I haven't updated my blog in a long time.

I'm going to be leaving ComicVine in the near future, if I still have any followers left here that want to be able to find me, message me and I'll let you know where.

So after four attempts at a Fantastic Four film, I think what really is missing is the human element. So much time is spent on retelling origins and showcasing special effects superpowers that the character-driven nature of Marvel's first family is often lost. If one were to look for an example of a good script for a Fantastic Four movie, one would need look no further than an issue like FF #51 ("This Man... This Monster!") for inspiration.

As if we didn't know this from the 'battles' forum (talk about a first grade topic).

But anyway, I love how everyone thumbs downed my review of Tales to Astonish #39, and said it was 'unhelpful' just because it was a negative review, even though I wasn't the only reviewer that gave it 1 star and nobody thumbs downed the other reviewer. In fact I think my review was better because I actually used screen grabs and gave reasons. They just want to hear that everything is good and 5 stars! Although the issue before I gave 3 stars to and nobody cared and the issue before that was another 1 star review and nobody thumbs downed it at all - in fact it got thumbs up. Which proves that people have no idea what a good review or a bad review (not to be confused with a negative or positive review) is.

But the fact is if you go to a site like the complete Marvel reading order where hundreds of people have reviewed that same issue, you'll see that I'm actually in the majority opinion - most people who have actually bothered to read that issue agree it's one of the weakest of the Tales to Astonish Ant-Man stories. But try to endorse good writing and art by pointing out what's bad and all the excusers come out, "that's like, just your opinion, man", "comics aren't supposed to be taken seriously, they're supposed to be stupid fun", "people shouldn't expect comic books to be good", "comics are kiddie fare" etc. etc.

At least @madeinbangladesh mentioned a good modern run of Ant-Man that I will check out. Most people just missed the whole point.

I fail to see what the "you" is supposed to mean in DC's new "not a reboot".

This is why Ant-Man isn't taken seriously.

Marvel is out of ideas.

I went into a comic shop yesterday for the first time in a while and noticed a 'New' comic on the shelf. It was called 'Civil War' issue one. It looked like a reprint of the the Civil War story arc Marvel just did a few years ago. But it was not. I then picked up a free promo of all their new titles:

Squadron Sinister

House of M starting in August.

Secret Wars (again)

X-Tinction Agenda #1

Marvel Zombies #1

Armor Wars #1

All of these are mini-series or story arcs they've already done! Some as recently as the 2000s.

It's official, Marvel has run out of ideas.

In time for Captain America the Winter Soldier, I thought it would be worth going back and taking a look at Cap's first appearance: http://tinyurl.com/lvryjpw

I'm not really a Paul Rudd fan, but I was willing to give him a shot. That is, when I thought he was actually playing the real Ant-Man (Hank Pym).

http://insidemovies.ew.com/2014/01/13/ant-man-michael-douglas-joins-paul-rudd-in-marvels-2015-movie-breaking/

EDIT: I FEEL MUCH BETTER - they've pushed the date to 2016 and are probably rewriting it. Not rushing it like Man of Steel:

http://www.screened.com/news/batman-vs-superman-or-whatever-its-called-pushed-to-2016/5321/

Furthermore, DC's solid win of this case puts them in a position of no longer needing to mandate character changes to strengthen their hold on copyrights:
http://www.deadline.com/2014/01/superman-warner-bros-dc-comics-copyright-lawsuit/

Comic book fans and feminists alike have been deploring the fact that there have been oodles of super hero films lately, but still no Wonder Woman film.

I tried to explain some of the Hollywood reasons why there hasn't been a Wonder Woman film yet (in an admittedly tongue-in-cheek way) and was of course deluged by responses that totally missed the point:

http://www.comicvine.com/profile/etragedy/blog/why-a-wonder-woman-movie-would-suck/89845/

(if you take nothing else away from this, understand how WB is a giant departmentalized company... and the part about pants)

Recently there was another announcement that basically caused the entire Internet to go apeshit - namely, the casting of rail-thin Gal Gadot as the Amazonian Princess in a cameo in the upcoming Batman vs. Superman movie.

Now there has been another round of rumors about Wonder Woman's character in that movie. She doesn't need to look like an Amazon warrior, because she isn't going to be one!

http://io9.com/the-rumor-about-wonder-womans-movie-debut-will-make-yo-1495695994?fb_action_ids=10203035381313799&fb_action_types=og.likes&fb_source=aggregation&fb_aggregation_id=288381481237582

My stock answer to this has been that for awhile now in the comics she flies and is all around a lot more like Supergirl anyway, so they may as well go ahead and make her a Kryptonian instead of an Amazon.

But wait, you say. Doesn't that change her entire origin? What about the Greek mythology which is the foundation of the entire Wonder Woman lexicon?

Well, now I am going to tell you why I suspect there really WILL be a Wonder Woman movie, and why it will probably completely suck...

The first thing you have to understand is a little about copyright law. Yes, copyright law. I don't have time to get into the whole thing here, but just understand that copyright law in the United States has changed several times over the years. Specifically with respect to when fictional works enter the public domain (basically the termination of copyrights). Now that modern media like movies and comics have been around for more than a century, a lot of the characters owned by giant corporations like Disney and Warner Bros. (like Mickey Mouse) were *going* to become public domain characters, meaning anyone could profit off them, until copyright length was extended courtesy of Congressman Sonny Bono (yes, that Sonny Bono).

But even that extension is now starting to run out. In the meantime comic book companies have found a temporary solution in trademarking these characters (there is no sunset clause on a trademark). But even that issue got muddied when the courts ruled that the draconian work-for-hire contracts under which a lot of these characters (specifically Superman) were created did not grant perpetual ownership.

Now here's where things get interesting. Last year WB made a lackluster Superman movie called 'Man of Steel', the film to which 'Batman Vs. Superman' (guest starring Wonder Woman) is sequel. Why was that film so lackluster? Part of it was because it was *rushed into production*. The reason it was rushed into production was that a court ordered the film be made or else the rights to Superman would revert to the original creator's (Jerry Siegel) heirs.

That's right, the film was not made to make money, but to preserve the copyright! (allowing WB to continue to make money off the character in the future and avoid paying a settlement to the Siegel heirs).

Now, comic fans know that with the release of DC's so-called 'New 52', WB/DC has been making some changes to Superman, most notably his costume and origin have been somewhat tweaked. This is no mere modernization. By making changes to the character they can argue in court that this is a different character and that they own the rights to Superman outright for decades to come! In other words, they are doing an end-run around copyright law by re-inventing the character. Whether this will hold up in court is yet to be determined.

O.K., now back to Wonder Woman. The thing is they already don't want a Wonder Woman in a skirt or go-go pants (see my link above about 'why there hasn't been a Wonder Woman film' yet). But mainly, Wonder Woman is the *next* DC character whose copyright is set to expire (they already took care of renewing Batman). Furthermore, remember that part about Greek mythology? Well Greek mythology is squarely in the public domain, no ifs, ands, or buts about it. WB doesn't 'own' Amazons or Aphrodite or Athena... but they do own Krytonians (a court already confirmed this). By making Wonder Woman a Kryptonian, ditching her traditional costume for 'armor' (with the added benefit of being able to sell more toys), they can renew Wonder Woman for decades to come too, with no fear of claims from 'greedy' heirs!

And that, my friends is why there probably WILL be a Wonder Woman movie (and why it will probably suck).

I have recently finished filling out the wiki synopsis of Atom Man vs. Superman, including my review of every episode!