Event created by richardmurray
This event began 02/14/2026 and repeats every year forever
Is the loch narr lovecraftian?
My answer
challenging question, the problem in modernity with lovecraft is his name has become synonomous with any literature or illustration that depicts, a potent or omnipotent god that may act negatively but more importantly has mystery to them. ala Cthulu. If you consider Zorastrianism, where the most potent divine is deemed a double natured god, then loveraft merely mirrored zorastrianism's god, which is from the distant antiquity. If you look at the hindu religion. It has more branches than christianity while never had a schism. What is my point? in hinduism, the divine, the brahman, is left to interpretation. A hindu can be a monotheist and another hindu a polytheist and both ways are not deemed correct or incorrect, but it is up to each individual to follow those ways. The responsibility is the adherent. The Brahman is functionally, from a christian historical lens, the interpretation of christ by the gnostics, whose main argument is that god/brahmin/similar names for divine nature can not be known, only interpreted. What does this have to do with Lovecraft? Lovecraft's gods or worldbuilding, shows entities that aren't confusing if your used to a hindu or gnostic christian approach to spirituality or religion. So, Loch Narr is arguably, hindu or gnostic as well as zoarastrian in reference, and all three of those heritages are older than lovecraft. I imagine he knew of all three. So challenging question. The simple answer is yes, because the Loch Narr has elements of characterizations in Lovecraft literature. The more even answer is, it comes from a longer tradition of complex divine beings
citation
https://discord.com/channels/1238281346833715283/1247320763661418587/1472358161594978388
IN AMENDMENT
02142026
exactly, being commonly known has value. Lovecraft achieved that in his time. Look at Robert E Howard or Phillip k dick, the quaity in their writing was quality before comic books/films but it was wehn frazetta inked a comic book that conan grew in the common knowledge and then a little brilliant film by milius was made, and conan has made money howard could only dream of. Dick's works were always brilliants, but it took a little movie from ridley scott to expose the trasure trove and the rest is history. Dick's stories have made post mortem a ton of money. So, being commonly known as an artist has value. the envious artist calling it selling out, the honest artist call it luck. .... to ponzi your correct , the label ponzi scheme has become the wish of many people who invested poorly and want some way to reclaim. ... yeah personal accountability is a way to look at it, though, if i owned a media outlet, i would want what is communicated through my outlet to be honest, precise in wording. part of lovecratian and ponzi scheme is how often media uses terms uncaringly, not just poorly, but uncaringly, which demands the viewers be accountable to what media says, to rewrite, many media outlets don't act like they care they are trusted or want to be trusted but many viewers place levels of trust. so media can argue viewers need to be personally accountable, which is the truth but firms have to also be labeled low quality. I didn't say firms have to be accountable but firms , especially media ones need to be labeled + accept being labeled as low quality when they simply are. Twitter/ CNBC/FOx NEws/ Youtube are all low quality media outlets while the most viewed. I know freedom of the press or speech means they can't be blocked and it is up to citizens/viewers to reject them or accept them, but I think a label of low quality is warranted.
02162026
D&D didn't ruin what people think of as a barbarian. It offered another perspective which simply became more well known, back to lovecraft being well known over other writers of his time. D&D is popular. Gauntlet is popular. The conan movie is popular. I have nothing against howard, but while conan is his, it wasn't his exact writing that led to conan or barbarians in general becoming well known. That isn't an artistic knock but a financial truth. ....I don't think anything is hard to bring to the screen. Making a film isn't the issue. Will a film be fiscally profitable is the issue? John Carter bombed financially, but it was inevitable. Ben Affleck said it best, a twenty five million dollar movie needs twenty five million in advertisement, and then you get fifty percent back in ticket sales from theaters so that means a twenty five million dollar movie needs one hundred million to break even. John carter cost 306 million dollars, lets assume that is money to make the film an advertising. that is 153 dollars. so to break even with fifty percent from the revenue of theaters, a 306 million dollar film needs to make 612 million dollars. John Carter made 284 million dollars. The first lord of the rings movie for example cost ninety three million dollars and made eight hundred and ninety seven million. so, lets say with adds the first lord of the rings movie cost one hundred and eighty six million . The revenue would have to be at least three hundred and seventy two . Lord of the rings first film made double of what was needed to break even. But how was lord of the rings developed that was different than john carter? that is the fiscal question. Lord of the rings had years of preproduction/ meaning before anything was shot, it had years of script revision/storyboards/set design / location . John carter suffered from massive reshoots. Many films studios have to demand a fiscally better process of making films. (1/2)
https://discord.com/channels/1238281346833715283/1247320763661418587/1472805194956800041
Stop making films like Justice league ,where entire films are reshot and then expected to make a profit. Stop making films where the script has not been properly molded. A better process of making films will lessen the cost of making films which by default enhances the chance of returning a profit. John Carter from a production perspective was poorly done. Too many scenes thought up while shooting. Too many special effects desires not fully conceptualized. This creates a production mess which increases the cost of a film, regardless of artistic quality. Dick Tracy cost forty six million and made one hundred and sixty two million. If we double forty six million that is ninety two. Which means the film needs to make one hundred and eighty four to break even. It is simple arithmetic. Now, looking at Dick Tracy I have some issues... how much did the cast cost? Now I don't know the truth but WIki says Beatty wanted five million and then disney said they accepted him directing/starring/producer of the film if he kept the budget in twenty five million so beatty failed. so beatty is a poor director. his process is poor, making films cost go sky high. when not needed. I look at dick tracy and I argue, it could had been done for the 25 million disney 's accountants foresaw as the point to get back money. as for the other characters, again, the project is key. they need to be in the 25 million dollar range like sinners. to think about getting a profit (2/2)
https://discord.com/channels/1238281346833715283/1247320763661418587/1472808008592396562
you know, better than think, more know lord of the rings than john carter. And the familiarity plays a role in fiscal reception. ... based on what you said, the directors are the problem. Here are the films, not the detective or boyscout o rinvolving them in a group in the DC Extended Universe: suicide squad/wonder woman/aquaman/shazam/birds of prey/wonder woman 1984/the suicide squad/black adam/shazam fury of the gods/the flash /blue beetle/aquaman lost kingdom... suicide squad+wonder +aquaman made a profit, and aquaman was a gem. but the rest got worse and worse financially. so based on what you said, the producers were willing to not manage these films better but were willing to pay for thier inefficiency. I argue the overhaul shouldn't involve blockading individuals, but implementing a process that must be adhered to.
https://discord.com/channels/1238281346833715283/1247320763661418587/1472832049797926952
02162026
Citation
For me, MArvel's success in films is a set of factors 1) Disney administration made sure Feige had an artistic process that was financially efficient for the set of films 2) Marvel has more popular non white characters than DC which helps in a modernity , where the ticket buyers to films , buyers of comics, are not just white people, it is a global audience that wants to see itself. 3 )DC has simply been a poor shepard of many of its characters , relying on Superman + BAtman as the two biggest comics in the industry, which is hurting it in the film business. DC had Nubia but most black people know of Storm first and Misty Knight second, Nubia is not well known. Whose to blame for that? Black panther is far and away ahead of Black ligtning and if anything, black lightning is almost a joke in the black audience. Linda Carter was the same age as christopher reeves when he did his first superman movie and she had a very successful tv show, why didn't they make a wonder woman movie? and instead made a supergirl film. Whose antagonist is , really atrocious writing, poor faye dunaway. So, for me, MArvel's success in modernity is stemming from a number of things. Not just Feige's management but a number of things. ... The test for DC is coming up. Superman + Batman always rake in, but MArvel's true success is in the field. Yes Spider man makes money, but who was MArvel's first film success? Blade. DC never had a blade, a character never before in visual media who had a film and made a killing. Where is DC's deadpool? advantage marvel. Where is DC's guardians of the galaxy? supergilr/clayface/the authority they will have their chance but I don't see it. That supergirl films trailer shows a very expensive film, that doesn't have superman's name on it. Women want a wonder woman film. I saw a car with wonder woman decals recently. ... we will see.
02162026
Citation
even point, but that is why I always say Disney Marvel... I should say more often WB DC or in this case Discovery DC or shall i say with the coming sale it will be Netflix DC or Skydance DC I don't know which:) .... IT isn't the presence of characters that is the issue , it is the sheparding of them. DC + Marvel have tons of black characters but DC pre 1980 I argue didn't shepard their black characters as good as marvel and I think it was because of fiscal appreciation of their fanbase. which isn't evil. People say they comprehend fiscal capitalism but don't want firms to relate to who their buyers are. And new buyers are a risk. It is a fiscal myth that firms should take great risk in courting new buyers, as if the old buyers will be unchanging. ..... From my view, the green lantern movies problem is its overall structure. The green lantern core needs to be the movie, not one green lantern.... yes, Disney did well, damn rat:) .... haha!:) yes, pre blade the process was poor. I really believe in the process of making a film, the fiscal process which intertwines with the artistic. I do have a question to you in terms of pre blade marvel films. I have seen that Fantasitic four film/captain america I didn't see the doctor strange. I think the captain america wasn't horrible. Was it elegant or fineley made or one of the best films for me? no. But it was a decent low budget romp. I think films have the right to be low budget romps, like the first swamp thing film. ... 
all film studios better have bad movies or they are not film studios and are mind control users. Historically, all film studios mostly make fiscal losers. No film studio in the history of film studios mostly makes hits. I don't know if either has slipped up as film studios. I think both DC + Marvel as film studios have made hits, mostly duds and that is par the course. do you like Netflix or Skydance for shepard of DC?
02182026
Citation
that wasn't the magicians with bill bixby ? cause i think that was also supposed to be dr strange... hahah the dark hole of rights ownership. films can be low budget and meant to be fun. ... I like the dolph lundgren punisher, only one to get it right for me. yeah, they were all based on the comics, but the interpretations were simply good, at the end of the day, a film is not a comic book nor a comic book a film. I argue a good comic book film doesn't try to satisfy comic book readers, but simply makes a good film using the story of the comic book as a base but not a bible... ahh I see:) to john stewart....well DC was already tanked before, AT&T sold DC to discovery on the cheap from market value if discovery took at&T's debt from WB so DC was already tanked, like many firms in the usa, instead of being sent to bankruptcy they were allowed to live on as a failed firm through acquisitions. Yeah I Am a fan of DC animated movies as well. the problem with animated films is the usa film going market has been trained to treat animation as for children or "weird"adults so many adults will never go see an animated movie in a theater thus their financial cieling is low and I think that helps the DC animated financially. Cause they have big brand name characters, but in animated world, they don't have to make movies to get the person who has never read or doesn't know a DC character in the global audienc,e which is many^INF , they just have to sate the comic book readers who watch animation. The comic book to screen will not work in live action to get a global audience with DC's characters.
02/18/2026
Who are the A list Marvel characters? I can name DC's easily, even before the film era. Superman/batman/ wonder woman/flash/green lantern that justice league is the gathering of the top heroes. Take out spider man , who are the a list marvel heroes?
IN AMENDMENT
Who are the A list Marvel characters? I can name DC's easily, even before the film era. Superman/batman/ wonder woman/flash/green lantern that justice league is the gathering of the top heroes. I argue DC only allowed the likes of aquaman in the justice league to try and compete when marvel had great success late 60s early 70s. but dc's style of heroes is simply different, and I admit as someone raised in new york city, NYC unlike any city in the world teaches a person to learn to live near civilly near strangers/foreigners/others. No you don't always love or like your neighbor in NYC, but overall, you are civil and the xmen/fantastic four/avengers all have that similar vibe of NYC. and I think immigrant peoples around the world can appreciate the nyc vibe in marvel stemming from stan lee's writing, that don't exist in DC's heroes or their worlds. The Xmen are literally upstate new york/the avengers or fantastic four are based in NYC right. but gotham isn't NYC. Gotham is a fantastic crime ridden film noir variant of NYC. Metropolis isn't NYC . Metropolis is how NYC was imagined in the future in the new york city world's fair. Themyscira is truly unlike anywhere but none of shows or movies have ever made themyscira as complex as it originally was or been courageous enough, writing wise, to make diana not banned from returning. But DC's style of heroes are different cause they are older than marvels on average. Captain america is the oldest marvel main hero and he shares a similar style to superman/batman and the like of DC.
to marvel, unlike dc who was all in one studio marvel had their parts all over the place, spider man has done well , i think sony was a good shepard to spider man, while a poor, very poor shepard to the spiderverse. 20th century fox was a terrible shepard to Xmen for me. IT became the wolverine series, wolverine, logan wolverine and was a sign of why that firm was destined for receivership. New line did blade , and the first mortal kombat movie, but new line is terrible at series which ended it. Disney bought marvel but couldn't use the xmen/spiderman who were owned by others ... Taking out Spiderman , who are marvel's A level characters? Marvel was never a more popular comic book company than DC. One is that DC simply had the first icons: superman/batman/wonder woman and https://bleedingcool.com/comics/how-marvel-comics-first-overtook-dc-comics-in-1972/
ARticle transcript
User Feedback
There are no reviews to display.