Re: Watched 4 comic book movies on PPV !!!

[Duggy]

On Dec 3, 10:56 pm, DonFromBa...@webtv.net (Don Violette) wrote:
> Next up:
> Conan the Barbarian

How is that a comic book movie?

===
= DUG.
===

[grinningdemon]

Conan may not have originated as a comic character but he is probably
best known to modern audiences from comics...and the pulps were the
precursor to comics as we know them so it's not much of a stretch.

[Duggy]

On Dec 17, 8:02 am, grinningdemon <grinningde...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Dec 2011 04:38:18 -0800 (PST), Duggy
>

> <p.allan.dug...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Dec 3, 10:56 pm, DonFromBa...@webtv.net (Don  Violette) wrote:
> >> Next up:
> >> Conan the Barbarian
>
> >How is that a comic book movie?

> Conan may not have originated as a comic character but he is probably
> best known to modern audiences from comics...and the pulps were the
> precursor to comics as we know them so it's not much of a stretch.

He's probably best known to modern audiences from the Arnold
Swartzenegger film.

===
= DUG.
===

[grinningdemon]

I don't know...that one's pretty dated at this point...I would still
think more people have discovered him through comics in recent years.

[Duggy]

The Dark Horse comics? Really.

Quick test:
Dark Horse Conan
About 3,790,000 results (0.19 seconds)

Arnold Schwarzenegger Conan
About 6,740,000 results (0.20 seconds)

Doesn't really prove anything but a fair difference.

Yeah, the film's dated and old but it is iconic.

And comics are niche.

But either way is speculation so there's no point arguing over it.

===
= DUG.
===

[grinningdemon]

On Sat, 17 Dec 2011 02:58:32 -0800 (PST), Duggy
<p.allan...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Dec 17, 2:25 pm, grinningdemon <grinningde...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 16 Dec 2011 15:59:31 -0800 (PST), Duggy
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> <Paul.Dug...@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
>> >On Dec 17, 8:02 am, grinningdemon <grinningde...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
>> >> On Fri, 16 Dec 2011 04:38:18 -0800 (PST), Duggy
>>
>> >> <p.allan.dug...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >On Dec 3, 10:56 pm, DonFromBa...@webtv.net (Don  Violette) wrote:
>> >> >> Next up:
>> >> >> Conan the Barbarian
>>
>> >> >How is that a comic book movie?
>>
>> >> Conan may not have originated as a comic character but he is probably
>> >> best known to modern audiences from comics...and the pulps were the
>> >> precursor to comics as we know them so it's not much of a stretch.
>>
>> >He's probably best known to modern audiences from the Arnold
>> >Swartzenegger film.
>
>> I don't know...that one's pretty dated at this point...I would still
>> think more people have discovered him through comics in recent years.
>
>The Dark Horse comics? Really.

Not just Dark Horse...Conan was a mainstay at Marvel for 25 years
before Dark Horse took over...and it appealed to a more adult audience
back before comics generally did so...given the timing, it might have
even been the success of the comics that lead to the original movie.

>Quick test:
>Dark Horse Conan
>About 3,790,000 results (0.19 seconds)
>
>Arnold Schwarzenegger Conan
>About 6,740,000 results (0.20 seconds)
>
>Doesn't really prove anything but a fair difference.
>
>Yeah, the film's dated and old but it is iconic.

I wouldn't say iconic...I would think more of a cult classic.

>And comics are niche.

They are now, certainly...but not as much in the past when the general
comic audience was younger.

>But either way is speculation so there's no point arguing over it.

And yet we seem to manage to do so anyway.

[Duggy]

On Dec 18, 2:06 pm, grinningdemon <grinningde...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Dec 2011 02:58:32 -0800 (PST), Duggy
> <p.allan.dug...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Dec 17, 2:25 pm, grinningdemon <grinningde...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
> >> On Fri, 16 Dec 2011 15:59:31 -0800 (PST), Duggy
> >> <Paul.Dug...@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
> >> >On Dec 17, 8:02 am, grinningdemon <grinningde...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
> >> >> On Fri, 16 Dec 2011 04:38:18 -0800 (PST), Duggy
> >> >> <p.allan.dug...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >On Dec 3, 10:56 pm, DonFromBa...@webtv.net (Don  Violette) wrote:
> >> >> >> Next up:
> >> >> >> Conan the Barbarian
> >> >> >How is that a comic book movie?
> >> >> Conan may not have originated as a comic character but he is probably
> >> >> best known to modern audiences from comics...and the pulps were the
> >> >> precursor to comics as we know them so it's not much of a stretch.
> >> >He's probably best known to modern audiences from the Arnold
> >> >Swartzenegger film.
> >> I don't know...that one's pretty dated at this point...I would still
> >> think more people have discovered him through comics in recent years.
> >The Dark Horse comics?  Really.
> Not just Dark Horse...Conan was a mainstay at Marvel for 25 years
> before Dark Horse took over...

40 years is your definition of "in recent years", but 30 years isn't?

> given the timing, it might have
> even been the success of the comics that lead to the original movie.

Highly likely. But we're talking about today.

> >Quick test:
> >Dark Horse Conan
> >About 3,790,000 results (0.19 seconds)

> >Arnold Schwarzenegger Conan
> >About 6,740,000 results (0.20 seconds)

> >Doesn't really prove anything but a fair difference.

> >Yeah, the film's dated and old but it is iconic.

> I wouldn't say iconic...I would think more of a cult classic.

'Twould be if it wasn't for Arnie.

> >And comics are niche.
> They are now, certainly...but not as much in the past when the general
> comic audience was younger.

OK, but we're talking about the modern movie audience.

> >But either way is speculation so there's no point arguing over it.
> And yet we seem to manage to do so anyway.

You seem to like to twist things into stupid directions.

===
= DUG.
===

[grinningdemon]

40 years of ongoing stories continuing today vs. a couple of movies
that came and went 30 years ago.

>> given the timing, it might have
>> even been the success of the comics that lead to the original movie.
>
>Highly likely. But we're talking about today.

So you're claiming that original film could be considered a comic
movie but not the new one?

>> >Quick test:
>> >Dark Horse Conan
>> >About 3,790,000 results (0.19 seconds)
>
>> >Arnold Schwarzenegger Conan
>> >About 6,740,000 results (0.20 seconds)
>
>> >Doesn't really prove anything but a fair difference.
>
>> >Yeah, the film's dated and old but it is iconic.
>
>> I wouldn't say iconic...I would think more of a cult classic.
>
>'Twould be if it wasn't for Arnie.

It came before "Arnie" hit it big.

>> >And comics are niche.
>> They are now, certainly...but not as much in the past when the general
>> comic audience was younger.
>
>OK, but we're talking about the modern movie audience.

An audience that all started out as kids...many of whom read comics at
some point or were at least exposed to them through friends.

>> >But either way is speculation so there's no point arguing over it.
>> And yet we seem to manage to do so anyway.
>
>You seem to like to twist things into stupid directions.

I could say the same of you...Conan has a long-standing link to comics
and has been more prevalent in that medium than any other since the
original pulp stories (and there weren't even very many of
those)...most fans probably wouldn't bat an eye at the description of
Conan as a comic movie but you felt the need to pretend there is no
connection just to start an arguement.

[Duggy]

On Dec 19, 8:30 am, grinningdemon <grinningde...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Dec 2011 03:03:21 -0800 (PST), Duggy

> >40 years is your definition of "in recent years", but 30 years isn't?

> 40 years of ongoing stories  continuing today

The 40 year old stories aren't continuing today.

> >Highly likely.  But we're talking about today.
> So you're claiming that original film could be considered a comic
> movie but not the new one?

I'm saying a lot of people would have been confused back then.

But either time they'd be wrong to consider it a comic book film.

> >> >Quick test:
> >> >Dark Horse Conan
> >> >About 3,790,000 results (0.19 seconds)
>
> >> >Arnold Schwarzenegger Conan
> >> >About 6,740,000 results (0.20 seconds)
>
> >> >Doesn't really prove anything but a fair difference.
>
> >> >Yeah, the film's dated and old but it is iconic.

> >'Twould be if it wasn't for Arnie.
> It came before "Arnie" hit it big.

Conan & Terminator were Arnie hitting big.

There's both still part of his image (Terminator a little more than
Conan).

> >OK, but we're talking about the modern movie audience.
> An audience that all started out as kids...many of whom read comics at
> some point or were at least exposed to them through friends.

Not necessarily Conan comics.

> I could say the same of you...Conan has a long-standing link to comics
> and has been more prevalent in that medium than any other since the
> original pulp stories (and there weren't even very many of
> those)...

Same could be said for Star Wars.

> most fans probably wouldn't bat an eye at the description of
> Conan as a comic movie but you felt the need to pretend there is no
> connection just to start an arguement.

Lie. I never pretended there was no connection.

===
= DUG.
===

[grinningdemon]

On Sun, 18 Dec 2011 15:17:15 -0800 (PST), Duggy
<p.allan...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Dec 19, 8:30 am, grinningdemon <grinningde...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 18 Dec 2011 03:03:21 -0800 (PST), Duggy
>> >40 years is your definition of "in recent years", but 30 years isn't?
>
>> 40 years of ongoing stories  continuing today
>
>The 40 year old stories aren't continuing today.

It's a 40 year publishing history...many of the modern stories are
based off the REH stories just like many of the old Marvel ones
were...and the old stories are being reprinted from the beginning on.

The 40 year old Superman stories aren't continuing today either but
that doesn't make them any less Superman stories.

>> >Highly likely.  But we're talking about today.
>> So you're claiming that original film could be considered a comic
>> movie but not the new one?
>
>I'm saying a lot of people would have been confused back then.

And how would now be any different than now?

>But either time they'd be wrong to consider it a comic book film.

If it was inspired by the comics, they wouldn't be wrong at all.

>> >> >Quick test:
>> >> >Dark Horse Conan
>> >> >About 3,790,000 results (0.19 seconds)
>>
>> >> >Arnold Schwarzenegger Conan
>> >> >About 6,740,000 results (0.20 seconds)
>>
>> >> >Doesn't really prove anything but a fair difference.
>>
>> >> >Yeah, the film's dated and old but it is iconic.
>
>> >'Twould be if it wasn't for Arnie.
>> It came before "Arnie" hit it big.
>
>Conan & Terminator were Arnie hitting big.
>
>There's both still part of his image (Terminator a little more than
>Conan).

I would say Terminator and Predator were Arnie hitting it big...both
of which came a few years after Conan...and Conan is nowhere near as
big a part of his image as Terminator.

>> >OK, but we're talking about the modern movie audience.
>> An audience that all started out as kids...many of whom read comics at
>> some point or were at least exposed to them through friends.
>
>Not necessarily Conan comics.

Not necessarily Spiderman or X-Men comics either...but is there any
doubt that those are comic book movies? Or Superman, for that
matter...Superman Returns was clearly more inspired by the original
Superman films than the comics themselves but does that mean it isn't
a comic book movie?

>> I could say the same of you...Conan has a long-standing link to comics
>> and has been more prevalent in that medium than any other since the
>> original pulp stories (and there weren't even very many of
>> those)...
>
>Same could be said for Star Wars.

Except Star Wars actually began as a film and there is absolutely no
question that the films are the best known incarnation.

>> most fans probably wouldn't bat an eye at the description of
>> Conan as a comic movie but you felt the need to pretend there is no
>> connection just to start an arguement.
>
>Lie. I never pretended there was no connection.

Lie. You dismissed the connection from the beginning...that's how
this discussion began...furthermore, if you admit to the connection
even to the point that fans might be confused over the issue then I
don't know how you can entirely rule it out as a comic movie.

That said, I would argue that a property doesn't have to have started
as a comic if that is what they are best known from...especially in
the case of a property or character that started in the pulps...pulps
which are unquestionably the precursor to modern comics, inspired some
of the best known comic characters (like Batman), provided a medium
for the continuation of many pulp characters (like Conan), and
traditionally appealed to the same fan base...but, as you said, we
can't prove it either way.

[Duggy]

On Dec 19, 6:13 pm, grinningdemon <grinningde...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Dec 2011 15:17:15 -0800 (PST), Duggy
> <p.allan.dug...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Dec 19, 8:30 am, grinningdemon <grinningde...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
> >> On Sun, 18 Dec 2011 03:03:21 -0800 (PST), Duggy
> >> >40 years is your definition of "in recent years", but 30 years isn't?
> >> 40 years of ongoing stories  continuing today
> >The 40 year old stories aren't continuing today.

> It's a 40 year publishing history...many of the modern stories are
> based off the REH stories just like many of the old Marvel ones
> were...and the old stories are being reprinted from the beginning on.

> The 40 year old Superman stories aren't continuing today either but
> that doesn't make them any less Superman stories.

I didn't say they weren't Conan stories. I said that Conan comics
probably aren't that well known by modern cinema goers.

> >> >Highly likely.  But we're talking about today.
> >> So you're claiming that original film could be considered a comic
> >> movie but not the new one?
> >I'm saying a lot of people would have been confused back then.
> And how would now be any different than now?

The comics are less well known today.

> >But either time they'd be wrong to consider it a comic book film.
> If it was inspired by the comics, they wouldn't be wrong at all.

The current movie was inspired by a REH story, wasn't it?

> >> >> >Quick test:
> >> >> >Dark Horse Conan
> >> >> >About 3,790,000 results (0.19 seconds)

> >> >> >Arnold Schwarzenegger Conan
> >> >> >About 6,740,000 results (0.20 seconds)

> >> >> >Doesn't really prove anything but a fair difference.

> >> >> >Yeah, the film's dated and old but it is iconic.
>
> >> >'Twould be if it wasn't for Arnie.
> >> It came before "Arnie" hit it big.
>
> >Conan & Terminator were Arnie hitting big.

> >There's both still part of his image (Terminator a little more than
> >Conan).

> I would say Terminator and Predator were Arnie hitting it big...both
> of which came a few years after Conan...and Conan is nowhere near as
> big a part of his image as Terminator.

Predator was after he hit big. Conan is part of his personae.

> Not necessarily Spiderman or X-Men comics either...but is there any
> doubt that those are comic book movies?  Or Superman, for that
> matter...Superman Returns was clearly more inspired by the original
> Superman films than the comics themselves but does that mean it isn't
> a comic book movie?

No, because they are based on comic books.

> >Same could be said for Star Wars.
> Except Star Wars actually began as a film and there is absolutely no
> question that the films are the best known incarnation.

True.

> >> most fans probably wouldn't bat an eye at the description of
> >> Conan as a comic movie but you felt the need to pretend there is no
> >> connection just to start an arguement.
> >Lie.  I never pretended there was no connection.

> Lie.  You dismissed the connection from the beginning...

I dismissed the current film being based on comics when it wasn't.

Why do you think it was?

> That said, I would argue that a property doesn't have to have started
> as a comic if that is what they are best known from...

You haven't fully proven that Conan is best known for comics today.

> but, as you said, we can't prove it either way.

Agreed.

===
= DUG.
===

[Duggy]

On Dec 19, 6:13 pm, grinningdemon <grinningde...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Dec 2011 15:17:15 -0800 (PST), Duggy

> >Conan & Terminator were Arnie hitting big.
> >There's both still part of his image (Terminator a little more than
> >Conan).
> I would say Terminator and Predator were Arnie hitting it big...both
> of which came a few years after Conan...and Conan is nowhere near as
> big a part of his image as Terminator.

http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/arnold-schwarzenegger-becomes-california-governor

"Schwarzenegger's film career took off after his starring turn in
1982's Conan the Barbarian. In 1983, he became a U.S. citizen; the
next year he made his most famous film, The Terminator, directed by
James Cameron."

No mention of Predator (and he's the second actor from that film to
become a Governor)

===
= DUG.
===

[grinningdemon]

On Mon, 19 Dec 2011 16:13:52 -0800 (PST), Duggy
<p.allan...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Dec 19, 6:13 pm, grinningdemon <grinningde...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 18 Dec 2011 15:17:15 -0800 (PST), Duggy
>> <p.allan.dug...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >On Dec 19, 8:30 am, grinningdemon <grinningde...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
>> >> On Sun, 18 Dec 2011 03:03:21 -0800 (PST), Duggy
>> >> >40 years is your definition of "in recent years", but 30 years isn't?
>> >> 40 years of ongoing stories  continuing today
>> >The 40 year old stories aren't continuing today.
>
>> It's a 40 year publishing history...many of the modern stories are
>> based off the REH stories just like many of the old Marvel ones
>> were...and the old stories are being reprinted from the beginning on.
>
>> The 40 year old Superman stories aren't continuing today either but
>> that doesn't make them any less Superman stories.
>
>I didn't say they weren't Conan stories. I said that Conan comics
>probably aren't that well known by modern cinema goers.

But the character is known to modern cinema goers largely due to the
impact of the comics...current or otherwise.

>> >> >Highly likely.  But we're talking about today.
>> >> So you're claiming that original film could be considered a comic
>> >> movie but not the new one?
>> >I'm saying a lot of people would have been confused back then.
>> And how would now be any different than now?
>
>The comics are less well known today.

But longstanding comic characters (whether they started out in comics
or not) enter the popular culture and become known to people who never
read the comics...but those people are generally still AWARE of the
comics.

>> >But either time they'd be wrong to consider it a comic book film.
>> If it was inspired by the comics, they wouldn't be wrong at all.
>
>The current movie was inspired by a REH story, wasn't it?

It may be BASED on a REH story...but that isn't necessarily the same
as INSPIRED by one...Conan is better known as a character than as a
part of any particular story...much like the most popular and enduring
comic characters.

>> >> >> >Quick test:
>> >> >> >Dark Horse Conan
>> >> >> >About 3,790,000 results (0.19 seconds)
>
>> >> >> >Arnold Schwarzenegger Conan
>> >> >> >About 6,740,000 results (0.20 seconds)
>
>> >> >> >Doesn't really prove anything but a fair difference.
>
>> >> >> >Yeah, the film's dated and old but it is iconic.
>>
>> >> >'Twould be if it wasn't for Arnie.
>> >> It came before "Arnie" hit it big.
>>
>> >Conan & Terminator were Arnie hitting big.
>
>> >There's both still part of his image (Terminator a little more than
>> >Conan).
>
>> I would say Terminator and Predator were Arnie hitting it big...both
>> of which came a few years after Conan...and Conan is nowhere near as
>> big a part of his image as Terminator.
>
>Predator was after he hit big. Conan is part of his personae.

I don't think it is...Conan was not a hit on par with Terminator or
Predator and it doesn't have the enduring popularity of either of
those franchises either...it's a cult classic...it may be on the high
end side of cult classic (relatively speaking) but I would still
consider it a cult classic.

>> Not necessarily Spiderman or X-Men comics either...but is there any
>> doubt that those are comic book movies?  Or Superman, for that
>> matter...Superman Returns was clearly more inspired by the original
>> Superman films than the comics themselves but does that mean it isn't
>> a comic book movie?
>
>No, because they are based on comic books.

But that movie wasn't based on a comic book...it was based on another
movie that was based on a CHARACTER from comic books.

>> >Same could be said for Star Wars.
>> Except Star Wars actually began as a film and there is absolutely no
>> question that the films are the best known incarnation.
>
>True.
>
>> >> most fans probably wouldn't bat an eye at the description of
>> >> Conan as a comic movie but you felt the need to pretend there is no
>> >> connection just to start an arguement.
>> >Lie.  I never pretended there was no connection.
>
>> Lie.  You dismissed the connection from the beginning...
>
>I dismissed the current film being based on comics when it wasn't.
>
>Why do you think it was?

I never said it was BASED on comics...I said I would consider it a
comic book movie...to me, a comic movie may be based on comics or on a
character from comics...but it might also be inspired by comics or
simply primarily associated with comics...Conan has a long history in
comics...longer and more continuous than any other medium...I would
consider it a comic book movie.

>> That said, I would argue that a property doesn't have to have started
>> as a comic if that is what they are best known from...
>
>You haven't fully proven that Conan is best known for comics today.

It's a personal opinion and I never said otherwise...I don't have to
prove an opinion...you haven't proven Conan is best known from the
film either.

[grinningdemon]

I never said Conan wasn't a big step in his career...it was his first
major starring role...but it wasn't a big hit on par with
Terminator...and Predator probably isn't mentioned because there is no
doubt that Terminator is what he's best known for and the article in
question isn't really about his film career.

[Duggy]

On Dec 22, 3:10 pm, grinningdemon <grinningde...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Dec 2011 16:13:52 -0800 (PST), Duggy

> <p.allan.dug...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Dec 19, 6:13 pm, grinningdemon <grinningde...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
> >> On Sun, 18 Dec 2011 15:17:15 -0800 (PST), Duggy
> >> <p.allan.dug...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >On Dec 19, 8:30 am, grinningdemon <grinningde...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
> >> >> On Sun, 18 Dec 2011 03:03:21 -0800 (PST), Duggy
> >> >> >40 years is your definition of "in recent years", but 30 years isn't?
> >> >> 40 years of ongoing stories  continuing today
> >> >The 40 year old stories aren't continuing today.
> >> It's a 40 year publishing history...many of the modern stories are
> >> based off the REH stories just like many of the old Marvel ones
> >> were...and the old stories are being reprinted from the beginning on.
> >> The 40 year old Superman stories aren't continuing today either but
> >> that doesn't make them any less Superman stories.
> >I didn't say they weren't Conan stories.  I said that Conan comics
> >probably aren't that well known by modern cinema goers.

> But the character is known to modern cinema goers largely due to the
> impact of the comics...current or otherwise.

He says, once again, without proof.
Most people I know know Conan from the movies (even young people).
Those who knew it before know it from the comics... but then I hang
around with comic fans, so I won't generalise from my experience.
Like you love to do.

> >The comics are less well known today.
> But longstanding comic characters (whether they started out in comics
> or not) enter the popular culture and become known to people who never
> read the comics...but those people are generally still AWARE of the
> comics.

Aware of the comics doesn't mean they think it is a comic book
character.

> >> >But either time they'd be wrong to consider it a comic book film.
> >> If it was inspired by the comics, they wouldn't be wrong at all.
> >The current movie was inspired by a REH story, wasn't it?

> It may be BASED on a REH story...but that isn't necessarily the same
> as INSPIRED by one...Conan is better known as a character than as a
> part of any particular story...much like the most popular and enduring
> comic characters.

I don't want to get into a stupid argument about which of 2 equally
possible uses of the word inspired is the correct one in this context.

The recent Conan film was made as part of a long process of trying to
make another Conan movie. They tried to make a 3rd and when Arnie
turned it down and Kevin took the role they made it Kull. Since then
they've been trying to make a new Conan film in some form or other.

So this film comes directly from the last two films, not the comics
old or new.

The first Conan film is clearly inspired in some part by the comics
(elements were used, writers from the comics were consulted).

The comics came from the original magazine stories.

So, they were inspired by all 3.

None of that changes the fact that Conan originated in prose.

> >> >> >'Twould be if it wasn't for Arnie.
> >> >> It came before "Arnie" hit it big.
> >> >Conan & Terminator were Arnie hitting big.
> >> >There's both still part of his image (Terminator a little more than
> >> >Conan).
> >> I would say Terminator and Predator were Arnie hitting it big...both
> >> of which came a few years after Conan...and Conan is nowhere near as
> >> big a part of his image as Terminator.

> >Predator was after he hit big.  Conan is part of his personae.

> I don't think it is...Conan was not a hit

Conan the Barbarian:
http://boxofficemojo.com/yearly/chart/?yr=1982&p=.htm

#17 of 1982.

The Terminator:
http://boxofficemojo.com/yearly/chart/?yr=1984&view=releasedate&view2=domestic&sort=gross&order=DESC&&p=.htm

#21 of 1984.

> on par with Terminator or
> Predator and it doesn't have the enduring popularity of either of
> those franchises either...it's a cult classic...it may be on the high
> end side of cult classic (relatively speaking) but I would still
> consider it a cult classic.

Agreed. And The Terminator and The Predator are the same... it's the
sequels that have made them more than just cult films though.

> >Why do you think it was?
> I never said it was BASED on comics...I said I would consider it a
> comic book movie...to me, a comic movie may be based on comics or on a
> character from comics...but it might also be inspired by comics or
> simply primarily associated with comics...Conan has a long history in
> comics...longer and more continuous than any other medium...I would
> consider it a comic book movie.

Like Star Wars.

> >"Schwarzenegger's film career took off after his starring turn in
> >1982's Conan the Barbarian. In 1983, he became a U.S. citizen; the
> >next year he made his most famous film, The Terminator, directed by
> >James Cameron."
> >No mention of Predator (and he's the second actor from that film to
> >become a Governor)

> I never said Conan wasn't a big step in his career...it was his first
> major starring role...but it wasn't a big hit on par with
> Terminator...

Conan The Barbarian - $39.5 million.
The Terminator - $38 million.

The difference between the franchises is:
Conan The Destroyer - $31 million.
Terminator 2: Judgement Day - $248 million.

> and Predator probably isn't mentioned because there is no
> doubt that Terminator is what he's best known for and the article in
> question isn't really about his film career.

True, but being the silly trivia person I am, I'd have dropped a
"Predator (which also included later Minnesota Governor Jesse Venture
in a role).

===
= DUG.
===

[Michael Napier]

On Dec 16 2011, 4:02 pm, grinningdemon <grinningde...@austin.rr.com>
wrote:

> On Fri, 16 Dec 2011 04:38:18 -0800 (PST), Duggy
>

> <p.allan.dug...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Dec 3, 10:56 pm, DonFromBa...@webtv.net (Don  Violette) wrote:
> >> Next up:
> >> Conan the Barbarian
>
> >How is that a comic book movie?
>
> >===
> >= DUG.
> >===
>
> Conan may not have originated as a comic character but he is probably
> best known to modern audiences from comics...and the pulps were the
> precursor to comics as we know them so it's not much of a stretch.

I agree!

[Michael Napier]

On Dec 19 2011, 2:13 am, grinningdemon <grinningde...@austin.rr.com>
wrote:

> On Sun, 18 Dec 2011 15:17:15 -0800 (PST), Duggy
>

> can't prove it either way.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Right again, GrinningDemon! LOL!

[Duggy]

On Jan 2, 3:14 am, Michael Napier <oksc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > but, as you said, we
> > can't prove it either way.

> Right again, GrinningDemon! LOL!

Exactly.

===
= DUG.
===

[grinningdemon]

On Sun, 25 Dec 2011 23:19:35 -0800 (PST), Duggy
<Paul....@jcu.edu.au> wrote:

>On Dec 22, 3:10 pm, grinningdemon <grinningde...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 19 Dec 2011 16:13:52 -0800 (PST), Duggy
>> <p.allan.dug...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >On Dec 19, 6:13 pm, grinningdemon <grinningde...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
>> >> On Sun, 18 Dec 2011 15:17:15 -0800 (PST), Duggy
>> >> <p.allan.dug...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >On Dec 19, 8:30 am, grinningdemon <grinningde...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
>> >> >> On Sun, 18 Dec 2011 03:03:21 -0800 (PST), Duggy
>> >> >> >40 years is your definition of "in recent years", but 30 years isn't?
>> >> >> 40 years of ongoing stories  continuing today
>> >> >The 40 year old stories aren't continuing today.
>> >> It's a 40 year publishing history...many of the modern stories are
>> >> based off the REH stories just like many of the old Marvel ones
>> >> were...and the old stories are being reprinted from the beginning on.
>> >> The 40 year old Superman stories aren't continuing today either but
>> >> that doesn't make them any less Superman stories.
>> >I didn't say they weren't Conan stories.  I said that Conan comics
>> >probably aren't that well known by modern cinema goers.
>
>> But the character is known to modern cinema goers largely due to the
>> impact of the comics...current or otherwise.
>
>He says, once again, without proof.

And you say otherwise, once again, without proof...so I guess we're
even.

>Most people I know know Conan from the movies (even young people).
>Those who knew it before know it from the comics... but then I hang
>around with comic fans, so I won't generalise from my experience.
>Like you love to do.

I don't actually hang out with many comic fans...I talk to people in
comic shops and online but most of my actual friends are not
interested in comics.

>> >The comics are less well known today.
>> But longstanding comic characters (whether they started out in comics
>> or not) enter the popular culture and become known to people who never
>> read the comics...but those people are generally still AWARE of the
>> comics.
>
>Aware of the comics doesn't mean they think it is a comic book
>character.

It really doesn't matter if they think of it as a comic
character...there are plenty of movies based directly on comics that
most people probably don't even realize are based on comics...A
History of Violence, Road to Perdition, Whiteout, etc.

>> >> >But either time they'd be wrong to consider it a comic book film.
>> >> If it was inspired by the comics, they wouldn't be wrong at all.
>> >The current movie was inspired by a REH story, wasn't it?
>
>> It may be BASED on a REH story...but that isn't necessarily the same
>> as INSPIRED by one...Conan is better known as a character than as a
>> part of any particular story...much like the most popular and enduring
>> comic characters.
>
>I don't want to get into a stupid argument about which of 2 equally
>possible uses of the word inspired is the correct one in this context.

But stupid arguments over arbitrary definitions are your go-to...are
you feeling ok?

>The recent Conan film was made as part of a long process of trying to
>make another Conan movie. They tried to make a 3rd and when Arnie
>turned it down and Kevin took the role they made it Kull. Since then
>they've been trying to make a new Conan film in some form or other.

Just because they made earlier attempts to make another Conan film
doesn't necessarily make this one part of that.

>So this film comes directly from the last two films, not the comics
>old or new.
>
>The first Conan film is clearly inspired in some part by the comics
>(elements were used, writers from the comics were consulted).

>The comics came from the original magazine stories.
>
>So, they were inspired by all 3.
>
>None of that changes the fact that Conan originated in prose.

It originated in the pulps...that certainly is prose but they are the
immediate predecessor of comics...they are directly related...and,
whether or not the general public knows Conan best from comics or
movies, they certainly don't know them best from the pulps.

>> >> >> >'Twould be if it wasn't for Arnie.
>> >> >> It came before "Arnie" hit it big.
>> >> >Conan & Terminator were Arnie hitting big.
>> >> >There's both still part of his image (Terminator a little more than
>> >> >Conan).
>> >> I would say Terminator and Predator were Arnie hitting it big...both
>> >> of which came a few years after Conan...and Conan is nowhere near as
>> >> big a part of his image as Terminator.
>
>> >Predator was after he hit big.  Conan is part of his personae.
>
>> I don't think it is...Conan was not a hit
>
>Conan the Barbarian:
>http://boxofficemojo.com/yearly/chart/?yr=1982&p=.htm
>
>#17 of 1982.

>The Terminator:
>http://boxofficemojo.com/yearly/chart/?yr=1984&view=releasedate&view2=domestic&sort=gross&order=DESC&&p=.htm
>
>#21 of 1984.

Correction, then...it wasn't an enduring hit.

>> on par with Terminator or
>> Predator and it doesn't have the enduring popularity of either of
>> those franchises either...it's a cult classic...it may be on the high
>> end side of cult classic (relatively speaking) but I would still
>> consider it a cult classic.
>
>Agreed. And The Terminator and The Predator are the same... it's the
>sequels that have made them more than just cult films though.

Terminator certainly rises above cult status...the franchise may be
responsible for that but it doesn't make it any less true.

>> >Why do you think it was?
>> I never said it was BASED on comics...I said I would consider it a
>> comic book movie...to me, a comic movie may be based on comics or on a
>> character from comics...but it might also be inspired by comics or
>> simply primarily associated with comics...Conan has a long history in
>> comics...longer and more continuous than any other medium...I would
>> consider it a comic book movie.
>
>Like Star Wars.

Except Star Wars started out as a movie and there is no believable way
anyone would be confused as to which medium it is best known from.

>> >"Schwarzenegger's film career took off after his starring turn in
>> >1982's Conan the Barbarian. In 1983, he became a U.S. citizen; the
>> >next year he made his most famous film, The Terminator, directed by
>> >James Cameron."
>> >No mention of Predator (and he's the second actor from that film to
>> >become a Governor)
>
>> I never said Conan wasn't a big step in his career...it was his first
>> major starring role...but it wasn't a big hit on par with
>> Terminator...
>
>Conan The Barbarian - $39.5 million.
>The Terminator - $38 million.
>
>The difference between the franchises is:
>Conan The Destroyer - $31 million.
>Terminator 2: Judgement Day - $248 million.

That's one hell of a difference, don't you think? The difference
between a relatively obscure cult classic and a cultural icon.

[grinningdemon]

I've clearly been stating an opinion this whole time and never said
otherwise...you are the one that likes to pretend his opinion is fact.

[Duggy]

On Jan 3, 11:50 am, grinningdemon <grinningde...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Dec 2011 23:19:35 -0800 (PST), Duggy

> It really doesn't matter if they think of it as a comic
> character...there are plenty of movies based directly on comics that
> most people probably don't even realize are based on comics...A
> History of Violence, Road to Perdition, Whiteout, etc.

Agreed. And I correct those errors when I hear them.

Like I correct the claims that Conan started as a comic book.

> >I don't want to get into a stupid argument about which of 2 equally
> >possible uses of the word inspired is the correct one in this context.
> But stupid arguments over arbitrary definitions are your go-to...are
> you feeling ok?

No, it's what we do when we get together.

> >The recent Conan film was made as part of a long process of trying to
> >make another Conan movie.  They tried to make a 3rd and when Arnie
> >turned it down and Kevin took the role they made it Kull.  Since then
> >they've been trying to make a new Conan film in some form or other.
> Just because they made earlier attempts to make another Conan film
> doesn't necessarily make this one part of that.

It's part of a process.

> >None of that changes the fact that Conan originated in prose.
> It originated in the pulps...that certainly is prose but they are the
> immediate predecessor of comics...they are directly related...and,
> whether or not the general public knows Conan best from comics or
> movies, they certainly don't know them best from the pulps.

Some do. I think there's an awareness for many that he existed before
comics and film.

> >> >Predator was after he hit big.  Conan is part of his personae.
> >> I don't think it is...Conan was not a hit
> >Conan the Barbarian:
> >http://boxofficemojo.com/yearly/chart/?yr=1982&p=.htm

> >#17 of 1982.
> >The Terminator:

> >http://boxofficemojo.com/yearly/chart/?yr=1984&view=releasedate&view2...

> >#21 of 1984.

> Correction, then...it wasn't an enduring hit.

Agreed. But it was a big hit at the time.

> >Agreed.  And The Terminator and The Predator are the same... it's the
> >sequels that have made them more than just cult films though.
> Terminator certainly rises above cult status...the franchise may be
> responsible for that but it doesn't make it any less true.

Yes, so your claim that Terminator was bigger for his career than
Conan at the beginning is shaky.

> >> >Why do you think it was?
> >> I never said it was BASED on comics...I said I would consider it a
> >> comic book movie...to me, a comic movie may be based on comics or on a
> >> character from comics...but it might also be inspired by comics or
> >> simply primarily associated with comics...Conan has a long history in
> >> comics...longer and more continuous than any other medium...I would
> >> consider it a comic book movie.
> >Like Star Wars.
> Except Star Wars started out as a movie

Conan started as prose in magazines.

> >> I never said Conan wasn't a big step in his career...it was his first
> >> major starring role...but it wasn't a big hit on par with
> >> Terminator...

> >Conan The Barbarian - $39.5 million.
> >The Terminator - $38 million.

> >The difference between the franchises is:
> >Conan The Destroyer - $31 million.
> >Terminator 2: Judgement Day - $248 million.

> That's one hell of a difference, don't you think?  The difference
> between a relatively obscure cult classic and a cultural icon.

Yes. But Conan the Barbarian was clearly a bigger step in his career
than The Terminator.

===
= DUG.
===

[EB]

> > >> I never said Conan wasn't a big step in his career...it was his first
> > >> major starring role...but it wasn't a big hit on par with
> > >> Terminator...
> > >Conan The Barbarian - $39.5 million.
> > >The Terminator - $38 million.
> > >The difference between the franchises is:
> > >Conan The Destroyer - $31 million.
> > >Terminator 2: Judgement Day - $248 million.
> > That's one hell of a difference, don't you think?  The difference
> > between a relatively obscure cult classic and a cultural icon.
>
> Yes.  But Conan the Barbarian was clearly a bigger step in his career
> than The Terminator.
>
> ===
> = DUG.
> ===

Really? Conan did more for Arnie than Terminator?
You can't be serious. The Conan moive just sucked on all types of
levels. Whereas Terminator
was just a great fun movie. I watch Conan ONCE and thought it was just
horrible dreck.
Can't tell you how many times I've watched Terminator.
And yes, the sequels have a lot to do with the movie quality also.
By your own stats the Terminator franchise was (is) so much more
profitable.

Getting back to the original discussion. I would have considered Conan
a comicbook movie
just for the fact during the 70's Conan was a huge Marvel staple in
their comicbook line and was popular as Spiderman and the X-men.
It was the comics that led me to read some of the REH classics from
the 40's. NOT, the horrible Arnie movie from 1982

The death of Belit was huge storyline for Marvel especially when she
died in Conan the Barbarian issue 100

[Duggy]

On Jan 3, 11:53 am, grinningdemon <grinningde...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 2 Jan 2012 02:12:43 -0800 (PST), Duggy
>

> <Paul.Dug...@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
> >On Jan 2, 3:14 am, Michael Napier <oksc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > but, as you said, we
> >> > can't prove it either way.
> >> Right again, GrinningDemon! LOL!
>
> >Exactly.
>
> I've clearly been stating an opinion this whole time and never said
> otherwise...

And copying me while doing so.

===
= DUG.
===

[Duggy]

On Jan 5, 11:13 pm, EB <rickblac...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> I never said Conan wasn't a big step in his career...it was his first
> > > >> major starring role...but it wasn't a big hit on par with
> > > >> Terminator...
> > > >Conan The Barbarian - $39.5 million.
> > > >The Terminator - $38 million.
> > > >The difference between the franchises is:
> > > >Conan The Destroyer - $31 million.
> > > >Terminator 2: Judgement Day - $248 million.
> > > That's one hell of a difference, don't you think?  The difference
> > > between a relatively obscure cult classic and a cultural icon.

> > Yes.  But Conan the Barbarian was clearly a bigger step in his career
> > than The Terminator.

> Really? Conan did more for Arnie than Terminator?

I never said that. I said bigger step.

Conan took him from obscurity to recognisability. Terminator took him
from recognisable to stardom. Smaller step.

> You can't be serious. The Conan moive just sucked on all types of
> levels.

Many, yes. Doesn't change the facts.

> And yes, the sequels have a lot to do with the movie quality also.

No, they don't. If you think that you're a moron.

> By your own stats the Terminator franchise was (is) so much more
> profitable.

Yes. I've been saying that. Pay attention,

> Getting back to the original discussion. I would have considered Conan
> a comicbook movie

Yes, but you also thing that making a sequel improves the quality of
the original film so we can safely ignore your delusions.

===
= DUG.
===

[grinningdemon]

Copying you? What have you been smoking?

[Tim Turnip]

On Thu, 5 Jan 2012 13:21:20 -0800 (PST), Duggy
<Paul....@jcu.edu.au> wrote:

>On Jan 5, 11:13 pm, EB <rickblac...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> > > >> I never said Conan wasn't a big step in his career...it was his first
>> > > >> major starring role...but it wasn't a big hit on par with
>> > > >> Terminator...
>> > > >Conan The Barbarian - $39.5 million.
>> > > >The Terminator - $38 million.
>> > > >The difference between the franchises is:
>> > > >Conan The Destroyer - $31 million.
>> > > >Terminator 2: Judgement Day - $248 million.
>> > > That's one hell of a difference, don't you think?  The difference
>> > > between a relatively obscure cult classic and a cultural icon.
>
>> > Yes.  But Conan the Barbarian was clearly a bigger step in his career
>> > than The Terminator.
>
>> Really? Conan did more for Arnie than Terminator?
>
>I never said that. I said bigger step.
>
>Conan took him from obscurity to recognisability. Terminator took him
>from recognisable to stardom. Smaller step.

I agree with your point; just wanted to mention that Arnold wasn't
totally obscure even pre-Conan. He was America's best known
bodybuilder, landing in the Guinness Book as most perfectly developed
man and making the talk show circuit (his fame probably boosted by his
distinct accent and name more than his early movies). Even as early
as 1979, he was well-known enough to be the subject of a joke by Ed
McMahon during the made-for-TV "Legends of the Superheroes" specials.
He wasn't movie star famous yet but he was somewhat famous.

[Duggy]

Post 5 in the thread: "But either way is speculation so there's no
point arguing over it. "

===
= DUG.
===

[Duggy]

A fair point.

===
= DUG.
===

[grinningdemon]

Something that seems to come up in most of our discussions...and yet
the arguing rarely ends there...I'd hardly call it copying just
because both happen to agree on something.

[Duggy]

Like we agree that Conan started as prose in magazines.

===
= DUG.
===

[Paul David Wright]

Duggy <Paul....@jcu.edu.au> wrote in
news:b726b357-8e21-4e5c...@i26g2000vbt.googlegroups.com:


> On Jan 8, 12:58=A0pm, grinningdemon <grinningde...@austin.rr.com>
> wrote:
>> On Sat, 7 Jan 2012 17:03:30 -0800 (PST), Duggy
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> <Paul.Dug...@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
>> >On Jan 6, 12:25=A0pm, grinningdemon <grinningde...@austin.rr.com>
>> >wrote:
>> >> On Thu, 5 Jan 2012 13:24:06 -0800 (PST), Duggy
>>
>> >> <p.allan.dug...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >On Jan 3, 11:53=A0am, grinningdemon <grinningde...@austin.rr.com>
>> >> >wro=
> te:
>> >> >> On Mon, 2 Jan 2012 02:12:43 -0800 (PST), Duggy
>>
>> >> >> <Paul.Dug...@jcu.edu.au> wrote:

>> >> >> >On Jan 2, 3:14 am, Michael Napier <oksc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >> > but, as you said, we
>> >> >> >> > can't prove it either way.

>> >> >> >> Right again, GrinningDemon! LOL!
>>
>> >> >> >Exactly.
>>
>> >> >> I've clearly been stating an opinion this whole time and never
>> >> >> said otherwise...
>>
>> >> >And copying me while doing so.
>>

>> >> >=3D=3D=3D
>> >> >=3D DUG.
>> >> >=3D=3D=3D
>>
>> >> Copying you? =A0What have you been smoking?

>>
>> >Post 5 in the thread: "But either way is speculation so there's no
>> >point arguing over it. "
>>
>> Something that seems to come up in most of our discussions...and yet
>> the arguing rarely ends there...I'd hardly call it copying just
>> because both happen to agree on something.
>

> Like we agree that Conan started as prose in magazines.
>
> =3D=3D=3D
> =3D DUG.
> =3D=3D=3D

Ummm... Conan DID start off as prose in a magazine.
Weird Tales, in the 1930's, to be precise....

--
PDW

Check out my blog:
The first is a preview of my superhero comic book.
http://incognitoheroes.blogspot.com/
http://corneliusaddaptionproject.blogspot.com/


And my books:
http://www.lulu.com/spotlight/pdwright42

[Duggy]

On Jan 9, 1:33 pm, Paul David Wright <pauldavidwri...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

> Ummm... Conan DID start off as prose in a magazine.
> Weird Tales, in the 1930's, to be precise....

That's why we agree.

===
= DUG.
===

[Paul David Wright]

Duggy <Paul....@jcu.edu.au> wrote in
news:571f7e94-f16f-4ef6...@y7g2000vbe.googlegroups.com:

>
> On Jan 9, 1:33=A0pm, Paul David Wright <pauldavidwri...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>> Duggy <Paul.Dug...@jcu.edu.au> wrote
>> innews:b726b357-8e21-4e5c-8726-7c95a=
> d40...@i26g2000vbt.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Jan 8, 12:58=3DA0pm, grinningdemon <grinningde...@austin.rr.com>

>> > wrote:
>> >> On Sat, 7 Jan 2012 17:03:30 -0800 (PST), Duggy
>>
>> >> <Paul.Dug...@jcu.edu.au> wrote:

>> >> >On Jan 6, 12:25=3DA0pm, grinningdemon

>> >> ><grinningde...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
>> >> >> On Thu, 5 Jan 2012 13:24:06 -0800 (PST), Duggy
>>
>> >> >> <p.allan.dug...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> >> >> >On Jan 3, 11:53=3DA0am, grinningdemon
>> >> >> ><grinningde...@austin.rr.com=
>>
>> >> >> >wro=3D

>> > te:
>> >> >> >> On Mon, 2 Jan 2012 02:12:43 -0800 (PST), Duggy
>>
>> >> >> >> <Paul.Dug...@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >On Jan 2, 3:14 am, Michael Napier <oksc...@gmail.com>
>> >> >> >> >wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> > but, as you said, we
>> >> >> >> >> > can't prove it either way.
>> >> >> >> >> Right again, GrinningDemon! LOL!
>>
>> >> >> >> >Exactly.
>>
>> >> >> >> I've clearly been stating an opinion this whole time and
>> >> >> >> never said otherwise...
>>
>> >> >> >And copying me while doing so.
>>

>> >> >> >=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D
>> >> >> >=3D3D DUG.
>> >> >> >=3D3D=3D3D=3D3D
>>
>> >> >> Copying you? =3DA0What have you been smoking?

>>
>> >> >Post 5 in the thread: "But either way is speculation so there's
>> >> >no point arguing over it. "
>>
>> >> Something that seems to come up in most of our discussions...and
>> >> yet the arguing rarely ends there...I'd hardly call it copying
>> >> just because both happen to agree on something.
>> > Like we agree that Conan started as prose in magazines.
>
>> Ummm... Conan DID start off as prose in a magazine.
>> Weird Tales, in the 1930's, to be precise....
>
> That's why we agree.
>

> =3D=3D=3D
> =3D DUG.
> =3D=3D=3D
>

Hell, I'm not even sure what the argument is about. But I do know that
Robert E. Howard created Conan and published them in the 1930's.
Marvel's adaptions came along, what, in the 1970's? Quite a bit of time
between them.

[grinningdemon]

That's not something to agree or disagree on...it's a proven
fact...but we don't agree on whether or not Conan can be considered a
comic movie...the central point of this discussion...so, yeah,
copying.

[Duggy]

On Jan 10, 2:16 pm, grinningdemon <grinningde...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
> That's not something to agree or disagree on...it's a proven
> fact...

We can't agree on proven facts?

> but we don't agree on whether or not Conan can be considered a
> comic movie...the central point of this discussion...

Conan didn't start in comics. Conan comics are a major part of most
current film watchers background.

===
= DUG.
===

[Duggy]

On Jan 10, 10:43 am, Paul David Wright <pauldavidwri...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

> Duggy <Paul.Dug...@jcu.edu.au> wrote innews:571f7e94-f16f-4ef6...@y7g2000vbe.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 9, 1:33=A0pm, Paul David Wright <pauldavidwri...@yahoo.com>
> > wrote:
> >> Duggy <Paul.Dug...@jcu.edu.au> wrote
> >> innews:b726b357-8e21-4e5c-8726-7c95a=

> > d40f...@i26g2000vbt.googlegroups.com:

> Hell, I'm not even sure what the argument is about. But I do know that
> Robert E. Howard created Conan and published them in the 1930's.
> Marvel's adaptions came along, what, in the 1970's? Quite a bit of time
> between them.

I don't know either. It clearly started in comics.

===
= DUG.
===

[grinningdemon]

On Mon, 9 Jan 2012 23:56:02 -0800 (PST), Duggy
<Paul....@jcu.edu.au> wrote:

>On Jan 10, 2:16�pm, grinningdemon <grinningde...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
>> That's not something to agree or disagree on...it's a proven
>> fact...
>
>We can't agree on proven facts?

Agree or disagree...it's irrelevant.

>> but we don't agree on whether or not Conan can be considered a
>> comic movie...the central point of this discussion...
>
>Conan didn't start in comics.

No one is saying he did.

Conan comics are a major part of most
>current film watchers background.

I would argue they are certainly a major part of most current CONAN
film watchers background...the movie is only going to appeal to fans
of certain genres.

[Duggy]

On Jan 11, 12:30 pm, grinningdemon <grinningde...@austin.rr.com>
wrote:

> On Mon, 9 Jan 2012 23:56:02 -0800 (PST), Duggy
>

> <Paul.Dug...@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
> >On Jan 10, 2:16 pm, grinningdemon <grinningde...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
> >> That's not something to agree or disagree on...it's a proven
> >> fact...
>
> >We can't agree on proven facts?
>
> Agree or disagree...it's irrelevant.
>
> >> but we don't agree on whether or not Conan can be considered a
> >> comic movie...the central point of this discussion...
>
> >Conan didn't start in comics.
>
> No one is saying he did.
>
> Conan comics are a major part of most
> >current film watchers background.
>
> I would argue they are certainly a major part of most current CONAN
> film watchers background...

I actually meant "aren't" there. The main movie market wasn't alive
when Marvel's Conan comics were at their height.

> the movie is only going to appeal to fans
> of certain genres.

Barbarian films.

===
= DUG.
===

[grinningdemon]

On Tue, 10 Jan 2012 21:14:42 -0800 (PST), Duggy
<p.allan...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Jan 11, 12:30�pm, grinningdemon <grinningde...@austin.rr.com>
>wrote:
>> On Mon, 9 Jan 2012 23:56:02 -0800 (PST), Duggy
>>
>> <Paul.Dug...@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
>> >On Jan 10, 2:16 pm, grinningdemon <grinningde...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
>> >> That's not something to agree or disagree on...it's a proven
>> >> fact...
>>
>> >We can't agree on proven facts?
>>
>> Agree or disagree...it's irrelevant.
>>
>> >> but we don't agree on whether or not Conan can be considered a
>> >> comic movie...the central point of this discussion...
>>
>> >Conan didn't start in comics.
>>
>> No one is saying he did.
>>
>> Conan comics are a major part of most
>> >current film watchers background.
>>
>> I would argue they are certainly a major part of most current CONAN
>> film watchers background...
>
>
>I actually meant "aren't" there.

I figured.

The main movie market wasn't alive
>when Marvel's Conan comics were at their height.

True...but there has pretty much been 40 continuous years of Conan
comics and counting plus tons of reprints throughout...versus a few
years of pulp stories from nearly a century ago...and you already
admitted the original film was inspired by the popularity of the
comics so, whether you want to say the new film was inspired by the
comics or by the original film that was inspired by the comics, it's
still a comic movie.

Oh, and the "main" movie market isn't interested in Conan films
anyway.

>> the movie is only going to appeal to fans
>> of certain genres.
>
>Barbarian films.

That's a pretty limited genre that generally falls in with Fantasy
and/or Sci-Fi...and you know that...or are you so delluded that you
think there's no crossover between that demographic and comic fans?

[Duggy]

On Jan 11, 4:44 pm, grinningdemon <grinningde...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Jan 2012 21:14:42 -0800 (PST), Duggy

> The main movie market wasn't alive
> >when Marvel's Conan comics were at their height.
> True...but there has pretty much been 40 continuous years of Conan
> comics and counting plus tons of reprints throughout...versus a few
> years of pulp stories from nearly a century ago...

Those weren't the only stories. After REH a number of other writers
wrote (and in some cases rewrote) Conan stories.

Robert Jordan wrote some Conan Novels.

To handwave the prose as a couple of pulp stories nearly a century ago
isn't representative.

> and you already
> admitted the original film was inspired by the popularity of the
> comics

Partially, yes.

> so, whether you want to say the new film was inspired by the
> comics or by the original film that was inspired by the comics, it's
> still a comic movie.

The comics were inspired by REH's prose and particularly L. Sprague de
Camp's Conan stories.

> Oh, and the "main" movie market isn't interested in Conan films
> anyway.

Turns out.

> >> the movie is only going to appeal to fans
> >> of certain genres.
> >Barbarian films.

> That's a pretty limited genre that generally falls in with Fantasy
> and/or Sci-Fi...

True. So?

> and you know that...or are you so delluded that you
> think there's no crossover between that demographic and comic fans?

Are you saying all comic fans are Conan fans?

There is probably a lot of crossover between comic fans and the
demographic going to see the John Carter film. Is it also a comic
film? A lot of crossover with wrestling. Is wrestling Comic Book TV
shows?

Crossover demographic is meaningless in this discussion.

===
= DUG.
===

[grinningdemon]

On Wed, 11 Jan 2012 00:02:33 -0800 (PST), Duggy
<Paul....@jcu.edu.au> wrote:

>On Jan 11, 4:44�pm, grinningdemon <grinningde...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 10 Jan 2012 21:14:42 -0800 (PST), Duggy
>> The main movie market wasn't alive
>> >when Marvel's Conan comics were at their height.
>> True...but there has pretty much been 40 continuous years of Conan
>> comics and counting plus tons of reprints throughout...versus a few
>> years of pulp stories from nearly a century ago...
>
>Those weren't the only stories. After REH a number of other writers
>wrote (and in some cases rewrote) Conan stories.

But, of the prose, the best known would be the REH stories...almost
everything else has been totally forgettable and I don't think you
seriously believe Conan would be best known for any of the later prose
stories...the only memorable thing about most of them were those
painted Frazetta covers.

>Robert Jordan wrote some Conan Novels.
>
>To handwave the prose as a couple of pulp stories nearly a century ago
>isn't representative.

The REH stories are the best of the prose and easily the best known.

>> and you already
>> admitted the original film was inspired by the popularity of the
>> comics
>
>Partially, yes.
>
>> so, whether you want to say the new film was inspired by the
>> comics or by the original film that was inspired by the comics, it's
>> still a comic movie.
>
>The comics were inspired by REH's prose and particularly L. Sprague de
>Camp's Conan stories.

And yet there were probably a fair number of Conan fans reading those
comics for the first time back when they came out who weren't even
aware of the prose stories at all.

>> Oh, and the "main" movie market isn't interested in Conan films
>> anyway.
>
>Turns out.

>> >> the movie is only going to appeal to fans
>> >> of certain genres.
>> >Barbarian films.
>
>> That's a pretty limited genre that generally falls in with Fantasy
>> and/or Sci-Fi...
>
>True. So?

So most people probably wouldn't even categorize it as a seperate
genre at all.

>> and you know that...or are you so delluded that you
>> think there's no crossover between that demographic and comic fans?
>
>Are you saying all comic fans are Conan fans?

Of course not...but I'd bet a large percentage of Conan fans are or
have been comic fans at some point.

>There is probably a lot of crossover between comic fans and the
>demographic going to see the John Carter film. Is it also a comic
>film?

Not really...but it is related and I can see how some people might
lump it in with comic films...actually, come to think of it, it's
entirely possible that the character is best known to modern audiences
from comics (at least to those people who know of the character at
all...which probably isn't really that many these days)

A lot of crossover with wrestling. Is wrestling Comic Book TV
>shows?

Not even close to the same thing and you know it...most comics are of
the sci-fi/fantasy genres and many if not most scifi/fantasy fans are
comic fans.

>Crossover demographic is meaningless in this discussion.

Bullshit...they appeal to the same audience for much the same reasons
and with much the same subject matter.

The average viewer is likely to consider a Conan film to be a comic
movie...and I'd bet money most comic fans would consider it a comic
movie too (even if they're aware of his actual origins)...at least the
ones that aren't obssessed with nitpicking definitions and categories
like yourself.

[Edward McArdle]

The Conan comics were heavily characterised by lots of naked women.

I, of course, read them for the artic..., er, the plot.

--
Edward McArdle

[Duggy]

On Jan 11, 7:20 pm, grinningdemon <grinningde...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
> But, of the prose, the best known would be the REH stories...

Name one.

> ...the only memorable thing about most of them were those
> painted Frazetta covers.

On the magazine or the many, many reprint collections?

> >To handwave the prose as a couple of pulp stories nearly a century ago
> >isn't representative.
> The REH stories are the best of the prose and easily the best known.

How many non-REH issues of the comic are well known?

> >The comics were inspired by REH's prose and particularly L. Sprague de
> >Camp's Conan stories.
> And yet there were probably a fair number of Conan fans reading those
> comics for the first time back when they came out who weren't even
> aware of the prose stories at all.

And a fair number of people who went to the film weren't aware of the
comic.

And that applies even more to the latest film.

> >> That's a pretty limited genre that generally falls in with Fantasy
> >> and/or Sci-Fi...
> >True.  So?
> So most people probably wouldn't even categorize it as a seperate
> genre at all.

Because it's a subgenre.

> >> and you know that...or are you so delluded that you
> >> think there's no crossover between that demographic and comic fans?
> >Are you saying all comic fans are Conan fans?
> Of course not...but I'd bet a large percentage of Conan fans are or
> have been comic fans at some point.

That's nice.

I'd bet a large percentage of Conan fans are book fans or have read a
book at some time.

> >There is probably a lot of crossover between comic fans and the
> >demographic going to see the John Carter film.  Is it also a comic
> >film?

> Not really...but it is related and I can see how some people might
> lump it in with comic films...

Yeah. Stupid people like to lump anything into "Comics films".

I recall a serious reviewer wishing they'd stop making Comic Book
films - by which he meant Super Hero films. Whereas I'm sure a number
of films based on comics from the time (Road to Perdition, A History
of Violence) he didn't mind at all.

But some people like to lump any over the top fantastic film into the
Comic Book film category whether it fits or not.

> (at least to those people who know of the character at
> all...which probably isn't really that many these days)

That's true. I was having a discussion with a fan of the Tarzan
novels who had no idea that the film coming out was based on an ERB
book. Or a comic for that matter.

> A lot of crossover with wrestling.  Is wrestling Comic Book TV
> >shows?

> Not even close to the same thing and you know it...most comics are of
> the sci-fi/fantasy genres and many if not most scifi/fantasy fans are
> comic fans.

Not really. I've known a large number of SF fans who don't like
comics. I've known a number of SF fans who think comics are too
nerdy. I've known a number of SF fans who don't like Superheroes (and
therefore think they don't like comics).

I work in an IT call centre which is full of SF fans and few are comic
book fans.

> >Crossover demographic is meaningless in this discussion.
> Bullshit...they appeal to the same audience for much the same reasons
> and with much the same subject matter.

Meaningless because it's not 100%.

> The average viewer is likely to consider a Conan film to be a comic
> movie...

Proof?

> and I'd bet money most comic fans would consider it a comic
> movie too

Comic book fans can be wrong.

> ...at least the
> ones that aren't obssessed with nitpicking definitions and categories
> like yourself.

Ah... the ones not worth knowing.

===
= DUG.
===

[Duggy]

On Jan 11, 9:56 pm, mcar...@ozemail.com.au (Edward McArdle) wrote:
> The Conan comics were heavily characterised by lots of naked women.
>
> I, of course, read them for the artic..., er, the plot.

As are many barbarian films.

I once counted the breasts in Barbarian Queen. Mostly those belonging
to Phil Spektor's victim.

===
= DUG.
===

[Paul David Wright]

Duggy <Paul....@jcu.edu.au> wrote in
news:ba464eec-49af-4c5e...@q17g2000yqh.googlegroups.com:

>
> On Jan 10, 10:43=A0am, Paul David Wright <pauldavidwri...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>> Duggy <Paul.Dug...@jcu.edu.au> wrote
>> innews:571f7e94-f16f-4ef6-a890-e453d=
> a87...@y7g2000vbe.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Jan 9, 1:33=3DA0pm, Paul David Wright

>> > <pauldavidwri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> Duggy <Paul.Dug...@jcu.edu.au> wrote

>> >> innews:b726b357-8e21-4e5c-8726-7c95a=3D
>> > d40f...@i26g2000vbt.googlegroups.com:
>>
>> >> > On Jan 8, 12:58=3D3DA0pm, grinningdemon
>> >> > <grinningde...@austin.rr.com=

>>
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> >> On Sat, 7 Jan 2012 17:03:30 -0800 (PST), Duggy
>>
>> >> >> <Paul.Dug...@jcu.edu.au> wrote:

>> >> >> >On Jan 6, 12:25=3D3DA0pm, grinningdemon

>> >> >> ><grinningde...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >> On Thu, 5 Jan 2012 13:24:06 -0800 (PST), Duggy
>>
>> >> >> >> <p.allan.dug...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> >> >> >> >On Jan 3, 11:53=3D3DA0am, grinningdemon
>> >> >> >> ><grinningde...@austin.rr.com=3D
>>
>> >> >> >> >wro=3D3D

>> >> > te:
>> >> >> >> >> On Mon, 2 Jan 2012 02:12:43 -0800 (PST), Duggy
>>
>> >> >> >> >> <Paul.Dug...@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >On Jan 2, 3:14 am, Michael Napier <oksc...@gmail.com>
>> >> >> >> >> >wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >> > but, as you said, we
>> >> >> >> >> >> > can't prove it either way.
>> >> >> >> >> >> Right again, GrinningDemon! LOL!
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >Exactly.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> I've clearly been stating an opinion this whole time and
>> >> >> >> >> never said otherwise...
>>
>> >> >> >> >And copying me while doing so.
>>

>> >> >> >> >=3D3D3D=3D3D3D=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >> >=3D3D3D DUG.
>> >> >> >> >=3D3D3D=3D3D3D=3D3D3D
>>
>> >> >> >> Copying you? =3D3DA0What have you been smoking?

>>
>> >> >> >Post 5 in the thread: "But either way is speculation so
>> >> >> >there's no point arguing over it. "
>>
>> >> >> Something that seems to come up in most of our
>> >> >> discussions...and yet the arguing rarely ends there...I'd
>> >> >> hardly call it copying just because both happen to agree on
>> >> >> something.
>> >> > Like we agree that Conan started as prose in magazines.
>>
>> >> Ummm... Conan DID start off as prose in a magazine.
>> >> Weird Tales, in the 1930's, to be precise....
>>
>> > That's why we agree.
>
>> Hell, I'm not even sure what the argument is about. But I do know
>> that Robert E. Howard created Conan and published them in the 1930's.
>> Marvel's adaptions came along, what, in the 1970's? Quite a bit of
>> time between them.
>
> I don't know either. It clearly started in comics.
>

> =3D=3D=3D
> =3D DUG.
> =3D=3D=3D
>

Oh, brother.

[Lilith]

On Thu, 5 Jan 2012 05:13:37 -0800 (PST), EB <rickb...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>Really? Conan did more for Arnie than Terminator?
>You can't be serious. The Conan moive just sucked on all types of
>levels. Whereas Terminator
>was just a great fun movie. I watch Conan ONCE and thought it was just
>horrible dreck.
>Can't tell you how many times I've watched Terminator.
>And yes, the sequels have a lot to do with the movie quality also.
>By your own stats the Terminator franchise was (is) so much more
>profitable.

Heh! And here I thought that The Villain was Arnie's breatkthrough
film. :)

--
Lilith

[Duggy]

On Jan 12, 2:49 pm, Lilith <lilith...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 5 Jan 2012 05:13:37 -0800 (PST), EB <rickblac...@hotmail.com>

Cactus Jack? Not really.

===
= DUG.
===

[grinningdemon]

On Wed, 11 Jan 2012 05:16:15 -0800 (PST), Duggy
<p.allan...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Jan 11, 7:20 pm, grinningdemon <grinningde...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
>> But, of the prose, the best known would be the REH stories...
>
>Name one.

Tower of the Elephant...but I was speaking in general.

>> ...the only memorable thing about most of them were those
>> painted Frazetta covers.
>
>On the magazine or the many, many reprint collections?

On the paperback novels in the 60s and 70s...the original magazines
were a bit before even Frazetta's time.

>> >To handwave the prose as a couple of pulp stories nearly a century ago
>> >isn't representative.
>> The REH stories are the best of the prose and easily the best known.
>
>How many non-REH issues of the comic are well known?

Well, Red Sonja is mostly a non-REH character and she got her own
movie, so it definitely isn't totally limited to the REH stories...but
the character (as we know her) didn't originate from any of the other
prose either.

>> >The comics were inspired by REH's prose and particularly L. Sprague de
>> >Camp's Conan stories.
>> And yet there were probably a fair number of Conan fans reading those
>> comics for the first time back when they came out who weren't even
>> aware of the prose stories at all.
>
>And a fair number of people who went to the film weren't aware of the
>comic.
>
>And that applies even more to the latest film.

Then I guess, by your standards, you can't even call it a pulp movie
because Conan certainly isn't best known from the pulps he oiriginated
in.

>> >> That's a pretty limited genre that generally falls in with Fantasy
>> >> and/or Sci-Fi...
>> >True.  So?
>> So most people probably wouldn't even categorize it as a seperate
>> genre at all.
>
>Because it's a subgenre.

According to you...but it's an entirely subjective category.

>> >> and you know that...or are you so delluded that you
>> >> think there's no crossover between that demographic and comic fans?
>> >Are you saying all comic fans are Conan fans?
>> Of course not...but I'd bet a large percentage of Conan fans are or
>> have been comic fans at some point.
>
>That's nice.
>
>I'd bet a large percentage of Conan fans are book fans or have read a
>book at some time.

Having read a book doesn't make you a book fan any more than having
read a comic makes you a comic fan...it's as much about being a fan of
the genre as it is the medium.

>> >There is probably a lot of crossover between comic fans and the
>> >demographic going to see the John Carter film.  Is it also a comic
>> >film?
>
>> Not really...but it is related and I can see how some people might
>> lump it in with comic films...
>
>Yeah. Stupid people like to lump anything into "Comics films".

Considering John Carter or Conan a comic film doesn't mean you're
willing to lump anything into that category and you know it...but, as
usual, you dismiss anyone who doesn't agree with you as stupid...and
then acuse them of being petty when they stupe to your level and
insult you in return...since you like definitions so much, you should
try looking up "hypocrite" some time.

>I recall a serious reviewer wishing they'd stop making Comic Book
>films - by which he meant Super Hero films. Whereas I'm sure a number
>of films based on comics from the time (Road to Perdition, A History
>of Violence) he didn't mind at all.

Sure...there are plenty of comic films that aren't so easily
identified as such...but those aren't typical comic films either.

>But some people like to lump any over the top fantastic film into the
>Comic Book film category whether it fits or not.

These days, most "over the top fantastic" films DO fit the
category...and, if they don't, they come pretty close.

>> (at least to those people who know of the character at
>> all...which probably isn't really that many these days)
>
>That's true. I was having a discussion with a fan of the Tarzan
>novels who had no idea that the film coming out was based on an ERB
>book. Or a comic for that matter.

John Carter is a pretty obscure character these days...and it remains
to be seen whether or not this film will do anything to change that.

>> A lot of crossover with wrestling.  Is wrestling Comic Book TV
>> >shows?
>
>> Not even close to the same thing and you know it...most comics are of
>> the sci-fi/fantasy genres and many if not most scifi/fantasy fans are
>> comic fans.
>
>Not really. I've known a large number of SF fans who don't like
>comics.

And I've known a large number who do.

I've known a number of SF fans who think comics are too
>nerdy.

I've known "a number" who don't.

I've known a number of SF fans who don't like Superheroes (and
>therefore think they don't like comics).

And I've known "a number" of SF fans who DO like Superheroes...and
others who don't but still like non-superhero comics...often
specifically the sword and sorcery variety like Conan.

>I work in an IT call centre which is full of SF fans and few are comic
>book fans.

And I have worked for both the IRS and the Texas state government and
there are a surprising number of comic fans working for both...it's
not limited to computer geeks.

>> >Crossover demographic is meaningless in this discussion.
>> Bullshit...they appeal to the same audience for much the same reasons
>> and with much the same subject matter.
>
>Meaningless because it's not 100%.

That is totally ridiculous...but, with your "all or nothing"
mentality, I can't say I'm surprised...if every SF fan in the world
was a comic fan with only one exception, you would probably still
consider it meaningless.

>> The average viewer is likely to consider a Conan film to be a comic
>> movie...
>
>Proof?

Where is your proof to the contrary? That it even comes up enough for
us to have this discussion is enough to support my statement.

>> and I'd bet money most comic fans would consider it a comic
>> movie too
>
>Comic book fans can be wrong.

They can be right too.

>> ...at least the
>> ones that aren't obssessed with nitpicking definitions and categories
>> like yourself.
>
>Ah... the ones not worth knowing.

I've probably known thousands of comic fans either in person or
online...and I've never known anyone who nitpicks subjective
definitions for fictional categories and terms anywhere near as much
as you do.

[Steve Firth]

grinningdemon <grinni...@austin.rr.com> wrote:

> Well, Red Sonja is mostly a non-REH character and she got her own
> movie, so it definitely isn't totally limited to the REH stories...but
> the character (as we know her) didn't originate from any of the other
> prose either.

Given that Roy Thomas says that the character originated with REH (in
the introduction to "The Ring of Ikribu") being a composite of REH's
"Red Sonya of Rogatine", "Belit-the Shemitish she-pirate" and "Valeria
of the Red Brotherhood" you're wrong about Red Sonja originating from
the prose of REH.

[Duggy]

On Jan 23, 12:29 pm, grinningdemon <grinningde...@austin.rr.com>
wrote:

> On Wed, 11 Jan 2012 05:16:15 -0800 (PST), Duggy

> >> ...the only memorable thing about most of them were those
> >> painted Frazetta covers.
> >On the magazine or the many, many reprint collections?
> On the paperback novels in the 60s and 70s...the original magazines
> were a bit before even Frazetta's time.

All those years later and they were still being collected.

Must have been pretty well known.

> >How many non-REH issues of the comic are well known?
> Well, Red Sonja is mostly a non-REH character and she got her own
> movie, so it definitely isn't totally limited to the REH stories...but
> the character (as we know her) didn't originate from any of the other
> prose either.

But the comic she first appeared in did.

I ask again:

How many non-REH issues of the comic are well known?

> >> >The comics were inspired by REH's prose and particularly L. Sprague de
> >> >Camp's Conan stories.
> >> And yet there were probably a fair number of Conan fans reading those
> >> comics for the first time back when they came out who weren't even
> >> aware of the prose stories at all.
> >And a fair number of people who went to the film weren't aware of the
> >comic.

> >And that applies even more to the latest film.

> Then I guess, by your standards, you can't even call it a pulp movie
> because Conan certainly isn't best known from the pulps he oiriginated
> in.

No. My standard is: Conan originated in prose, he is a prose
character.
Your standard is: Whatever most people think something is it is.

We disagree on the standard, sure.

But my standard is objective. Conan originated in prose. You must
accept that, even if you don't accept that makes him a prose
character.

Your standard is subjective. You claim most people know Conan from
comics so he is a comic book character. You are yet to prove that
beyond vague claims and assumptions.

That some people think of him as a comic book character is true. But
some people isn't proof of most people.

> >> Not really...but it is related and I can see how some people might
> >> lump it in with comic films...

> >Yeah.  Stupid people like to lump anything into "Comics films".

> Considering John Carter or Conan a comic film doesn't mean you're
> willing to lump anything into that category and you know it...but, as
> usual, you dismiss anyone who doesn't agree with you as stupid...and
> then acuse them of being petty when they stupe to your level and
> insult you in return...since you like definitions so much, you should
> try looking up "hypocrite" some time.

You should look up "boring prat"

> >I recall a serious reviewer wishing they'd stop making Comic Book
> >films - by which he meant Super Hero films.  Whereas I'm sure a number
> >of films based on comics from the time (Road to Perdition, A History
> >of Violence) he didn't mind at all.

> Sure...there are plenty of comic films that aren't so easily
> identified as such...but those aren't typical comic films either.

But they are still based on comics.

> >But some people like to lump any over the top fantastic film into the
> >Comic Book film category whether it fits or not.
> These days, most "over the top fantastic" films DO fit the
> category...and, if they don't, they come pretty close.

Avatar?

> John Carter is a pretty obscure character these days...and it remains
> to be seen whether or not this film will do anything to change that.

True. I think with a marketing push the name will get out there...
but I guess the success (or not) of the film will decide if he sinks
back into obscurity.

> >> Not even close to the same thing and you know it...most comics are of
> >> the sci-fi/fantasy genres and many if not most scifi/fantasy fans are
> >> comic fans.

> >Not really.  I've known a large number of SF fans who don't like
> >comics.

> And I've known a large number who do.

You claim most.

> >I work in an IT call centre which is full of SF fans and few are comic
> >book fans.
> And I have worked for both the IRS and the Texas state government and
> there are a surprising number of comic fans working for both...it's
> not limited to computer geeks.

True. But I'm saying in my experience there is crossover but it's not
"most".

> >> >Crossover demographic is meaningless in this discussion.
> >> Bullshit...they appeal to the same audience for much the same reasons
> >> and with much the same subject matter.
> >Meaningless because it's not 100%.
> That is totally ridiculous...but, with your "all or nothing"
> mentality, I can't say I'm surprised...if every SF fan in the world
> was a comic fan with only one exception, you would probably still
> consider it meaningless.

For purposes of our discussion SF fans must 100% equal comic fans or
we may as well leave SF fans out of the discussion. If they are not
the same thing the only thing discussing them does is muddy the
waters.

> >> The average viewer is likely to consider a Conan film to be a comic
> >> movie...
> >Proof?

> Where is your proof to the contrary?

I make no claims about the average viewer. I claim that it originated
in prose and that makes it a prose film not a comic film. The average
viewer can think it originated as a TV show and that doesn't change my
claim.

You're the one who is making claims about the average viewer that you
cannot back up.

> That it even comes up enough for
> us to have this discussion is enough to support my statement.

It comes up often but that doesn't mean anything about the average
viewer.

Box Office Mojo says it made $21,295,021. Let's say that with ticket
prices and DVD and people watching it multiple times that a
hypothetical 1,000,000 people saw it.

You're claiming that 500,000 of those think it originated in comics.

Back that claim up.

> >> ...at least the
> >> ones that aren't obssessed with nitpicking definitions and categories
> >> like yourself.
> >Ah... the ones not worth knowing.
> I've probably known thousands of comic fans either in person or
> online...and I've never known anyone who nitpicks subjective
> definitions for fictional categories and terms anywhere near as much
> as you do.

I know plenty of people worse than me.

I had fun debating definitions of SF and Fantasy in "Literature in
Translation" and "Science Fiction, Fantasy & Popular Culture"
lectures. So did a lot of the class. I'm sure there were boring
people like your friends. But why would I care about the dull people?

===
= DUG.
===

[Duggy]

On Jan 23, 6:02 pm, %ste...@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote:

Although, from a legal standpoint, he is correct as Red Sonja and Red
Sonya are now considered separate characters.

That said... I asked "How many non-REH issues of the comic are well
known?" and he pulled out Red Sonja... who first appeared in "The
Shadow of the Vulture" based on a REH story.

Seems he can't come up with a famous Conan comic story not based on an
REH story.

===
= DUG.
===