Search results

Mostly because they were reactive rather than proactive. Marvel did a lot of build up that led to the first Avengers film. And they wouldn't have gotten that far if Iron Man didn't stick the landing. Everyone else (DC), was trying to go straight to their equivalent of an 'Avengers' film...

The adaptations only exist because of the enduring qualities of the original works. You may like some of the adaptations more than the original works. That's fine. The original works will still be there for everyone else.

Except if they weren't actually rather good, they would not have the staying power that they have had. We are talking literal centuries, surmounting great historical, literary, musical, and cultural changes in the cases of Shakespeare, or Mozart. William Harrison Ainsworth even outsold Charles...

You could get shakespeare in bookstores long before it became universal for american schools. You can find him in the bookstores of countries where he is not. Same with Tolkien. And there are several authors that we can say the same. Never said it was. Just that the original work is what...

That is not why. It is the classic and enduring nature of the work that makes people want to do all the alternate 'interpretations' that merely come and go. It's the original Shakespeare that you can find in bookstores, and that is still is widely performed in plays that keeps captivating...

I agree, they could easily just do an all new clean-sheet setting like they did with 4e. But I can see Wotc's reasoning though: "Greyhawk" works for them because it has been a while since they have done anything for it; So new players will not have a real clue. Those that do know will go for...

Wotc is on the record saying that the only official setting "canon" there is, is what they choose to publish for 5e. They will take Greyhawk and make it into what it needs to be for the 50th anniversary not a new edition of 5e. I expect nothing less.

I said my argument was not based on any "long standing custom or general consensus"; i.e. it was not a prescriptive one like you claimed. But truth based. But if you want to go there: Do a search on this or any other D&D related forum. Find me the discussion thread outside of this topic where...

Except that my premise is not prescriptive; It is not based on some long standing custom or general consensus. It is that of the objective truth. Factually verified by the artist himself: "I recently was asked a question about the Ancient Red painting I did for the cover of the Red Box...

I completely reject this revisionist premise. Because it is simply not true. This is basically like trying to tell everyone that saw the painting over the past 40 years that their own two eyes lied to them. But they didn't. As Elmore stated; there was never any question that the Warrior was...

It's exclusionary precisely because it was not done for "greater diversity of representation" at all. Wizkids/Wotc had at least two other female characters straight out of the red box to pick from, but they intentionally chose not to: The ham-fisted gender swapping of the iconic front cover...

That's all I've been saying. People that claim that these style of actual plays are "scripted" do not understand what they are looking at. Like I said; The popular actual plays are a modern improv version of the old-style radio plays, for RPG fans. They need to be actually playing the game...

Video games are still apples to oranges. Because unless you are specifically running a mod; You are playing the exact same game, in the exact same way. Once you look past the obvious similarities; The differences between what the popular 'table top' actual play shows are doing, and what home...