|Black Panther >> View Post|
Subj: Not you as in "you"...
Posted: Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 07:49:52 pm EDT (Viewed 4 times)
Reply Subj: Re: Look...
Posted: Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 05:01:59 pm EDT (Viewed 3 times)
> > > > > ...I'm almost speechless. The worst Black Panther writer yet, and his take is given precedent over that of Stan Lee and Priest, seasoned vets of story telling.
> > > >
> > > > Well, it's obvious that neither Stan Lee or Christopher Priest have the same level of interest in doing an animated Black Panther.
> > >
> > > And? That's no reason to toss the origin that's stood the test of time with one Hudlin's shoe horned in.
> > Look, when you're doing it, when you're putting up the money, you get to do what you want.
> I don't recall ever saying that Panther was mine in any way, so odd comment that.
Like Primetime said, I didn't mean it literally, as in "you" personally. I meant it in the sense of the people who are doing it.
> > And it's not like "Who Is The Black Panther" is some kind of polar opposite story in comparison to FF #52 and #53. The basics are still there: Klaw kills his father while T'Challa is a child, T'Challa as an adult takes his revenge.
> > Anyone who reads FF #53 and "Who Is The Black Panther" side by side can clearly see that.
> Not really. One's epic, larger than life. The other is a ripoff of a better book and amounts to a failed home invasion.
Well, of course everyone has their own opinion on the story. And one person's ripoff is another person's re-imagining.
Overall, I thought the origin in FF #53 was good. I felt they could have done more with it, but for the few pages in a 1966 comic that it took up I thought it was fine. Hudlin's story was okay too. There were a few things I would have liked to have seen him do different (and here's his chance to do that), but on the whole I though it was fine too.
And in the end, to me it's six of one, and half a dozen of another.
> > (And if you haven't read both, sign up to Marvel Digital Comics for a month and read them and see for yourself.)
> > > > In fact, in Priest's case, Hudlin tried for years to get Priest to write a Black Panther movie. Priest declined every time.
> > >
> > > Really? That's news to me. Got a link?
> > No, the blog entry is no longer there. I read it on Priest's blog though, where he said it himself. So feel free to ask him.
> > And how do you not know this, I thought this was common knowledge among us Black Panther geeks?
> I stopped following Priest's blog after he quit comics.
> > When Wesley Snipes had the rights Hudlin was trying to get Priest to write the movie. Priest isn't a big fan of Hollywood so he turned him down.
> Actually, he wasn't/isn't a big fan of Marvel comics bending over backwards for Hollywood types while guys who did it all their lives were shunned. What's more, he was always concerned that someone would wipe away his work on T'Challa (and here I thought he was worrying for nothing). Given that Hudlin did exactly that, is it any wonder Priest turned him down?
Hey, you were the one talking about this getting precedent over Stan Lee and Priest's work. I'm just saying they obviously don't have the same level of interest in doing what Reggie Hudlin wants to do, and is doing. And Priest's reasons (whether his private ones are different from his public ones) for turning him down years ago isn't Hudlin's fault. It is what it is.
Yo, I'm Serious