Timewaster's Guide Archive

Departments => Webcomics & Free Stuff => Topic started by: Spriggan on July 24, 2007, 08:01:10 PM

Title: Blog Comments: Page 33
Post by: Spriggan on July 24, 2007, 08:01:10 PM
http://www.timewastersguide.com/deparment/Blogs/section/7/Page-33
Title: Re: Blog Comments: Page 33
Post by: Gemm: Rock & Roll Star; Born to Rock on July 24, 2007, 08:37:16 PM
Hooray, look at me now! I'm cool! Whoopie! Get a load of what happens next!
Title: Re: Blog Comments: Page 33
Post by: Spriggan on July 24, 2007, 09:50:28 PM
I've got a Johna Hex Click and I remember when he was announced as being in that particular set, a lot of people on the Clix forums were quite happy about it.  He's a popular character despite not being a big name to a causal comic fan (I had no idea who he was until he was in JLU).
Title: Re: Blog Comments: Page 33
Post by: Gemm: Rock & Roll Star; Born to Rock on July 24, 2007, 09:52:43 PM
I'm kinda intrigued to know what other properties they've given to Hollywood to adapt.
Title: Re: Blog Comments: Page 33
Post by: JP Dogberry on July 26, 2007, 12:32:13 PM
Zak,  glad to see you are still completly insane
Title: Re: Blog Comments: Page 33
Post by: Gemm: Rock & Roll Star; Born to Rock on July 26, 2007, 10:30:23 PM
There's a new entry about the cast of the Watchmen film that has a cast listing finally. Also, a short interview with a new artist jumping onto the Batman book in October.

And hello JP, you should message me sometime on AIM, or email me or something you dirty person you.
Title: Re: Blog Comments: Page 33
Post by: Gemm: Rock & Roll Star; Born to Rock on July 28, 2007, 07:46:15 AM
Alright.... well, this is what I get for trying to create a hastily thrown together blog post... but Spriggan so you know, those pictures should come up as smaller thumbnails that link to the larger picture. I apparently cannot do that. And I think I just gave you an awesome reason to implement "previewing" blog posts before they go live.

So... thanks when you get around to fixing it... Sorry I'm incompetent.

And next week, the fight's will be BIGGER!
Title: Re: Blog Comments: Page 33
Post by: Spriggan on July 28, 2007, 08:12:43 PM
Flicker has a feature that creates thumnails so link to those instead of the full blown images Gemm.

Code: [Select]
<a href="url to full sized image" target="_blank"><img src="url to flicker thumbnail" alt="" border="0" /></a>

Nor am I sure we can repost whole pages, let alone multiple from the same story, online and not violate copyright.  You should discuess that with SE, he'll know more then me.
Title: Re: Blog Comments: Page 33
Post by: The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers on July 30, 2007, 01:29:28 PM
In the context of a review, it's like quoting the text. The page would essentially be an extended quote, and the necessity of it might be questionable, but I don't think we could be sued over it. Preferable is to crop it to a couple panels, but a whole page shouldn't bee too much of a problem. Multiple pages, however, seems excessive.

And since the blog entry isn't a review.... we probably need to not do it again.
Title: Re: Blog Comments: Page 33
Post by: Spriggan on July 30, 2007, 04:43:50 PM
That's what I was thinking.

Though that doesn't mean Gemm has to drop the feature but will have to be a little creative to get around this problem.
Title: Re: Blog Comments: Page 33
Post by: Gemm: Rock & Roll Star; Born to Rock on July 30, 2007, 10:04:43 PM
blog == reviews; entirely. There will be other featuers besides news/reviews posted to the blog. So don't go panty-bunching when you see something that isn't exactly what you want to see.
Title: Re: Blog Comments: Page 33
Post by: The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers on July 31, 2007, 01:43:24 PM
no, gemm, this is a legal concern. Not all blogs == reviews. When a blog entry *is* a review, that's one thing. But that one wasn't. I have no problem with the blog entries not being reviews. I welcome it. I only have a problem with what sort of accountability we'll be held to by the copyright owner when we publish something that is distinctly *not* within our legal rights regarding their copyright. Please don't take this concern lightly.
Title: Re: Blog Comments: Page 33
Post by: Gemm: Rock & Roll Star; Born to Rock on August 10, 2007, 06:38:59 PM
mmmm... this is such an agonizing process. Me learning html = bad posts. Certainly doesn't add up to me wanting to post too often since I'll probably get something wrong. I'm not bad-mouthing Sprig in any way. He's been a huge help to me with this stuff. Plus he seems to be rather patient with my bumbling.
Title: Re: Blog Comments: Page 33
Post by: The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers on October 11, 2007, 08:49:29 PM
ugh. So full of hate.

Incidentally, the picture was in a press release and is specifically intended for use like this. So it's cool.
Title: Re: Blog Comments: Page 33
Post by: Spriggan on October 11, 2007, 09:48:13 PM
I'm too lazy to grab the link but ICv2 has the other cover for this comic and goes in depth on how the new costume pays homage to the orginal one.

As for me, I'm waiting for spiderman to start packing heat.
Title: Re: Blog Comments: Page 33
Post by: 42 on October 12, 2007, 03:25:52 AM
I'm not really a big fan of Captain America, but what Marvel is doing to him has got to be a human's right violation. No fictional character deserves to be treated this badly.

We should organize the first Organization for the Rights for Fictional Persons (ORFP). We would then heavily fine (or egg the house of) authors who abuse their fictional characters by giving them stilted dialogue, make them act out of character for no reason, give them lame costumes, give them difficult to pronounce names, retconning them over-and-over again, or any other literary offense.
Title: Re: Blog Comments: Page 33
Post by: The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers on October 12, 2007, 01:15:19 PM
the picture in the blog is the cover. There's an alternate cover done by Alex Ross (who as I said designed the new costume):

(http://www.timewastersguide.com/images/uploaded/SaintEhlers/1192131280.jpg)

Which looks... well... shinier?

@42: Does that mean we can doo-doo ding dong the reject that killed Chewbacca?


edit: whoops. Reposted the same picture. Corrected now.
Title: Re: Blog Comments: Page 33
Post by: Gemm: Rock & Roll Star; Born to Rock on October 12, 2007, 09:40:56 PM
heheh, Alex Ross totally has a hard-on for Golden Age heroes.
Title: Re: Blog Comments: Page 33
Post by: Fellfrosch on October 16, 2007, 07:32:59 PM
Why must they do this to Captain America? Even my basset hound looked more like Captain America than this.

The big problem is the gun--it's not a tactical gun, like a soldier would take into battle, it's just a handgun, and it looks jarringly out of place, and in this context it ceases to be a weapon and becomes a political statement. With an assault rifle we'd have "Captain America takes a hint from SHIELD and does what it takes to get the job done." With a handgun it becomes "America is the land of cheap, available firearms." I'm opposed to the gun either way, but I'm even more opposed to this ridiculous little gangster-banger. At least he's not holding it sideways.

If you'll permit me the pun, could we now say that marvel has busted a Cap?
Title: Re: Blog Comments: Page 33
Post by: The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers on October 31, 2007, 05:10:12 PM
(http://saintehlers.com/misc/images/freedom.png)
yeah, I'm pretty bored.