WatchmenComicMovie.com Forum


Talk about the Watchmen comic book mini-series and film
It is currently Tue Nov 20, 2018 9:35 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 205 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 ... 11  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Oct 31, 2011 1:13 pm 
Offline
…a puppet who can see the strings.
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2007 1:42 pm
Posts: 8542
Location: A stronger world
Dr. Brooklyn wrote:
And another thing about the cash grab, the movie wasn't a success

Yes it was.

_________________
Dr. Brooklyn wrote:
it was tying it into the rape-revenge stories and making light of a verys erious sub-genre that kind of offended me.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 31, 2011 2:26 pm 
Offline
...you're locked in here with me!
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 22, 2008 9:19 pm
Posts: 10658
Location: Arkham, Mass.
feliciano182 wrote:
But that doesn't excuse Johns, Lee, Didio and the stockholders into perpetuating a painfully unethical treatment of a writer that has revolutionized an industry that right now, for the most part, fucking sucks.

I wonder what would've happened ten years ago if, as a gesture of good faith, they gave him the rights back and asked him to come work for them.

Isolated, crazy old Alan Moore you say ? I don't think so.


but ethics (as Watchmen touches on ironically) are a relative concept. Yes we as die hard fans of Moore view the transaction as unethical, but to an average person I'm sure it would just be a "Nothing personal, just business" kind of deal. Moore could have walked away from the table but he didn't... whether that's right or wrong is purely academic.

feliciano182 wrote:
That's not really the point I'm making, also you're bending the truth a little, Watchmen is the most succesful comic book in history, you can't call yourself an avid comic book reader and not have at least an idea of what Watchmen is, when the prequel hits, everyone will be have an opinion on it.


Let's be clear here, I'm not trying to down play Watchmen (also I'm not saying that's what you're saying) but the whole point of the new 52 wasn't to appeal to avid readers... it was to get new readers, people who probably only remember or know of Watchmen as "That movie with the blue naked guy"* They might have an opinion on it, yes, but for the most part it seems this move is not to reach towards old readers it's about bringing new readers in with characters they are at least semi familiar with.

AYBGerrardo wrote:
Dr. Brooklyn wrote:
And another thing about the cash grab, the movie wasn't a success

Yes it was.


Financially, yes it was a success, but you can't tell me that the mixed reviews from critics and fans was what they were going for.

_________________
@RealSlimCAvery
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 31, 2011 2:39 pm 
Offline
...you're locked in here with me!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 7:53 pm
Posts: 10216
Dr. Brooklyn wrote:
but ethics (as Watchmen touches on ironically) are a relative concept. Yes we as die hard fans of Moore view the transaction as unethical, but to an average person I'm sure it would just be a "Nothing personal, just business" kind of deal. Moore could have walked away from the table but he didn't... whether that's right or wrong is purely academic.


Of course, because academic findings and discussions have no bearing on reality.

No offense Doctor, but you're either rationalizing this to not feel guilty when you buy Watchmen by Darwyn Cooke, believing at the same time that there is nothing wrong with supporting the continuation of a contractual loophole that completely took a dump on the rights of writers and artists...

...or you're just trolling the crap out of me !

Dr. Brooklyn wrote:
Financially, yes it was a success, but you can't tell me that the mixed reviews from critics and fans was what they were going for.


You may be overlooking that DC believes that the characters themselves are capable of selling.

DC is probably thinking that the most loyal fans may not like a Rorschach book, but new fans will.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: DOLLAR SHILL
PostPosted: Mon Oct 31, 2011 3:35 pm 
Offline
Labored long to build a heaven.
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2009 2:48 pm
Posts: 12480
Location: Monster Island (Really New York)
feliciano182 wrote:
Smutty wrote:
feliciano182 wrote:
People Must Be Told. wrote:
OH, GOD, I CAN'T BELIEVE IT. I CAN'T BELIEVE ANYONE WOULD DO THAT...


Do you seriously think DC would explain their masterstroke if there remained the slightest chance of you affecting its outcome?

They released the prequels thirty-five minutes ago.


Awesome picture.

Still, The New Frontier movie was quite bad.


It wasn't bad, it just wasn't great.


It was quite incoherent, it was about nothing.

*photoshop with The New Frontier's characters' heads' replaced with the cast of Seinfeld*

I'm too lazy to actually do it right now.

_________________
"The world is a fine place and worth fighting for." I agree with the second part.
Image
"There's a cello in your house now."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 31, 2011 11:05 pm 
Offline
The Watcher
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2007 8:58 am
Posts: 3650
Location: New York
feliciano182 wrote:
No offense Doctor, but you're either rationalizing this to not feel guilty when you buy Watchmen by Darwyn Cooke, believing at the same time that there is nothing wrong with supporting the continuation of a contractual loophole that completely took a dump on the rights of writers and artists...

Please explain to me this "so-called" loophole.

Moore signed a standard (at the time) contract which states Moore would get the rights back after a certain period of time after the book goes out of print. It never went out of print, so Moore's out of luck. Thems the breaks.

Now, why such a clause? Well, if the thing turns out to be a turd, then DC will happily give you back the rights to your turd. Otherwise, they get to keep making money as long as it sells. Why is this "sneaky" or "immoral?"

Your comment of, "Sorry, it's just business." rings like a line uttered by character from a bad movie after said character whacks another guy's dad. Business is really just business. If you don't like business, join a commune or become a monk, but just because something is business does not make it sneaky or immoral.

Was George Lucas being "sneaky" or "immoral" when he told Fox he wanted to have all of the Star Wars merchandising rights back in '76? Fox figured there was no future in marketing Star Wars so they acquiesced. It made good business sense to Lucas, so he went for it. Turned out to be a huge mistake for Fox, but hindsight is 20/20. Again, thems the breaks and life can be a bitch.

If Moore would have said, "no" to DC's terms what would have happened? DC would have told Moore, "fine, we'll get someone else to write this." or " Okay, we'll pass." End of story.

Now, is it a "cash grab?" Fuck, yeah. Remember, this is business, right? Whatever DC does with Watchmen it's designed to make money. Period. DC is not NPR. DC is not The Salvation Army. They are a "for profit" company, which means they have to make a profit. Again, it doesn't make them evil. They don't dump oil in the gulf and say, "oops!" They don't create massive mortgage bubbles and crash the global economy. They make little colored books about guys who wear tights and fly. I think this puts them on the lowest level there is on the Evil Business Meter.

Now, if they end up doing a sequel (and I don't think they will) that would make DC stupid - not evil.

If they make a few prequel stories - attach Gibbons, Higgins and some other capable talent who will nurture the characters and try their fucking hardest to create good stories - well, business-wise, that's pretty smart and will most likely make them money.

Maybe those stories will be good, maybe great, maybe a huge pile of shit.

It won't be immoral; it won't sully or ruin the original Watchmen; and it sure as hell won't hurt the economy or kill any seagulls either.

_________________
Those who dance are considered insane by those who can't hear the music - George Carlin


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 31, 2011 11:20 pm 
Offline
Labored long to build a heaven.
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2009 2:48 pm
Posts: 12480
Location: Monster Island (Really New York)
DoomsdayClock wrote:
It won't be immoral; it won't sully or ruin the original Watchmen; and it sure as hell won't hurt the economy or kill any seagulls either.

Well, I kill seagulls on the weekend with my absolute edition, but that's another matter entirely.

_________________
"The world is a fine place and worth fighting for." I agree with the second part.
Image
"There's a cello in your house now."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 31, 2011 11:50 pm 
Offline
...you're locked in here with me!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 7:53 pm
Posts: 10216
DoomsdayClock wrote:
Moore signed a standard (at the time) contract which states Moore would get the rights back after a certain period of time after the book goes out of print. It never went out of print, so Moore's out of luck. Thems the breaks.


Saying that this contract does not have a loophole is like saying Lehman Brothers didn't commit fraud.

So you don't think there's anything immoral about presenting a contract designed only to benefit one side of the equation ? Specially when all of the heavy lifting is done by the side that doesn't benefit ?

DoomsdayClock wrote:
Business is really just business. If you don't like business, join a commune or become a monk, but just because something is business does not make it sneaky or immoral.


I don't want to sound like my entire family has just been offended.

But comments like that are almost insulting to my intelligence, which may not be as much as some, but it sure is enough to acknowledge a lame wave-off from people incapable of properly digesting difference of opinions.

DoomsdayClock wrote:
Was George Lucas being "sneaky" or "immoral" when he told Fox he wanted to have all of the Star Wars merchandising rights back in '76? Fox figured there was no future in marketing Star Wars so they acquiesced. It made good business sense to Lucas, so he went for it. Turned out to be a huge mistake for Fox, but hindsight is 20/20. Again, thems the breaks and life can be a bitch.


Lucas did all the heavy lifting, Lucas benefitted and profitted from the exchange of a product to which he held all intelectual property of.

This.........is the complete opposite of what happened with Alan Moore and Watchmen.

DoomsdayClock wrote:
Now, is it a "cash grab?" Fuck, yeah. Remember, this is business, right? Whatever DC does with Watchmen it's designed to make money. Period. DC is not NPR. DC is not The Salvation Army. They are a "for profit" company, which means they have to make a profit. Again, it doesn't make them evil. They don't dump oil in the gulf and say, "oops!" They don't create massive mortgage bubbles and crash the global economy. They make little colored books about guys who wear tights and fly. I think this puts them on the lowest level there is on the Evil Business Meter.


I want you to answer me who, EXACTLY who, in the name of all reason and goddamn sense, is saying otherwise ?

DoomsdayClock wrote:
Now, if they end up doing a sequel (and I don't think they will) that would make DC stupid - not evil.


Oh, so now you're worried about the integrity of the story ? I thought DC was a company whose only concern should be profit, if a marketing study proved that a sequel was profittable, then why the hell wouldn't you agree with DC trying to make a sequel ?

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 01, 2011 12:08 am 
Offline
I don't think there is a god. And if there is I'm nothing like him.
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2009 1:26 pm
Posts: 5400
Location: Knee Deep in the Dead
DoomsdayClock wrote:
feliciano182 wrote:
No offense Doctor, but you're either rationalizing this to not feel guilty when you buy Watchmen by Darwyn Cooke, believing at the same time that there is nothing wrong with supporting the continuation of a contractual loophole that completely took a dump on the rights of writers and artists...

Please explain to me this "so-called" loophole.

Moore signed a standard (at the time) contract which states Moore would get the rights back after a certain period of time after the book goes out of print. It never went out of print, so Moore's out of luck. Thems the breaks.

Now, why such a clause? Well, if the thing turns out to be a turd, then DC will happily give you back the rights to your turd. Otherwise, they get to keep making money as long as it sells. Why is this "sneaky" or "immoral?"

Your comment of, "Sorry, it's just business." rings like a line uttered by character from a bad movie after said character whacks another guy's dad. Business is really just business. If you don't like business, join a commune or become a monk, but just because something is business does not make it sneaky or immoral.

Was George Lucas being "sneaky" or "immoral" when he told Fox he wanted to have all of the Star Wars merchandising rights back in '76? Fox figured there was no future in marketing Star Wars so they acquiesced. It made good business sense to Lucas, so he went for it. Turned out to be a huge mistake for Fox, but hindsight is 20/20. Again, thems the breaks and life can be a bitch.

If Moore would have said, "no" to DC's terms what would have happened? DC would have told Moore, "fine, we'll get someone else to write this." or " Okay, we'll pass." End of story.

Now, is it a "cash grab?" Fuck, yeah. Remember, this is business, right? Whatever DC does with Watchmen it's designed to make money. Period. DC is not NPR. DC is not The Salvation Army. They are a "for profit" company, which means they have to make a profit. Again, it doesn't make them evil. They don't dump oil in the gulf and say, "oops!" They don't create massive mortgage bubbles and crash the global economy. They make little colored books about guys who wear tights and fly. I think this puts them on the lowest level there is on the Evil Business Meter.

Now, if they end up doing a sequel (and I don't think they will) that would make DC stupid - not evil.

If they make a few prequel stories - attach Gibbons, Higgins and some other capable talent who will nurture the characters and try their fucking hardest to create good stories - well, business-wise, that's pretty smart and will most likely make them money.

Maybe those stories will be good, maybe great, maybe a huge pile of shit.

It won't be immoral; it won't sully or ruin the original Watchmen; and it sure as hell won't hurt the economy or kill any seagulls either.

Agree 100%

_________________
My letterboxd

I'll be right back. I gotta go see a man about a mule.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 01, 2011 12:13 am 
Offline
...you're locked in here with me!
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 22, 2008 9:19 pm
Posts: 10658
Location: Arkham, Mass.
feliciano182 wrote:
Saying that this contract does not have a loophole is like saying Lehman Brothers didn't commit fraud.

So you don't think there's anything immoral about presenting a contract designed only to benefit one side of the equation ? Specially when all of the heavy lifting is done by the side that doesn't benefit ?


That's not a loophole, that's a condition. DC had all the money and publishing ability, for them to invest in a story they have to think that they could get something out of it.

A loophole implies some trickery, this was a pretty straightforward transaction, Moore and Gibbons knew exactly what they were getting into way back then, even if they didn't realize that Watchmen would be in print for 25+ years, they weren't tricked or lied to in any way.

_________________
@RealSlimCAvery
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 01, 2011 12:30 am 
Offline
...you're locked in here with me!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 7:53 pm
Posts: 10216
Dr. Brooklyn wrote:
That's not a loophole, that's a condition. DC had all the money and publishing ability, for them to invest in a story they have to think that they could get something out of it.


It's a loophole because the contract was made to never be able to comply with the demands of the creators, it benefits DC, and only DC in every instance.

Now, I don't know about you, but I thought good business is that in which both parties are satisfied after the transaction.

Dr. Brooklyn wrote:
Moore and Gibbons knew exactly what they were getting into way back then, even if they didn't realize that Watchmen would be in print for 25+ years, they weren't tricked or lied to in any way.


You gotta lend me that time machine of yours, I could have tons of fun with it :)

As I've said, Moore and Gibbons made a bad deal, surely there's a degree of responsibility that they hold as to their current situation right now.

But I have to speculate, to wonder, if this deal went off as just a simple transaction, or if perhaps the terms we are debating now were part of some fine print that was deemed irrelevant by Moore and Gibbons at the time, which DC made sure they would never pay much attention to.

Because, to be frank, it has always sounded strange to me that anyone would accept such a contract, maybe things were different back then.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 01, 2011 12:51 am 
Offline
Tired of Earth.
User avatar

Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2007 11:01 am
Posts: 8041
Location: Clackamas, OR
feliciano182 wrote:
Because, to be frank, it has always sounded strange to me that anyone would accept such a contract, maybe things were different back then.

If I recall correctly, that condition was SOP back in the day. Every comic book creator in the DC stable worked under those terms. I wouldn't be surprised if they still do, or if Marvel ever did something similar.

Really, this entire thing -- from Watchmen's development right up until now -- is a demonstration of a single irrefutable truth: Power does what power wants.

_________________
This is truly a madhouse. And I'm the lunatic running it. I've spent three years wondering if I should be proud or ashamed.

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 01, 2011 4:40 am 
Offline
New Frontiersman

Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2008 12:24 pm
Posts: 342
.


Last edited by People Must Be Told. on Fri Dec 02, 2011 4:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 01, 2011 7:54 am 
Offline
The Watcher
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2007 8:58 am
Posts: 3650
Location: New York
feliciano182 wrote:
Saying that this contract does not have a loophole is like saying Lehman Brothers didn't commit fraud. So you don't think there's anything immoral about presenting a contract designed only to benefit one side of the equation ? Specially when all of the heavy lifting is done by the side that doesn't benefit ?

You obviously don't do any business like this. If my lawyer writes a contract, he will certainly write it to favor the party he's writing it for. Now that doesn't mean he writes an unfair and lopsided contract, because the other side would immediately cry foul and kill the deal. Again, this is business. Are you saying that Moore didn't benefit at all from the contract? A contract is series of "gives" and "takes" - some "wins" and some "losses" - more money, less rights - more creative freedom, tighter delivery deadlines - and so on. A contract is no more sneaky than a pitcher and catcher hiding from the batter what pitch is coming next. In your world that wouldn't be fair. In your world, Chris Carpenter should yell out to the batter, "Hey, buddy! Next one's going to be a fastball, low and outside! Good luck!" Right, that would be "fair," but it would also lead to the 2011 World Champion Texas Rangers.

feliciano182 wrote:
I don't want to sound like my entire family has just been offended. But comments like that are almost insulting to my intelligence, which may not be as much as some, but it sure is enough to acknowledge a lame wave-off from people incapable of properly digesting difference of opinions.

The comment wasn't designed to offend. Sorry if it came off that way. I'm being extreme to make a point. You're coming off as being biased against "big" business, and your bias has no basis in fact. You can sit there and say DC had nefarious intent and that Moore and Gibbons were given the Svengali treatment. I wasn't there either, but based on what DC, Gibbons, Higgins, Len Wein, and so many others in the business around that time have stated, nothing "eviL" was perpetrated. I know this will get the conspiracy theorist in you to state something like, "yeah, but they're scared to tell the truth and face the wrath of DC." The facts are they were presented with a standard contract and signed it. Period.

feliciano182 wrote:
Lucas did all the heavy lifting, Lucas benefitted and profitted from the exchange of a product to which he held all intelectual property of. This.........is the complete opposite of what happened with Alan Moore and Watchmen.

What! Lucas benefited greatly! He came to a studio and said, "Hi. I'm fucking nobody, with virtually no track record in the movie business, with a movie idea that, based on all precedent, will be a very expensive kids movie that nobody will come to see. Can you give me a shitload on money so I can make this risky sci-fi film and then promote it so that maybe someone will come see it." And they took that risk. High risk should bring greater rewards. It's obvious you just hate "the man." The fact that it is the opposite at least proves the door swings both ways. Should Fox have cried "foul" and sued Lucas for a piece of the merchandising? Should they get what their owed on lost revenues there?

feliciano182 wrote:
I want you to answer me who, EXACTLY who, in the name of all reason and goddamn sense, is saying otherwise?

My comments on the "cash grab" were posted to show you I agree with you here. I know some others posting here were saying it wasn't a "cash grab," so I wanted to give my opinion.

feliciano182 wrote:
Oh, so now you're worried about the integrity of the story ? I thought DC was a company whose only concern should be profit, if a marketing study proved that a sequel was profittable, then why the hell wouldn't you agree with DC trying to make a sequel ?

Don't twist my words. I never said their only concern should be to make a profit, and I don't think that's the case. If it was, Watchmen Babies would have hit the shelves 15 years ago. I think a good company weighs profit against other factors like artistic integrity, treating their talent and readers with respect. Does DC do that all the time? Maybe not. Do they try? I would like to think so. Are there some suits at DC who are assholes and don't give a shit about anything else but making a buck? Could be. To answer your questions, no, I'm not worried about the integrity of the story. A sequel doesn't make sense to me, and I personally don't think it would be a good idea. If DC did a sequel, I would speak out against it, but I don't think making a sequel is "immoral" or would tarnish the original. I'm just stating that if DC were to make a sequel, that it would be a stupid idea as we all know a sequel does not make any sense. Again, it wouldn't be "evil" or "immoral," just a bad choice. Prequels are a better choice. I admit - a comic about Nite Owl and Rorschach fighting crime in the early 70's will likely do nothing to expand on what we know of these characters, but it could be fun to read - that's all.

_________________
Those who dance are considered insane by those who can't hear the music - George Carlin


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 01, 2011 10:26 am 
Offline
Dog Carcass in Alley
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2007 11:55 am
Posts: 6493
Location: Toronto, Ont, Canada
People Must Be Told. wrote:
Image


This protest has been sponsored by Time Warner.

_________________
Image

"Heard them Walthers like to jump some" "As will you, with one in your elbow."


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 01, 2011 1:05 pm 
Offline
New Frontiersman

Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2008 12:24 pm
Posts: 342
.


Last edited by People Must Be Told. on Fri Dec 02, 2011 4:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 01, 2011 1:12 pm 
Offline
The Watcher
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2007 8:58 am
Posts: 3650
Location: New York
People Must Be Told. wrote:
Isn't everything these days... probably even Alan Moore's weed.

And at this juncture, since merchandising goodies have reared their head, why not take the time to consider such revenue spinners whilst the whole subject of DC and ethics, and demonstrations of underlying intent, and "cash grabs", and loopholes, and being "sneaky" and "immoral" is in debate?
I concordantly invite your collective views thusly:

Image Image

Yep. They absolutely tried to screw Moore here. No arguments from me there. But in this case, they didn't even ask Moore. There was no discussion, meeting or contracts to sign. Just a good old-fashioned end run around.

_________________
Those who dance are considered insane by those who can't hear the music - George Carlin


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 01, 2011 4:47 pm 
Offline
Tired of Earth.
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 3:19 pm
Posts: 8132
Location: 1060 W. Addison St.
I'm pretty sure Alan Moore still gets quite a living off his other works and publicity.

Really, the man is doing quite well, like George Lucas (obviously Moore doesn't have as much money as Lucas, but they are still doing better than most of us).


tl;dr stop whining.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 13, 2011 2:22 am 
Offline
Crimebuster
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 02, 2009 4:23 pm
Posts: 25
People Must Be Told. wrote:
Isn't everything these days... probably even Alan Moore's weed.


Welcome back Dave. Did I get it right? You know, I saw the interview thread with AYBGerrardo, the painting of the Comedian being thrown through the window in the backround. Breakthrough was it not?

"It works perfectly fine if you want things to explode upon arrival"

Dr. Manhattan teleporting out of the globe? A well placed E-mail? this is just a well placed guess! I enjoyed your art.

Did I get it right? Believe me, no one here will know.

Does Alan Moore smoke that much pot?

_________________
Sometimes the difference between a good joke and a bad joke, depends on its delivery!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 13, 2011 3:21 am 
Offline
Never compromise. Not even in the face of Armageddon.
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 24, 2008 7:29 am
Posts: 4978
Lazlo 1985 wrote:
People Must Be Told. wrote:
Isn't everything these days... probably even Alan Moore's weed.


Welcome back Dave. Did I get it right? You know, I saw the interview thread with AYBGerrardo, the painting of the Comedian being thrown through the window in the backround. Breakthrough was it not?

"It works perfectly fine if you want things to explode upon arrival"

Dr. Manhattan teleporting out of the globe? A well placed E-mail? this is just a well placed guess! I enjoyed your art.

Did I get it right? Believe me, no one here will know.

Does Alan Moore smoke that much pot?


Dave Gibbons was forum member Moe Vernon.
Anyway, according to Warren Ellis, Moore smokes weed by the truckload

_________________
Say, Doc, did I ever tell you I'm the only metal that's liquid at room temperature?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 13, 2011 8:51 am 
Offline
…a puppet who can see the strings.
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2007 1:42 pm
Posts: 8542
Location: A stronger world
I'm still offended no-one thinks I'm Dave Gibbons.

_________________
Dr. Brooklyn wrote:
it was tying it into the rape-revenge stories and making light of a verys erious sub-genre that kind of offended me.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 205 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 ... 11  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
[ Time : 0.136s | 11 Queries | GZIP : Off ]