MisterJ

July 3, 2012 12:36 pm Is that Samuel L. Jackson-Nick Fury?? How could they turn yet another character into a minority?? Oh the humanity!! (This was a sarcastic, hyperbolic, intentionally ridiculous statement meant to be satirical) (Also, I am a minority myself, so please ifanbase, get that this is a joke) (I hate that the internet makes me put disclaimers such as the above up in order to be clear)

July 3, 2012 12:12 pm What really makes me upset is that this episode looks to set up the next season (Galactus!!) and we already know that we are not getting one. Well better to die a hero, than live to see them make you a villain. (or whatever was said in Dark Knight)

June 2, 2012 10:21 am @megavikingman; As a lawyer I can assure you that you are incorrect and that the definition of theft is far, far closer to the former than to the latter.

May 8, 2012 1:51 pm @sitara119; 'Well known' also='notorious'. Which would be the opposite of popular. In this case it is clear that popular must mean both well known and well liked. Howard the Duck succeeds at the first criteria, but fails the second. Just ask logic.

May 6, 2012 8:35 pm @Runaway13; But that is exactly what I mean. She ignored the rating. It's not Marvel's fault at all. PG-13 can mean violence and blood, all curse words except for the 'C-word' and the 'F-word', sex, and butts and breasts. What she thought as a result of marketing only supports the position that she; a) couldn't be bothered to look at actual relevant evidence, or b) she put her willingness to see the movie above the emotional maturity level of the child. She chose to ignore that and your scorn should have been directed at her, not at Marvel. By the same token, if it was 20 years ago, when McDonald's was selling Jurassic Park happy meals, it didn't mean that the lawyer wasn't going to be eaten by the T-Rex, the hunter wasn't going to be eaten by the 'raptors, and 'Neuman' wasn't going to get his face ripped off by whatever that thing was. PG-13 is PG-13. Whether someone is getting their heart ripped out of their chest in Indiana Jones 2, or they fire an old lady out of a window to her death in Gremlins. The rating should supersede any marketing tie in. Ignorance is never a sufficient excuse.

May 6, 2012 7:27 pm What you experienced was the mother's fault. It was not at all Marvel's fault. The kid was six. The movie was rated PG-13. They warned her, and she ignored it. But by all means, let's not blame people who ignore suggestions and take kids to something that they can't handle, and place the blame squarely where it belongs, with the evil corporations trying to make money. Those evil bastards! /sarcasm/

April 25, 2012 8:14 am Thanks

April 24, 2012 10:22 pm Yeah, that makes sense. Corporations are deathly afraid of other corporations suing them. Not to mention the whole 'professional courtesy' angle. I would rather a Buzz Lightyear deathsquad as opposed to a Pirate or an army of animated brooms! ;)

April 24, 2012 8:42 pm The omnibus is going to contain both the series and this side series? What's the retail on that?

April 24, 2012 7:14 pm @Ken-Hi, newbie lawyer here. Marvel can prohibit anything that they want. I am just unsure of the ramifications of you violating the prohibition. This is no different than buying an issue and immediately re-selling it before you access the digital copy. You are not re-creating or re-selling something. You are giving it away. You are giving away something that Marvel itself was giving away. You are not taking anything that Marvel would be benefiting from. One of the first things that you learn in law school is that to sue, you must demonstrate damages. I just do not see how they could prove that up. But again, I am not an IP attorney, so maybe the rules are a little different from the general rule. To be clear, I am not saying that you should do this. I am saying that I am not sure what Marvel could legally do about the particular scenario that you have put forth.