>A fan asked if Mignola could share any anecdotes from working

>>89250500
"General consciousness" isn't infinite. In time movie adaptions will fade from it and the only people left thinking about "Hellboy" will be the ones who consider the original comics true works of art. Del Toro may have made alot of money off of Mignola's work, but Mignola will be remembered as the artist that told the story.

>>89250500

To be fair, I think the big winner here is Ron Pearlman. People remember stars like what they had for breakfast but the average joe moviegoer does't give two fucks about directors

>>89250566
This.

Besides, movies don't trump everything. Aspects of a character that remain in the general consciousness are made of up many different sources. Cartoons, comics, games, live action. All of it. It all morphs together into an "idea" of a character. That's how icons are made.

>>89250595
>the average joe moviegoer does't give two fucks about directors
Which I always found kind of odd. They're the ones responsible for the "vision" so they should be the main point of focus, but I understand why people focus on the stars.

When it becomes impossible to understand for me is when people like a bad movie because some star they like is in it.

>>89250566
Mignola is rich forever because of Hellnoy. Del Toro is not.

>>89250634
>When it becomes impossible to understand for me is when people like a bad movie because some star they like is in it.

Because you like actor's performances and the movie is worth watching for those performances? Autism.

>>89250690
That's not always true though.

Besides, i'm talking about the people who will like it regardless of performance, based simply on the fact that this star's name is attached ot it.

File: Sledgehammer 44.jpg (111KB, 900x1368px) Image search: [Google]

111KB, 900x1368px

We talking Mignola?
Anyone know if I should just start getting those Hell on Earth trades or if they're making omnibus editions for it?

>>89250764
No, that's literally always true.

>>89250500
Why are we using a picture from the Nextwave issue where Warren Ellis references he once did a gig with the Suicide Girls?

>>89250841
Real question is why are we not always using pictures from Nextwave?

>>89250634
>They're the ones responsible for the "vision" so they should be the main point of focus

See, I always found it strange that the movie industry considers the director to be creator-prime of a work.

In a situation where something isn't an adaptation, and the writer and director aren't the same guy, how the fuck is the writer not the guy who came up with the god damned idea?

>>89250890
Because writers are introverted pencil-necks who can be pushed around.

>>89250890
True. really it's a collaborative project. Thing is the director at least has more to do with how a movie turns out than the actor does. At least in most cases.

>>89250618
>trump
Ugh ... /pol/ is that way >>>

>>89250954
Don't be retarded.

>>89250916
And people like actors enough to like whole entire movies because of their performances.

>>89250890
Because the director controls the cameras, and that a far more important factor in determining how enjoyable a movie is to watch than the dialogue.

>>89251002
>At least in most cases.
>I cannot read

>>89251024

dialogue can make a great movie, ''cameras'' don't

>>89251030
I'm not surprised you can't, autist.

>>89251056
Oh so you don't know anything about movies.

Alright then, bye.

>>89250595
This is true. That's why trailers and posters always have "from the director who did this other movie you might remember". General audiences don't give a shit, apart from a handful of the most well-known names, like Spielberg for example.

>>89251067
>I...I'll insult him! that'll show'im!

>>89250500
>Look at Dark Knight

>there is such a thing as a definite version of a cape trademark

toppest kek.