BEGIN:VCALENDAR VERSION:2.0 PRODID:-//InvisionCommunity Events 4.7.23//EN METHOD:PUBLISH CALSCALE:GREGORIAN REFRESH-INTERVAL:PT15M X-PUBLISHED-TTL:PT15M X-WR-CALNAME:RMCommunityCalendar NAME:RMCommunityCalendar BEGIN:VTIMEZONE TZID:Europe/London TZURL:http://tzurl.org/zoneinfo/Europe/London X-LIC-LOCATION:Europe/London BEGIN:DAYLIGHT TZOFFSETFROM:+0000 TZOFFSETTO:+0100 TZNAME:BST DTSTART:20260329T020000Z RRULE:FREQ=YEARLY;BYMONTH=3;BYDAY=-1SU END:DAYLIGHT BEGIN:STANDARD TZOFFSETFROM:+0100 TZOFFSETTO:+0000 TZNAME:GMT DTSTART:20261025T020000Z RRULE:FREQ=YEARLY;BYMONTH=10;BYDAY=-1SU END:STANDARD END:VTIMEZONE BEGIN:VEVENT SUMMARY:Question in HEavy Metal : Is the loch narr lovecraftian? DTSTAMP:20260214T223749Z SEQUENCE:0 UID:652-7-c3fe8195a3dde498d013e477e2142422@aalbc.com ORGANIZER;CN="richardmurray":troy@aalbc.com DESCRIPTION:\n Is the loch narr lovecraftian?\n\n\n\n My answer\n\n\n\n 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 ha s mystery to them. ala Cthulu. If you consider Zorastrianism\, where the m ost potent divine is deemed a double natured god\, then loveraft merely mi rrored zorastrianism's god\, which is from the distant antiquity. If you l ook at the hindu religion. It has more branches than christianity while ne ver 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 hi ndu a polytheist and both ways are not deemed correct or incorrect\, but i t is up to each individual to follow those ways. The responsibility is the adherent. The Brahman  is functionally\, from a christian historical len s\, the interpretation of christ by the gnostics\, whose main argument is that god/brahmin/similar names for divine nature can not be known\, only i nterpreted. What does this have to do with Lovecraft? Lovecraft's gods or worldbuilding\, shows entities that aren't confusing if your used to a hin du or gnostic christian approach to spirituality or religion. So\, Loch Na rr is arguably\, hindu or gnostic as well as zoarastrian in reference\,   and all three of those heritages are older than lovecraft. I imagine he kn ew of all three.  So challenging question. The simple answer is yes\, bec ause the Loch Narr has elements of characterizations in Lovecraft literatu re. The more even answer is\, it comes from a longer tradition of complex divine beings \n\n\n\n citation\n\n\n\n https://discord.com/channels/1238 281346833715283/1247320763661418587/1472358161594978388\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n IN AMENDMENT\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n 02142026\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n exactly\, bei ng 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 qualit y before comic books/films but it was wehn frazetta inked a comic book tha t conan grew in the common knowledge and then a little brilliant film by m ilius was made\, and  conan has made money howard could only dream of. Di ck'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 art ist has value. the envious artist calling it selling out\, the honest arti st 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 re claim. ... 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 o utlet to be honest\, precise in wording. part of lovecratian and ponzi sch eme is how often media uses terms uncaringly\, not just poorly\, but uncar ingly\, which demands the viewers be accountable to what media says\, to r ewrite\, many media outlets don't act like they care they are trusted or w ant to be trusted but many viewers place levels of trust. so media can arg ue viewers need to be personally accountable\, which is the truth but firm s have to also be labeled low quality. I didn't say firms have to be accou ntable but firms \, especially media ones need to be labeled + accept bein g labeled as low quality when they simply are. Twitter/ CNBC/FOx NEws/ You tube are all low quality media outlets while the most viewed. I know freed om of the press or speech means they can't be blocked and it is up to citi zens/viewers to reject them or accept them\, but I think a label of low qu ality is warranted. \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n 02162026\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n D& \;D didn't ruin what people think of as a barbarian. It offered another pe rspective which simply became more well known\, back to lovecraft being we ll 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 w hile conan is his\, it wasn't his exact writing that led to conan or barba rians 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 scr een. 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 Aff leck said it best\, a twenty five million dollar movie needs twenty five m illion in advertisement\, and then you get fifty percent back in ticket sa les from theaters so that means a twenty five million dollar movie needs o ne hundred million to break even. John carter cost 306 million dollars\, l ets assume that is money to make the film an advertising. that is 153 doll ars. 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 mad e 284 million dollars. The first lord of the rings movie for example cost ninety three million dollars and made eight hundred and ninety seven milli on. so\, lets say with adds the first lord of the rings movie cost one hun dred 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 wa s different than john carter? that is the fiscal question. Lord of the rin gs had years of preproduction/ meaning before anything was shot\, it had y ears of script revision/storyboards/set design / location . John carter su ffered from massive reshoots.  Many films studios have to demand a fiscal ly better process of making films. (1/2)\n\n https://discord.com/channels/ 1238281346833715283/1247320763661418587/1472805194956800041\n\n Stop makin g films like Justice league \,where entire films are reshot and then expec ted to make a profit. Stop making films where the script has not been prop erly molded. A better process of making films will lessen the cost of maki ng films which by default enhances the chance of returning a profit. John Carter from a production perspective was poorly done. Too many scenes thou ght up while shooting. Too many special effects desires not fully conceptu alized. This creates a production mess which increases the cost of a film\ , regardless of artistic quality. Dick Tracy cost forty six million and ma de 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 Trac y 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. hi s 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 dis ney 's accountants foresaw as the point to get back money.  as for the ot her characters\, again\, the project is key. they need to be in the 25 mil lion dollar range like sinners. to think about getting a profit  (2/2)\n\ n https://discord.com/channels/1238281346833715283/1247320763661418587/147 2808008592396562\n\n you know\, better than think\, more know lord of the rings than john carter. And the familiarity plays a role in fiscal recepti on. ... based on what you said\, the directors are the problem. Here are t he 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 willi ng to not manage these films better but were willing to pay for thier inef ficiency. I argue the overhaul shouldn't involve blockading individuals\, but implementing a process that must be adhered to. \n\n https://discord. com/channels/1238281346833715283/1247320763661418587/1472832049797926952\n \n\n\n  \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n 02162026\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n Citation \n\n\n \n  \n\n\n\n For me\, MArvel's success in films is a set of factors 1) Di sney administration made sure Feige had an artistic process that was finan cially efficient for the set of films 2)  Marvel has more popular non whi te characters than DC which helps in a modernity \, where the ticket buyer s to films \, buyers of comics\, are not just white people\, it is a globa l 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 bigge st comics in the industry\, which is hurting it in the film business. DC h ad 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 almo st a joke in the black audience. Linda Carter was the same age as christop her reeves when he did his first superman movie and she had a very success ful tv show\, why didn't they make a wonder woman movie? and instead made a supergirl film. Whose antagonist is \, really atrocious writing\, poor f aye dunaway.  So\, for me\, MArvel's success in modernity is stemming fro m 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 w ho was MArvel's first film success? Blade. DC never had a blade\, a charac ter 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. \n\n\n\n  \n\n \n\n 02162026\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n Citation\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n even point\, but that is why I always say Disney Marvel... I should say more often WB D C 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 prese nce 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 shep ard 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 c omprehend fiscal capitalism but don't want firms to relate to who their bu yers 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 unc hanging. ..... From my view\, the green lantern movies problem is its over all structure. The green lantern core needs to be the movie\, not one gree n lantern.... yes\, Disney did well\, damn rat:) .... haha!:) yes\, pre bl ade 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 q uestion to you in terms of pre blade marvel films. I have seen that Fantas itic four film/captain america I didn't see the doctor strange. I think th e captain america wasn't horrible. Was it elegant or fineley made or one o f the best films for me? no. But it was  a decent low budget romp. I thin k 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 s tudios and are mind control users. Historically\, all film studios mostly make fiscal losers. No film studio in the history of film studios mostly m akes 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? \n\n\n \n  \n\n\n\n 02182026\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n Citation\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n that wasn't the magicians with bill bixby ? cause i think that was also suppos ed 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 punish er\, only one to get it right for me. yeah\, they were all based on the co mics\, 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 b ook film doesn't try to satisfy comic book readers\, but simply makes a go od film using the story of the comic book as a base but not a bible...  a hh 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 u sa\, 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 a s well. the problem with animated films is the usa film going market has b een 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 financi al cieling is low and I think that helps the DC animated financially. Caus e 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 t o screen will not work in live action to get a global audience with DC's c haracters. \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n 02/18/2026\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n Who are the A list Marvel characters? I can name DC's easily\, even before the film er a. Superman/batman/ wonder woman/flash/green lantern that justice league i s the gathering of the top heroes.  Take out spider man \, who are the a list marvel heroes? \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n IN AMENDMENT\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n W ho 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 justi ce 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 diffe rent\, and I admit as someone raised in new york city\, NYC unlike any cit y in the world teaches a person to learn to live near civilly near strange rs/foreigners/others. No you don't always love or like your neighbor in NY C\, but overall\, you are civil and the xmen/fantastic four/avengers all h ave that similar vibe of NYC. and I think immigrant peoples around the wor ld 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. bu t gotham isn't NYC. Gotham is a fantastic crime ridden film noir variant o f NYC. Metropolis isn't NYC . Metropolis is how NYC was imagined in the fu ture in the new york city world's fair. Themyscira is truly unlike anywher e but none of shows or movies have ever made themyscira as complex as it o riginally 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 ma in hero and he shares a similar style to superman/batman and the like of D C. \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n to marvel\, unlike dc who was all in one studio ma rvel had their parts all over the place\, spider man has done well \, i th ink sony was a good shepard to spider man\, while a poor\, very poor shepa rd 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 w ho were owned by others ... Taking out Spiderman \, who are marvel's A lev el 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-c omics-in-1972/\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n ARticle transcript\n\n\n\n How Marvel Co mics First Overtook DC Comics In 1972\nPublished Fri\, 07 Jan 2022 10:57:1 4 -0600 by Rich Johnston|Last updated Thu\, 22 Sep 2022 08:16:07 -0500 |Co mments\nToday\, the best-selling publisher of comic books in America is Sc holastic. The second is Random House. But in the last half of 1972\, that was suddenly Marvel Comics for the first time. One of the earliest comic b ook retailers and comic historian Bob Beerbohm (author of Comic Book Store Wars) set up the Californian comic book store and the first comic book ch ain. He has many tales to tell\, including showing off the flyer printed t o mark the occasion\, from his friend Brian Kane. Bob Beerbohm writes on F acebook\, with permission to republish\;\n\nLast Half of 1972 Marvel annou nces their firm has finally overtaken DC comics to become #1 publisher of comic books in America. Marvel claims on this flyer \"…in the world…\" but that is hyperbole on their part. Reason How this was accomplished? No t from story quality\, etc\, but from an under-handed tactic of initially agreeing with DC for a cover price hike to 25 cents with DC Then doing tha t price hike to 25 cents for just one month of comic books\, BUT\, then se cretly dropping back down to 20 cents the following month. Catching and bl ind-siding DC in that process\nMarvel beginning to outsell DC was and is p redicated on customers seeing 5 Marvels for a buck VS just 4 DC for a buck . I saw the customer purchasing cross over from DC to Marvel for that very reason\, firsthand\, up close and personal. We had just opened our first of many Comics &\; Comix stores in the Bay Area.\n\nMarvel Comics would remain the dominant comic bookseller in the US newsstand and comic book s tore\, until Image Comics and a Death Of Superman hyped DC Comics would pu sh them out briefly. However\, DC Comics always performed better at the bo okstore than Marvel – and still do. Though Scholastic\, Penguin Random H ouse\, Viz Media and Kodansha have pushed them both down the list in recen t years.\n\n\n DTSTART;VALUE=DATE:20260214 RRULE:FREQ=YEARLY;INTERVAL=1 END:VEVENT END:VCALENDAR