Movies

Sci Fi Fund Spawn Aug 03, 16:20

Fund Description "...To differentiate from COMIC, the fund will not invest in superhero films. " {nm} RazorHawk Aug 03, 16:24

There is no COMIC. And this was more SciFi than comic, anyway. {nm} Spawn Aug 03, 16:28

Comic can be anything. If it's based on a comic, then it's comic. {nm} Jay_Beezy Aug 03, 16:30

Okay. Why does SciFi hold Frank Miller's Ronin? Or Micronauts? {nm} Spawn Aug 03, 16:35

star wars was a comic. Star Trek has a comic. {nm} Moviesnob Aug 03, 16:42

alien, predator, terminator all have comics {nm} Moviesnob Aug 03, 16:43

None of those franchises you mentioned started out as comics so those aren't good bases for argument. {nm} Jay_Beezy Aug 03, 16:49

the comics heavily influenced other films in the franchise or were the major influence. {nm} Moviesnob Aug 03, 16:50

besides the argument here is "superhero films". there's a clear distinction between based on a comic or a superhero film Moviesnob Aug 03, 16:54

But the COMIC fund isn't just about superheroes. Jay_Beezy Aug 03, 17:15

you are right about comic. Ghost World, Black Hole. Those would apply. But the question is Sci Fi fund which is not defined by whats Moviesnob Aug 03, 17:29

Then the fund managers didn't phrase things properly. It shouldn't be differentiating from superheroes, but comic based material instead. Jay_Beezy Aug 03, 17:56

completely agree, but I also think guardians fits in Sci Fi based on the the distribution landscape (its impressive what marvel pulled off) {nm} Moviesnob Aug 03, 18:01

This is a pointless argument of semantics. Guardians is based on a comic therefore it's COMIC. Jay_Beezy Aug 03, 18:11

ok. if its semantics, then i'm off {nm} Moviesnob Aug 03, 18:25

The question of why SciFi would hold Frank Miller's Ronin or Micronauts is still valid, though. Spawn Aug 03, 18:42

The long and the short of it... RazorHawk Aug 03, 19:07

semantics, and all due respect, but your argument "extraordinary talents" would define most movies {nm} Moviesnob Aug 03, 19:31

Sorry, I was on holiday and couldn't take part in this thread srrichardson Aug 04, 04:07

The purpose of the criteria aren't to make the funds mutually exclusive, but to minimise the overlap {nm} srrichardson Aug 04, 04:11

exactly, this was not a superhero film. Its a sci-fi space opera {nm} Moviesnob Aug 03, 16:41

alter egos, costumes, and villians, smells like a superhero film to me. (yes, sure its scifi, and maybe the fund manager could have islander Aug 03, 17:31

thats how I am looking at it, but from the perspective that marvel deviated from their norm and made something insanely different. Moviesnob Aug 03, 17:44

At this moment it time - but the moment someone volunteers to run it - it comes back {nm} srrichardson Aug 04, 04:08

I think the more important question is why is the manager of COMIC still making trades in the fund, it delisted two months ago? RazorHawk Aug 03, 18:09

Yeah, the lack of COMIC was what lead me to looking at SciFi as an option. {nm} Spawn Aug 03, 19:05

They are still two distinct funds The lack of a BRITS fund doesn't mean EURO could invest in British StarBonds. {nm} Antibody Aug 03, 19:47

+1 {nm} Abraxas Aug 03, 19:55

A fund that can invest in Frank Miller's Ronin as a SciFi movie (which it *is* a comic book movie and *is not* sci fi), should be able to. Spawn Aug 03, 20:11

You're complaining about 1 share. Maybe SCIFI investing in FMRON is an error. Doesn't mean all rules are off. {nm} Antibody Aug 03, 21:11

almost as dumb as you charlie Aug 03, 20:12