|
Basebf555 posted:What was the reason again for cancelling one Avengers show just to put on another Avengers show with the same characters? I know it had something to do with the movie but I can't remember what. Basically, Jeph Loeb thought that having any sort of ongoing plot would be too confusing for kids.
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2013 20:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 16:34 |
|
|
IShallRiseAgain posted:Basically, Jeph Loeb thought that having any sort of ongoing plot would be too confusing for kids. The other reason was to make sure they had the same characters as the movies on the team....which made no sense because the entire pilot is almost entirely from the point of view of Falcon, who hasn't been introduced in the Cinematic Universe yet.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2013 20:38
|
|
|
notthegoatseguy posted:The other reason was to make sure they had the same characters as the movies on the team....which made no sense because the entire pilot is almost entirely from the point of view of Falcon, who hasn't been introduced in the Cinematic Universe yet. Yes, but Falcon is Sam Wilson, and therefore Jeph Loeb had to introduce him.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2013 22:20
|
|
|
notthegoatseguy posted:The other reason was to make sure they had the same characters as the movies on the team....which made no sense because the entire pilot is almost entirely from the point of view of Falcon, who hasn't been introduced in the Cinematic Universe yet. But he was going to be introduced so they needed that synergy between franchises because that is what kids like and need for a cartoon to be successful. Natasha was flat out Russian in EMH, and they needed her to be American like in the movies. Also everyone needed to have costumes closer to the movies. They needed to have a tower in NYC instead of mansion too, because they don't have a mansion in the movies.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2013 23:00
|
|
|
Watch in Avengers 2 they move into a mansion and Marvel gets to launch a new cartoon with the team fighting Ultron from their mansion.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2013 23:03
|
|
|
IShallRiseAgain posted:Basically, Jeph Loeb thought that having any sort of ongoing plot would be too confusing for kids. This will never not be the most loving infuriating thing to me. Children are not so stupid they don't know how to follow an ongoing plot.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2013 02:15
|
|
|
Sex_Ferguson posted:This will never not be the most loving infuriating thing to me. Children are not so stupid they don't know how to follow an ongoing plot. Literally no one watched Avatar: The Last Airbender. Or Dragonball Z. Those were both failed series that earned no money!
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2013 03:08
|
|
|
Sex_Ferguson posted:This will never not be the most loving infuriating thing to me. Children are not so stupid they don't know how to follow an ongoing plot. Yeah if a child is that stupid, he won't care that a plot is happening in the first place. Just have them fight periodically and they will be fine.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2013 03:28
|
|
|
Sex_Ferguson posted:This will never not be the most loving infuriating thing to me. Children are not so stupid they don't know how to follow an ongoing plot. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2013 03:39
|
|
|
I wasn't sure if I should post this here or in the Chat Thread, but I chose here. SNL's Taran Killam recreates the pilot of X-Men The Animated Series from memory: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PS8i1OhOimc
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2013 03:25
|
|
|
Little Mac posted:I wasn't sure if I should post this here or in the Chat Thread, but I chose here. SNL's Taran Killam recreates the pilot of X-Men The Animated Series from memory: He is married to Maria Hill.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2013 04:18
|
|
|
I like his impressions of the voice cast. His over-the-top Storm and Gambit made me crack up.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2013 05:29
|
|
|
That Storm impression was amazing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2013 06:23
|
|
|
Sex_Ferguson posted:This will never not be the most loving infuriating thing to me. Children are not so stupid they don't know how to follow an ongoing plot.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2013 06:33
|
|
|
That really made me want to watch that stupid show again.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2013 06:35
|
|
|
thelaughingman posted:Disney japan is producing their own Marvel comic series.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2013 06:44
|
|
|
Little Mac posted:I wasn't sure if I should post this here or in the Chat Thread, but I chose here. SNL's Taran Killam recreates the pilot of X-Men The Animated Series from memory: That was 100 times more soulful and dramatic than any episode of the current Marvel Series. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2013 07:03
|
|
|
Baron Bifford posted:Dear God, they're turning the Avengers into Pokemons. Well if Rulk appears they can explain him away as being a shiny Hulk. Also Hulk is Bruce Banner's mega evolution
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2013 09:18
|
|
|
Sex_Ferguson posted:This will never not be the most loving infuriating thing to me. Children are not so stupid they don't know how to follow an ongoing plot. I think it's more than that. It also effects costs and production speed. Basically, if you have an ongoing plot, you more or less HAVE to make the shows in a certain order. (Which makes sense. You can't start working on episode 14, until the production team have finalized the design on the new character who gets used in episode 8.) On the other hand, if each episode of a series is self contained and not reliant on the others, you can have episodes 3, 6 and 7 all being produced roughly made at the same time. Which means you can get the overall batch of episodes for the season produced faster and have them ready to broadcast. I know with Young Justice it was a huge problem with the series that they ran into production problems which made the whole series grind to a halt, because they couldn't show episodes they had made as they had not gotten their full allotment. In short, it's all about the money.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2013 12:42
|
|
|
There is also a holdover idea of the last century that people only watch every third episode of a TV show that they like. You have to remember that television didn't really have a lot of competition in the latter half of the 20th century. It was basically up against written literature and film as far as entertainment, and it was monopolizing how people took in sports and news. So, there was an expectation that people just watched TV despite quality. Even if they didn't like what was on, they would watch something because what else were they going to do? So, someone in the 80s might watch every other episode of Gloria because why the gently caress not? Maybe they'd try something on the other channel, or have sex, or whatever every other week. Anything of quality like MASH lent itself to being an event of sorts, taking in pretty crazy ratings because--once again--there's not much competition. The problem is that now the internet and video games have created a lot more competition. So, TV is no longer the default at-home-entertainment, meaning that when people do watch TV, it's usually out of a larger sense of investment. How we take in TV shows has also changes with DVDs, downloading, and streaming. A lot of people marathon shows, and are even okay waiting for a run to end before they watch. So, it's becoming an archaic idea, but there are still older viewers and older people involved in TV who think that way.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2013 22:59
|
|
|
Timeless Appeal posted:So, it's becoming an archaic idea, but there are still older viewers and older people involved in TV who think that way. Hollywood still thinks that if you have a movie without a white male lead, white people won't watch it. And that you need a romantic subplot to get women interested in the film, among other hilariously outdated and never-proven ideas. Hence why they're willing to make a movie featuring a gun-toting raccoon long before they try to do one about a woman. Hell, odds are we'll see a Moon Knight solo film first. I'm not sure this kind of idiot thinking is going to die off with the baby boomers, since they keep instilling it into the brains of everyone new who shows up to work there. Big media industries like film and television, where the control is solely in the hands of these heaving, archaic dinosaurs, are going to get eaten alive once the necessary technology winds up in the hands of the "common people". poo poo, I can think of a couple of youtube shows being put out today that have a better viewership than some network television productions.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 01:45
|
|
|
Fuego Fish posted:Hollywood still thinks that if you have a movie without a white male lead, white people won't watch it. And that you need a romantic subplot to get women interested in the film, among other hilariously outdated and never-proven ideas. Hence why they're willing to make a movie featuring a gun-toting raccoon long before they try to do one about a woman. Hell, odds are we'll see a Moon Knight solo film first. My other favorite bullshit rule is the one where you cannot under any circumstances have a protagonist stay masked for too long because audiences NEED to be able to see their face, hence every superhero movie looking for a reason for them to lose their mask in an action sequence. Outside of Dredd, I cannot think of a serious, proper attempt at making a movie that ignores this rule, and yet, if you bring it up in a discussion you will be met with tons of arguments for how its basically down to science (despite the fact that the percentage of films that have tried it are so low that any data proving the whole "human connection"/psychology thing is completely negligible.) And that is to say nothing of the quality of the films themselves (which probably have more to do with it than anything else.)
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 01:51
|
|
|
ToastyPotato posted:My other favorite bullshit rule is the one where you cannot under any circumstances have a protagonist stay masked for too long because audiences NEED to be able to see their face, hence every superhero movie looking for a reason for them to lose their mask in an action sequence. Sadly this one actually is true, and is one of the weaknesses of live action compared to print and animation. When it comes to proper emoting, the lion's share of the work is around the eyes. So unless you want to resort to facepaint ala The Crow or Arrow you're going to have to go pretty minimalist with your headgear. Of course, this also leads to the endless mask antics in Amazing Spider-Man, so it's kind of a no-win situation.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 02:58
|
|
|
404GoonNotFound posted:Sadly this one actually is true, and is one of the weaknesses of live action compared to print and animation. When it comes to proper emoting, the lion's share of the work is around the eyes. So unless you want to resort to facepaint ala The Crow or Arrow you're going to have to go pretty minimalist with your headgear. The theory is there, but we've never had a serious attempt at a movie that tested it. It's simply been accepted as a universal truth and that is what I am calling BS on. I'd like a list of films that have failed as a direct result of having a main character with an obscured face and not because they were simply not good films to begin with.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 03:30
|
|
|
It's less films and more human nature in general. Not being able to see someone's facial expressions means we don't empathize with them as much. That's why a lot of horror movie antagonists wear masks, and why the typical stormtrooper-type minion has a full-face helmet. Funnily enough I'm pretty sure the wide range of human facial expressions is one of the major reasons we get masks in superhero comics. Less effort for the artists, so they can crank out the pages faster.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 03:39
|
|
|
404GoonNotFound posted:Sadly this one actually is true, and is one of the weaknesses of live action compared to print and animation. When it comes to proper emoting, the lion's share of the work is around the eyes. So unless you want to resort to facepaint ala The Crow or Arrow you're going to have to go pretty minimalist with your headgear.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 03:43
|
|
|
ToastyPotato posted:The theory is there, but we've never had a serious attempt at a movie that tested it. It's simply been accepted as a universal truth and that is what I am calling BS on. I'd like a list of films that have failed as a direct result of having a main character with an obscured face and not because they were simply not good films to begin with. Yes and if reality and the brains of movie producers ever meet, well the universe will probably die in some kind of matter/anti-matter reaction. Hazo posted:V for Vendetta? A fluke, just like every successful female action lead.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 03:59
|
|
|
Bruce keeps his mask on for pretty much every fight after he becomes Batman in the Nolan films...?
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 12:52
|
|
|
ToastyPotato posted:The theory is there, but we've never had a serious attempt at a movie that tested it. It's simply been accepted as a universal truth and that is what I am calling BS on. I'd like a list of films that have failed as a direct result of having a main character with an obscured face and not because they were simply not good films to begin with.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 13:05
|
|
|
Endless Mike posted:Dredd. Though I guess the lady judge unmasked pretty much immediately. Psychic Judges pretty much always went helmetless in the comics, I think, because their helmets had a kind of Magneto effect to them.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 13:06
|
|
|
Endless Mike posted:Dredd. Though I guess the lady judge unmasked pretty much immediately.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 13:39
|
|
|
Endless Mike posted:Dredd. Though I guess the lady judge unmasked pretty much immediately. You sure that Dredd was unsuccessful because Karl Urban had a helmet and not because it was a fairly low budget sci-fi action film based on a franchise that has a horrid reputation with the average movie goer thanks to the Stallone adaptation? And that it had no marketable stars in it? Reinanigans posted:Bruce keeps his mask on for pretty much every fight after he becomes Batman in the Nolan films...? He has pretty big eye holes I guess. "Covering the eyes" is like, the big taboo here. I guess this also more belongs in a movie discussion thread as well.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 14:07
|
|
|
ToastyPotato posted:He has pretty big eye holes I guess. "Covering the eyes" is like, the big taboo here. I guess this also more belongs in a movie discussion thread as well. The topic only covers a few heroes anyway. It comes up in any Spider-Man or Dredd movie discussion but most other heroes are fine since you can see a lot of their faces already. I guess it could come up again with Dr. Doom. It wasn't an issue with Iron Man since they were able to do helmet cam.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 14:33
|
|
|
Lobok posted:I guess it could come up again with Dr. Doom. It wasn't an issue with Iron Man since they were able to do helmet cam. IronCam worked because it also offered a chance to show some of the UI stuff that Stark worked into the suit. So you not only got the acting, you also got some of that character flavor from the technology side.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 17:59
|
|
|
FilthyImp posted:You don't ever really need to see Doom's face, though. It's part of his bombastic nature (and it keeps him from being humanized, if you think about it). You don't need to see Doom's face the way we're talking about with heroes but actors will be actors. Not everyone is cool with hiding their face the entire time.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 18:36
|
|
|
Debut trailer for JL:War http://www.ign.com/videos/2013/10/28/justice-league-war-trailer-debut Looks nice but I'm not a fan of Darkseid voice.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 23:35
|
|
|
Oh, Geoff Johns and dub step. Okay.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 23:44
|
|
|
It's extra hip. Y'know, for kids!
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 23:46
|
|
|
I turn 26 next week, I just don't get it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 23:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 16:34 |
|
|
Casting Steve Blum as Darkseid is going to be torture for anyone who can recognize his voice--which won't be hard because he does a voice in seemingly every other animated project out there--with a multiplier of sadness added on because it's not Michael Ironside's Darkseid.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 23:52
|
|