movies

Under communism we will have a film where 75% of it is just Thor and the Hulk fucking hardcore with extreme penetration closeups

It will sweep the Oscars

I used to argue this in high school when trying to pitch getting rid of IP to liberal marvel nerds. It sometimes worked. Imagine if movies were made by people who actually loved them instead of boardroom executives. Like if you’re a Batman fan imagine how cool it would be to get 50 fucking low budget, Batman movies . There’s literally no downside .

non-corporate capeshit will be infinitely more interesting than corporate capeshit

also who cares just don't watch it

signed person who doesnt watch capeshit

This thread is absolutely here to anger the "communism is when art i dont like doesnt exist" types but its also objectively true.

Under communism there are actually more superhero movies

creating capeshit will be declared a counter revolutionary crime punishable by unlimited restorative labor. Such wreckers will be forced to watch 4 hour long B&W foreign films and socialist-realist art of sweaty men working in a foundry until their aesthetic sensibilities have been fully reeducated to adhere to the ideological mass line agreed to by the United Anti-Capeshit People's Liberation Front (Marxist-Leninist-Scorseseist)

capeshit will be way way hornier without IP law.

I think art would just radically change in a new society. I'm not sure if superheroes as a concept would even exist. By this, I mean I've read somewhere that said kung fu and wuxia protagonists are the Chinese equivalent of superheroes, meaning wuxia protagonists aren't themselves superheroes but come from a similar human desire to tell stories about larger-than-life figures doing fantastical feats. But there are differences between wuxia protagonists and Western superheroes, the key different being wuxia protagonists usually become larger-than-life through training and some spiritual insight while Western superheroes are either born with innate abilities or acquire them through a freak accident. It's the difference between how the Force was characterized in the OT versus how the Force was characterized in the prequels. This is where the "superheroes are eugenics" take come from.

I think most popular iteration of superheroes (there would presumably at least be a niche audience who still want the pre-socialist conception of the characters just like how there are people today who enjoy reading medieval romances) would have their backstories radically change. There's also no reason why current superheroes can't become supervillians and vice versa as societal values radically change. I don't see someone like Batman being relatable as a superhero in socialist society. Like, Batman's backstory reads more like a supervillian than an actual hero. He's just some bourgie fuck who treats his childhood trauma by beating the shit out of the lumpenproletariat dressed in some cringey costume. But there's nothing stopping Batman from becoming a fascist supervillian. Maybe in socialist society, the Joker is treated as a deeply flawed but ultimately sympathetic proletarian hero while Batman is just some pampered and spoiled rich brat who gets off at beating the poors. I mean, this website already characterizes the Joker and Batman like this lmao

I've been saying for years that anyone should be allowed to make a Spiderman. Let's bring back low budget capeshit that barely resembles the source material. I want a variety of spidered men for all tastes. Most would be absolute garbage but some of that garbage would be awesome and there would still be some interesting shit.

But also, if anyone can make a superhero movie, that could be a step towards taking the capeshit out of capeshit - superhero movies suck because it's the same couple studios just copying each other for over a decade and preventing innovations (good or bad).

If it has capeshit, it's not my revolution

That's fine.

Under communism there will be a Toei Marvel Universe where all the super heroes can call in giant mechas and regularly battle the Putty Patrol.

The thing is, as much as it would apply to the MCU, it would apply to all content-- including the stuff you love.

That obscure early 2000s vampire manhwa you latched onto in your goth phase? Suddenly, we have an fan movie franchiae that runs 92 installments.

The weird software you ran on Macintosh System 7? Some enthusiast is going to adapt it to federate with Mastodon and add Steam achievements.

After the revolution I'm going to make superman black and gay.

The G*mers can't stop me.

I mean, I like superheroes as a concept. I just don't like the focus-grouped slop that is currently filling up the trough

pretty sure the fantasy of a strong individual coming to single handedly solve the problem du jour will wane under socialism.

Hot take, we should embrace being beta cuck soyboys as an aesthetic. Why yes my wife’s boyfriend bought me a Nintendo switch. Where’s your Nintendo Switch chud? Seize the means of funko pop production!!!

I don't give a shit if some nerds whose media consumption habits have remained the same since 8th grade want to make a thousand spiderman films I just neither want to see them nor have to know about their existence.

The term [Intellectual Property] carries a bias that is not hard to see: it suggests thinking about copyright, patents and trademarks by analogy with property rights for physical objects. (This analogy is at odds with the legal philosophies of copyright law, of patent law, and of trademark law, but only specialists know that.) These laws are in fact not much like physical property law, but use of this term leads legislators to change them to be more so. Since that is the change desired by the companies that exercise copyright, patent and trademark powers, the bias introduced by the term “intellectual property” suits them.

The term “intellectual property” is at best a catch-all to lump together disparate laws. Nonlawyers who hear one term applied to these various laws tend to assume they are based on a common principle and function similarly. Nothing could be further from the case. These laws originated separately, evolved differently, cover different activities, have different rules, and raise different public policy issues.

1. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.en.html

Using terms like "Intellectual Property" to describe specific aspects of copyright law isn't helpful. Due to the interests of capital of the Disney corporation, the Mickey Mouse Law (Copyright Term Extension Act) was lobbied and passed in Congress, leading to copyright lasting for 95 years. This means anyone who saw a piece of work when it was released to the public would pass away before ever being able to utilize it. There are other laws such as the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA) that also prohibit the remixing/redistribution of media via the internet.

TL;DR: Intellectual Property is a revisionist term and designed to overgeneralize concrete aspects of copyright, trademark and patent law. It's the same way that companies got us to say "piracy" instead of "prohibited copying." Or how "hacker" became a pejorative term for those who break or crack security.

Counter-revolutionary capeshit gets you sent to the gulag tho, so it's okay.