Comments: 24
aneigthieschild [2018-03-12 19:14:44 +0000 UTC]
The most interesting Art i saw.
Thank You ❤
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
SciFiFan2013 [2013-03-05 04:55:57 +0000 UTC]
I would have liked to see the Kirstie Alley one myself, but oh well. This was a great cover.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Moonshine3991 [2010-10-27 16:17:47 +0000 UTC]
I really want those comics...
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
SnowBunny91 [2009-08-13 03:53:02 +0000 UTC]
Grrrr! Your so darn good!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
jmsnooks [2007-11-17 01:28:57 +0000 UTC]
Good stuff. I'm liking it lots. How would you like to join ?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Jerome-K-Moore In reply to Bbedlam [2007-08-31 19:59:45 +0000 UTC]
Nope. You're pretty much on the beam, Mr. Springer. I can understand both points of view: the writer who wants to create something fresh, and the guardians who wish to protect the original focus.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Jerome-K-Moore In reply to Bbedlam [2007-09-01 01:31:32 +0000 UTC]
Yes, it is moot.
But it was merely an extension of the on-set hierarchy which focused on the "Holy Trio," instead of adequately showcasing each of the "Magnificent Seven" ensemble cast. Of course, as reported, this was often a source of resentment among the co-stars. Inserting original characters into the classic Trek universe was always a tricky endeavor, and even memorable additions from the Filmation animated series, namely lieutenants Arex, and M'Ress, were off-limits for the DC comic book version.
The attitude was that if the television series writers could effectively pen three seasons worth of dynamic episodes under this stricture, then surely the comic book writers could follow suit.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Idigoddpairings [2007-02-27 03:40:22 +0000 UTC]
Kay like why hasn't this got like millions of faves and comments very awesome!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Jerome-K-Moore In reply to MutantPenguin [2006-12-07 06:06:13 +0000 UTC]
Not sued, per se. Only obligated to pay her for the unsolicited use of her likeness. THEN sued upon refusal. Which she darn well WOULD and SHOULD have, seeing how Paramount screwed her out of the next Trek sequels, thereby necessitating the debut of actress Robin Curtis.
I think Robin played Saavik TOO Vulcan, but perhaps she was directed to. Saavik was supposed to be a Romulan/Vulcan half-breed who was a pupil of Spock. She was at war within herself emotionally, and this came through in Kirstie's portrayal. Remember her irritation at Admiral Kirk in the opening scene? She had that inner fire that was so appealing.
Director Nicholas Meyer wanted to bring Kirstie back to play Saavik in "The Undiscovered Country," but things didn't work out, and Meyer restructured the character into Valeris, as played by Kim Cattrall. Kirstie was basking in her success on television with "Cheers," and probably asked for crazy money. Good for her. Paramount is a notoriously cheap studio. Or perhaps I should diplomatically use the word "frugal." lol It's just as well, since the Trek franchise had spiralled downward in quality, and had strayed too far from the point of the series. Additionally, I wouldn't have wanted to see Saavik turned into a traitor, or watch Spock use the mind meld to mentally rape her. That film was SO off-kilter.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
MutantPenguin In reply to Jerome-K-Moore [2006-12-07 08:08:18 +0000 UTC]
Actually, Kirstie was basking in her success from "Cheers" and asking for crazy money to come back in the third movie! Even more then anyone from the original ST crew was getting! Leonard Nemoy wrote about it in his book, "I am Spock". He said she was a great actress, and regretted that she (and/or her agent) demanded so much that it kept her from returning to the sequals. I used to really like her back then too.
I think it'd be awfully hard to prove that it wasn't an accidentaly likeness for a lawsuit. But your pretty damn good at doing likenesses, so I think she'd have a case (if they caught it), but then again I thought that other guy looked like John Travolta, in that other picture, and John wasn't trying to sue you.
However, would it have been okay for you to use her likeness if you drew Saavik, since that is more or less cannon, or was there legal stipulations about that?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Jerome-K-Moore In reply to MutantPenguin [2006-12-07 08:30:10 +0000 UTC]
Yeah, I heard a bit about that, but who knows the real truth but the intimate parties involved? Not I. Dang shame, anyway. I think they should've worked something out. Kirstie may have been grandstanding to see what she could get away with, as young-and-dumb actors are wont to do. Paramount may have been hard-assed and intractable from the outset of negotiations, and they were too stupid to have already signed her to a sequel deal, like most studios do today. But I can see why she may have had delusions of grandeur. She imagined herself the next Lucille Ball. lol
Ah, well...
That's a tricky one regarding using her Saavik likeness in the comic. Legally, they had a right to do that in the adaptation, but I don't believe they cut a deal for her to appear in any original stories. But I DO know that they did it. LOL!! Or artist Eduardo Barreto sure got pretty darn close. But-- uhh--- you ain't heard that from me! LOL!!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
MutantPenguin In reply to Jerome-K-Moore [2006-12-07 08:58:58 +0000 UTC]
Did the original Star Trek characters get compensated for the use of their likenesses in the comics?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Jerome-K-Moore In reply to MutantPenguin [2006-12-07 10:42:31 +0000 UTC]
Well, not the characters, but the actors sure did. Why wouldn't they?
The way it worked then was that the "Big Three," as Shatner, Nimoy, and Kelley were called, automatically got approval rights, period. Now, if any of the rest of the "Magnificent Seven" were featured prominently, or alone on the cover, then they had approval rights. I'll post a Sulu cover later to show you what I mean. Compensation was handled through the licensing deals between the talent and Paramount Pictures, and was not DC Comics' direct concern. Though I imagine their "cut" came out of the sweet licensing fee DC paid the studio.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1