The MSJ posted:

9 Empire covers for the movie.

Marketing New Brain posted:

Psylocke looks like she was ripped straight out of a Mortal Combat sequel, pose and all.

wyoming posted:

poo poo, if they've given her the Rogue treatment, I'm gonna be pissed.

Grendels Dad posted:

It looks like they forgot to photoshop in Sophie Turner's jetpack.

edit: Quicksilver noticed, too!

Hat Thoughts posted:

Dude, come on, *Kombat

Hat Thoughts posted:

Dude, come on, *Kombat

Glamorama26 posted:

Almost fainted when I saw his typo, thank god you were here.

Nateron posted:

That said these X-Men trailers look like garbage but the movies have been surprisingly good for a watch or two.

Mordiceius posted:

I watched First Class about two years after it came out and all I could think the whole time was that the special effects looked loving terrible. Like distractingly bad.

SolidSnakesBandana posted:

Not sure if this is the best place to discuss this but I recently saw American Hero and man, what a wasted premise. If you didn't like Hancock because the plot didn't really go anywhere, you will hate this movie. A lot of the scenes are individually well shot, but there isn't really a plot and nothing really happens. The worst thing is they have a bunch of little clues that make you think hey, something might happen at some point? But nothing ever does.

Snowglobe of Doom posted:

Yeah it really felt more like a character piece about a guy trying to get his life back together so he can see his kid again but he just so happens to have super powers which are another distraction/temptation he has to deal with in his life. 'Wasted potential' is one of the obvious themes running through the film but I wasn't really sure it was addressed at all by the end of the film.

The filmmaker might have been trying to make Melvin might have been a metaphor for the USA itself - he has a gigantic amount of power combined with booksmarts and good intentions but he's constantly distracted by frivolous partying, drugs and booze and old timey religion. When he does man up and try to affect change he goes for the nuclear option rather than the longterm smart option, which itself causes problems for himself and his friends. He just can't understand why his life isn't as great as he always imagined it and when he tries to bootstrap himself into a better person that doesn't work either.

teagone posted:

I don't know where this is from but

Oasx posted:

I think the problem is that the newer movies still look like that awkward first X-Men movie, with black leather suits and weird design choices like Mystique. Marvel and Sony have managed to adapt super hero costumes to the big screen, but the X-Men movies are still going with that awful design theme they started with.

The movies themselves have been pretty good since First Class, they just look super ugly.

I said come in! posted:

God drat I am so excited for Batman vs. Superman next week.

quote:

Warner Brothers Destroyed Superman's Brand For Their New Franchise. Will It Pay Off?


Strictly speaking, Superman the character has taken a life on occasion. But the bigger question – and one that is appropriately discussed in a business publication like Forbes rather than a fan site – is, does Superman the brand stand for killing?

The answer to that, historically, is no. Does it matter that Warner Brothers has changed the Superman brand significantly in this way? I’d argue yes.

And we are not talking about just any brand here. We are talking about one of the most powerful and positive brands in American history, one that captured the imagination of generations and is instantly recognizable to almost everyone on the planet. The question is, will their decision pay off?

cont'd

Vintersorg posted:

It's almost here!

Articles are coming out again on how Man of Steel destroyed Superman and the babies are crying in the comments on how "he killed!" "he let Pa Kent die!" "Pa Kent said kill children!!"

E:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/robsalk...f/#449f8aac47d8

quote:

Were there some exceptions? Sure. Superman has been continuously published in the comics for over 75 years, and among the thousands of stories that hundreds of creators have told, a few are “off brand” or indulge the whims of folks who thought it was a good idea to “go there” just for the sake of being edgy and different. It’s the same kind of thinking that leads people to pitch stuff like “let’s tell the story of how Strawberry Shortcake got molested by her pervy uncle” or “how about having Scooby and the gang sent to a Turkish prison.” Missteps of that sort are perfectly predictable in an industry where professionals labor to make characters created for children relevant to an audience that is now mostly adults.

quote:

Hughes argues that, within the plot dynamics of the movie, Superman had little choice but to kill Zod the way he did. That’s true, but there’s nothing that dictated the film had to come down to that kind of life-or-death decision. The story could have resolved with Superman sending Zod back to the Phantom Zone, or shrinking him to the size of an ant and keeping him in a bottle, or sending him forward in time to the end of the universe. If extreme justice were really called for, there are dozens of ways for villains to get caught in their own traps or falling victim to their own evil impulses. You don’t create a scene that forces your hero to kill the bad guy unless you are determined to make a statement about the character.

quote:

Hughes argues that, within the plot dynamics of the movie, Superman had little choice but to kill Zod the way he did. That’s true, but there’s nothing that dictated the film had to come down to that kind of life-or-death decision. The story could have resolved with Superman sending Zod back to the Phantom Zone, or shrinking him to the size of an ant and keeping him in a bottle, or sending him forward in time to the end of the universe. If extreme justice were really called for, there are dozens of ways for villains to get caught in their own traps or falling victim to their own evil impulses. You don’t create a scene that forces your hero to kill the bad guy unless you are determined to make a statement about the character.

Tuxedo Catfish posted:

The second idea is awful because nobody deserves to die, that's why killing is wrong. Without "nobody deserves to die," a no-kill rule is inconsistent and hypocritical -- it's just saying "our hands should remain clean."

Tuxedo Catfish posted:

"You don't have to kill him, you could just exile him to a blasted hellscape / keep him in solitary confinement forever" is already pooh-poohing a pretty complicated and ugly choice, but the bolded part is the stupidest thing in the entire article.

"The villain dies after falling into his own trap" thing, at least if it's portrayed in the usual way, signifies two things; that evil is self-defeating, and that evil people deserve to die. The first idea is awful because it promotes inactivity and trusting that the world will naturally work itself out in a just way. The second idea is awful because nobody deserves to die, that's why killing is wrong. Without "nobody deserves to die," a no-kill rule is inconsistent and hypocritical -- it's just saying "our hands should remain clean."

Guy A. Person posted:

in MoS he had no choice but to kill Zod and it was a snap decision

Snowglobe of Doom posted:

computer parts posted:

That's how a significant amount of people think. For example, a lot of people oppose intervention in the middle east because they think we're then responsible for everything that happens during it. The actual conflict is something close to "those drat Arabs are just too bloodthirsty to be reasoned with".