Now that November is fast approaching I am very excited to soon have the graphic novel reprint of the original diana comic strips that BF is releasing. I pre-ordered it as soon as it was announced, which was so long ago- i think approx. 18 months!
I too have had reservations about the audio adaptations, but I remember feeling that way when i first heard the South African radio series. Hearing the restored versions not so long ago including some newly found episodes, I began to see that it had a certain charm of its own. So maybe in time the BF series will make me feel this.
The new "Batman 66 meets Steed & mrs Peel" comic series that is currently running uses photo-referencing, so the characters actually do look like the actors, which really helps I find to think of it as connected to the TV series. (It really makes my blood boil how they cannot use the name "The Avengers" but I won't get started on that one...). The previous comic series, such as "Golden Game" & "Deadly rainbow" by Eclipse comics in the '90s didn't use photo-referencing, as I recall, so it really seemed separate in my mind. Same with the more recent Boom studios comic series, which couldn't seem to make up its mind-sometimes there was photo-referencing yet most times not! But, then, for me that wasn't the only confusing thing about that series!
Avengers TV v Marvel Avengers - What's in a Name?
-
Avengerholic
- The Bird Who Wrote Too Much
- Posts: 1471
- Joined: Mon Sep 01, 2008 4:48 pm
- Has thanked: 2 times
- Been thanked: 15 times
- Contact:
-
Alan
- Diabolical Mastermind
- Posts: 2967
- Joined: Mon Sep 01, 2008 12:51 pm
- Location: The Edge of Avengerland
- Has thanked: 13 times
- Been thanked: 5 times
- Contact:
It's an understandable concession as in comic circles 'The Avengers' doesn't mean what the name means to us.
It'd be like Apple (Computers) going to music, an area where a different Apple has a presence. Oh wait, they just barged in and did what they liked...
In this instance, it makes sense as 'Steed and Mrs Peel' instantly identifies *which* Avengers is being referred to, even if it concentrates on just one part of the series.
It'd be like Apple (Computers) going to music, an area where a different Apple has a presence. Oh wait, they just barged in and did what they liked...
In this instance, it makes sense as 'Steed and Mrs Peel' instantly identifies *which* Avengers is being referred to, even if it concentrates on just one part of the series.
yes, yes. Still absolutely hate it. Marvel, like Apple Computers, have been determined to dominate the marketplace. They set out to make sure "The Avengers" became "theirs" and spent millions on publicity to ensure it did.
It was actually the case that a majority of Americans, especially of a certain age, did associate the name "Avengers" with the TV series. Since it first aired in US it has constanly been repeated in syndication and in the '80s was "discovered" by US college students and became a massive cult hit. (this was the audience that "buffy" later appealed to, and i'm sure Joss Whedon was very aware of it. He later turned Black Widow in the Marvel Avengers film into an Emma Peel clone, which she practically was anyway. When Emma Peel hit big, Black Widow in the comics suddenly started wearing black leather catsuits. Even Wonder Woman at this time ditched her usual costume and started wearing catsuits and using karate!).
When the Marvel Avengers film was first announced, many thought it was another TV remake. Marvel knew this and had to turn it around if their intended movie franchise was to be a success. The comic world is a world within itself and it is not nearly as huge or mainstream as film and TV. Comic-Con in San Diego US was once very much a cult thing and the
average American wasn't really aware of it. Nor was the average American aware of Marvel's Avengers. Other comic titles were much better known, such as Fantastic Four and X-Men.
Yes, credit to Marvel for making Americans and a worldwide audience aware of their "Avengers" but they spent millions in doing so because, again like Apple, their goal was to push aside any rivals and dominate the market.
It was actually the case that a majority of Americans, especially of a certain age, did associate the name "Avengers" with the TV series. Since it first aired in US it has constanly been repeated in syndication and in the '80s was "discovered" by US college students and became a massive cult hit. (this was the audience that "buffy" later appealed to, and i'm sure Joss Whedon was very aware of it. He later turned Black Widow in the Marvel Avengers film into an Emma Peel clone, which she practically was anyway. When Emma Peel hit big, Black Widow in the comics suddenly started wearing black leather catsuits. Even Wonder Woman at this time ditched her usual costume and started wearing catsuits and using karate!).
When the Marvel Avengers film was first announced, many thought it was another TV remake. Marvel knew this and had to turn it around if their intended movie franchise was to be a success. The comic world is a world within itself and it is not nearly as huge or mainstream as film and TV. Comic-Con in San Diego US was once very much a cult thing and the
average American wasn't really aware of it. Nor was the average American aware of Marvel's Avengers. Other comic titles were much better known, such as Fantastic Four and X-Men.
Yes, credit to Marvel for making Americans and a worldwide audience aware of their "Avengers" but they spent millions in doing so because, again like Apple, their goal was to push aside any rivals and dominate the market.
-
Alan
- Diabolical Mastermind
- Posts: 2967
- Joined: Mon Sep 01, 2008 12:51 pm
- Location: The Edge of Avengerland
- Has thanked: 13 times
- Been thanked: 5 times
- Contact:
The point I'm making is that 'our' Avengers is not a rival to them in the current marketplace, and I'm quite sure that they give it little thought.mrspeel01 wrote:Current-yes I agree. But I think you are absolutely wrong about Marvel not wanting their Avengers to dominate. As I said, they have spent millions to do so. They are a big American business. That is what they do-they don't want rivals, they want to dominate.
If they did, then StudioCanal would have received a legal challenge regarding the use of the name, which of course they haven't.
It's also worth remembering that their Avengers is only predated by ours by just over two years (the first comic debuted in Sept 1963).
The Point I was making is that they DID have to spend lots of money to get people to know their Avengers, as the comic was not actually that well known, either in America or worldwide, whereas the TV series was. If the Film remake of the TV series had been a huge success and even spawned sequels, then that would have made it highly unlikely that they would have launched their movie. They were extremely lucky in that regard.
Yes, due to copyright laws in US the fact the name was only copyrighted in UK in 1961 meant Marvel could copyright it in US in 1963. Just as America was able to call a sport "Football ", even though a sport of that name had been played everywhere else in the world for approx. 100 years! Does that make it right?! Not in my book. If there were proper worldwide copyright laws as there should be, then whoever copyrights a name first would own it! Marvel would certainly not want to mount a legal challenge for the name as they would find themselves in a complicated legal situation. The TV series originally aired in US in 1966-1969 and the Film remake was in 1998, so it could be argued that the name in TV & Film is not automatically theirs, as these came before their movie. Plus the fact that Marvel did not make a legal challenge at either of these times. (Marvel did sort of sidestep this issue as the actual full official title of their film, except in UK & Ireland, is "Marvel's The Avengers". That is also how it appeared on screen. Of course in film reviews, magazines, etc this is rarely used.) If there were a legal case, because of the complexity, only the lawyers would benefit.
But Marvel DID have to change the name of their first Avengers film in UK & Ireland (to "Marvel's Avengers Assemble") not just to avoid confusion, but because the name IS copyrighted in UK and they wanted to avoid even the possibility of a lawsuit.
As I said Marvel have done a good job of making their Avengers the one that is best known today so credit to them. But what i was saying is that they had to make sure that happened for their movies to succeed. They knew it and they did it.
Yes, due to copyright laws in US the fact the name was only copyrighted in UK in 1961 meant Marvel could copyright it in US in 1963. Just as America was able to call a sport "Football ", even though a sport of that name had been played everywhere else in the world for approx. 100 years! Does that make it right?! Not in my book. If there were proper worldwide copyright laws as there should be, then whoever copyrights a name first would own it! Marvel would certainly not want to mount a legal challenge for the name as they would find themselves in a complicated legal situation. The TV series originally aired in US in 1966-1969 and the Film remake was in 1998, so it could be argued that the name in TV & Film is not automatically theirs, as these came before their movie. Plus the fact that Marvel did not make a legal challenge at either of these times. (Marvel did sort of sidestep this issue as the actual full official title of their film, except in UK & Ireland, is "Marvel's The Avengers". That is also how it appeared on screen. Of course in film reviews, magazines, etc this is rarely used.) If there were a legal case, because of the complexity, only the lawyers would benefit.
But Marvel DID have to change the name of their first Avengers film in UK & Ireland (to "Marvel's Avengers Assemble") not just to avoid confusion, but because the name IS copyrighted in UK and they wanted to avoid even the possibility of a lawsuit.
As I said Marvel have done a good job of making their Avengers the one that is best known today so credit to them. But what i was saying is that they had to make sure that happened for their movies to succeed. They knew it and they did it.