says Heck, "because he was doing the cover. The covers were always done first."Keep in mind that these quotes are taken from a MARVEL publication, and Stan Lee is notorious for down playing Kirby's role. So we know Kirby drew the cover for Spider-Man, thus he obviously was involved in the initial stages. Beginning with the Fantastic Four in November 1961, Kirby was the driving force behind Marvel's art. And he obviously had a hand in EVERYTHING that Marvel did in those early years. So why not give him credit? Stan Lee being the face of Marvel without Kirby is like Steve Jobs being the face of Apple Computers without Wozniak.
Kirby isn't here to defend his work, and I was just wondering what he'd think of Spider-Man the movie.
PS. I'm not putting Ditko down at all... he also deserves the credit. He's a hometown boy after all. Besides, no one is going to read this thread way down here... which is a shame, because I would really like to hear some "experts" discuss this. Have you noticed how all the moderated (+5) stuff is by people who haven't seen the movie... and is all completely off-topic? Slashdot sure has gone down the tubes... sigh.
yeah I saw that, I thought you meant Jack Kirby was credited.
Where was he credited? Not a flame, I really looked and couldn't find it. I wanted to see him get some reckognition for THE Marvel movie.
"Steve Ditko created the original cover, then collaborated with Jack Kirby on the final version when Stan Lee asked for another angle."
-Five Fabulous Decades of the World's Greatest Comics. page 94.
Marvel wouldn't be where it is without him. It's a shame that Stan Lee sucked up all the spotlight.
On the other hand, giving Jack movie credits might be like giving equal credits to Bob Kane and Frank Miller for a Batman flick.
With all of the contributors over the years, I'm sure they ALL deserve credit... but Stan Lee seems to take a little too much.
Just so I don't have to post these things twice:
My other posting for this thread.
What's "amazing" is how Stan get all the credit!
I didn't see one credit for Jack.
t ml
If you don't know why that's a problem, read this link:
http://twomorrows.com/kirby/articles/18leekirby.h
After Jack left Marvel, the only selling comic that Stan came up
with was "She-HULK". Ugh.
1. Mary Jane as white trash... huh?
2. Very slow on the ground. You can tell this when all the kids at the matinee start talking... nothing to keep their attention.
3. no web cartridges? damn. How many plots rely on him running out of web fluid?
4. Stan Lee cameo... give me a break. Wasn't Jack Kirby involved with Spiderman? Where's his credit?
Other than that, I couldn't keep the smile from my face. Will see it at least 2 more times I'm sure.
Notice how all the replies to this post got moderated down as flamebait, even if they were only contradicting?
Typical. Can't handle the truth, so we just silence it?