AccursedTheory said:
Yah...
And yes, I know... 'We still have the old stuff we love.' All the same... something sad about the entire universe being trashed. It's not even like Star Wars, where the core material still counts - It's like if they rebooted Star Wars, but the only thing they kept was the lightsabers.
At least we get rid of SGU!
>.>
Which some people liked, I guess!
<.<
The most disappointing part is that they basically said "hey, you know that 20 years of creativity that made you all love the franchise? Well, fuck that, we're going back to the guy who hasn't made a good movie since Independence Day!"
Which, in fairness is what SYFy did with the series anyway, minus the Independence Day part.
still, I can't bring myself to care. Mostly because SyFy wasn't going to give it any love anyway, so I can not watch Stargate 2: Will Smith is dead in this one, too! as well as I could not watch a movie that didn't come out.
Would it, though? Pretty sure Iron Maidens predate the band (Though their still not as old as people used to claim).
It has nothing to do with that, though. You can brand a name like Iron Maiden and not only has Iron Maiden done it in most entertainment niches, but other people have done it for metal companies and the like. They could probably get away with it in comics, maybe even in film, but there are so many trademarks I doubt they could do any merchandising at all.
Happyninja42 said:
Would it? Was there a big legal battle between Iron Man and Black Sabbath for the song? I don't remember one. Granted I didn't really pay much attention to that kind of stuff, but it seemed to be a fairly mutual thing on that angle.
Iron Man is a song title, which doesn't offer the same type of protection. The song Iron Man would at the very least have to provide market confusion, with a judge deciding that there is some reasonable confusion of the brand. It also doesn't hurt that both the band and Marvel apparently enjoy the association, going so far as to have a verasion of the song in the first IM movie and have Tony wearing a Sabbath shirt in The avengers.
Iron Maiden is a band name, trademarked for goods and services, mostly in entertainment, and is a different beast.
Happyninja42 said:
I don't know who that is but I'll take your word for it! Still, I just find the mental image of this 15 year old girl in a badass power suit, rocking out to Iron Maiden as she comes swooping in to save the day and kick ass incredibly satisfying. I have no idea if it would actually happen, but it makes me giggle in my head. xD
And it'd be an especially big problem if she was, in fact, rocking out to Maiden.
Anyway, knowing Speedball/Penance requires knowing too much about the comic book version of Civil War. Which is to say, anything. However, Penance could only use his power when he was in pain, so he had a suit with hundreds of spikes poking into him. Not quite the same as an iron maiden, but close enough for jazz.
Oh absolutley, I'm just saying, they are basically the same heroic archetype. Normal Guy + High Tech Sciencey Stuff = Superhero capable of taking on gods and other crazy shit.
Well, yes, but the number of toys you can sell is important to getting someone into kids' homes. I used to have multiple Iron Man figures before I'd read an Iron Man comic. I imagine this has something to do with his ubiquity, when there are so many guys like him out there.
As to why in another post, someone asked why they don't just use that one girl who is already established, probably because nobody knows who she is?
Pepper Potts and Happy Hogan are pretty much the main (stable) supporting cast of Tony's life in the comics, something which carries over into the movies. Not so much Hogan, but Pepper is vital to Tony's functioning on any even remotely adult level. Pepper even gets injected with Extremis in 3.
Granted, I don't collect comics like I used to. They may have both been killed off by now. Several times, if Marvel is still Marvel.
I would think just the fact that Pepper has been featured in the movies would be a good selling point for her being Iron Woman.
Though I do find it funny that people are saying "Why don't they just make new characters/heroes?!" But then when they did do that with this character (not the new hero bit I admit), others are saying "Why don't they just use this already established character?! Why make a new character?!" Seems highly contrary to me.
Because you have to operate under the idea that there's any internal consistency to these complaints. Legacy heroes aren't new, and they didn't really seem to be a problem until they started introducing women and people of colour. You'll notice the complaints shifted when the identity of Thor was revealed, for example.
Comic books spent over half a century pandering to straight white boys. And now that they're not the only audience, it's a problem. It's a problem if they create new characters if they create legacy characters, and if they use established characters. The only way to stop the complaints is to uphold the status quo and market solely to straight white male nerds. Which is sort of amusing to me, since most of the "fans" who are upset only exist because the Big Two changed their focus in the 70s and 80s. And to an extent, I'm one of them.
trunkage said:
All of my original comment should be taken with a side of sarcasm. Even if the Slurm thing is probably going to happen
I was just having fun with it. Though the Slurm thing is totally going to happen.