seancdaug
Sean Daugherty
seancdaug

Depends on what you mean by "have his own movie," I think. He probably couldn't carry a film on his own, sure, but even Batman does that only rarely. Tim Burton's original Batman movie had Vicki Vale as the POV character, and Batman Forever used Dick Grayson in the same way. The latter two Dark Knight movies focused

Traditionally, though, the BBC doesn't (and legally can't) consider licensing and merchandising income when it comes to commissioning and budget. The BBC is a publicly funded corporation and is kept at arm's length from BBC Worldwide, which is the commercial arm and is supposed to have no say in what BBC proper

As I said, I didn't care for Oculus... but I actually wouldn't necessarily mind a sequel, under the right circumstances. The premise was interesting enough, and if they could get a slightly tighter script and give it a slightly more savvy set of protagonists (all the safety measures and precautions would have been a

Now playing

There is no second pilot, actually. There's a pitch reel, with Craig Bierko and the other cast members (including recasts) acting out a handful of scenes from the British show. It's only about 10 minutes long and doesn't have an actual plot, but it's out there on YouTube:

On the flip side, I'm sort of of the opinion that it's better to let the TV shows do their own thing. Tying them to a still-tentative film franchise with some fairly significant differences in scope and tone stands to hurt Arrow and The Flash more than it stands to hurt Batman v. Superman. Marvel has pulled it off,

I wasn't really a fan. Good cast, and the premise was decent, but it was one of the one of the worst examples of an idiot plot I've ever seen. After about forty minutes, not only did I correctly predict how it was going to all shake out, but I had trouble not taking a mental note every time the characters kept the

Close, but “technology-challenged” isn’t the right term. They’re like my dad: he has a natural talent for technology, but also a bitter hatred of anything created after his heyday during his 20s and 30s. Like him, they’d take to modern tech like a fish to water, but they refuse to do so out of principle.

This is... not new behavior from Nintendo. They’ve always been terribly anti-consumer, and they’ve always operated as a defacto monopoly. They’re not exactly averse to innovation, per se, but they have a pronounced “not invented here” mentality (I mean, it took until the mid-2000s before they even released a system

The article mentions this. Nintendo’s program covers only specific games, and Mario Party 10 is not one of them. Which, honestly, really hurts Nintendo’s case, since it can be argued that it amounts to effective gag control over negative publicity. Think your game is going to get negative publicity? Refuse to allow

To be sure, though, a work does not have to be non-commercial to be considered fair use, and (conversely) a non-commercial work is not automatically fair use (which you didn’t suggest, but which is/was a major misconception online). Really, the courts don’t pay nearly as much attention to whether or not a work is

Wow. I'm surprised at all the hatred for the original. I quite liked it. It wasn't anything spectacular, to be sure, but it was a damned sight better than most recent horror films. I'd easily take a sequel to it over another Insidious, or Ouija, or terrible one-offs like Oculus.

No way. The mask is different, and the hair color's wrong. It matches Animal Man's look from around the middle of his 1990s series perfectly. And, as someone else has mentioned, Brian Bolland did the covers for that run, so it makes a certain amount of sense.

I really doubt it. Plastic Man's goggles aren't triangular like that, and, more importantly, he's not a blonde. Plus, the original art was done by Brian Bolland, who contributed the covers to much of the first Animal Man series (Grant Morrison's first U.S. series, though Bolland outlasted him on the title). Here's an

Oh, damn it all.

The fact that they're including Hawkgirl in the first place is an influence of the DCAU material. Up to that point in the comics, she was not a starring character in her own right, she was Hawkman's distaff counterpart. She had a higher profile than most distaff versions of superheroes, because she was right there in

I liked the idea of Cassandra Cain as Batgirl, but I never really enjoyed the series itself. I've always attributed this to my general dislike of the entire "Batman family" of comics throughout most of the 1990s and 2000s. Everything was too tonally similar, and that tone followed the standard Batman line of being

To clarify, the problem wasn't that Stephanie Brown's stint as Batgirl "didn't resonate with readers." It sold reasonably well, and was critically acclaimed. It was cancelled along with the entire DC line on the eve of Flashpoint/The New 52. It was arguably the success of that cancelled series that ensured that Batgirl

The New Adventures novels suggested that the Doctor subconsciously manipulated Mel into leaving. It was all tied up in the novels' exploration of the Doctor's darker, "Time's Champion" side (seriously, I still have trouble reading some of those novels and seeing the Doctor as anything more than a villain). It gets

I still don't buy that Spike ever experiences anything like remorse prior to recovering his soul. He's regretful that his murderous ways alienated Buffy, and he goes on his soul quest in order to become the kind of person she could actually love, but that's nothing like actual remorse.

Puella Magi Madoka Magica.