|
Geoff Johns is bad because he writes about the characters he remembers instead of the ones I remember.
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 17:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 09:25 |
|
|
Aphrodite posted:Geoff Johns is bad because he writes about the characters he remembers instead of the ones I remember. Pretty much this. Also he is bad because all his best stuff happened years ago and I don't remember it so he has never written anything good.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 20:33
|
|
|
I saw X-Men Apocalypse. It's a fun movie, but I can see how it got a kind of tepid response. Seeing it this close to Civil War highlights how much Marvel has evolved as a studio and how much less "human" the X-Men movies feel by comparison. It's suuuuper comicbooky and everyone is hammy as gently caress and it's cool, but also nothing you haven't seen before. Millions of people die and no one seems that bothered by it, which I guess can be refreshing after several movies that are all about how much loving damage is caused by superheroes. It's very much DoFP part 2 only without the time travel poo poo and even though there are a lot of 90s references it doesn't feel like a period piece as much as the two previous films do. Apocalypse takes the center stage and the humans don't really figure into anything at all. The cast does a good job, Oscar Isaac is real fun, Fassbender is at the most theatrical I've ever seen him, as many people suspected Jennifer Lawrence is kind of the weak link since it doesn't seem like she wants to be there, but luckily Sophie Turner makes up for that, she's really great and I can't wait to see the focus shift more in her direction. So yeah, solid movie, nothing revolutionary, but it's big and silly and spectacular. The Quicksilver scenes are again extremely funny.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 20:55
|
|
|
How's psylocke and arkangel?
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 20:57
|
|
|
greatn posted:How's psylocke and arkangel? They're just muscle, they each have like 10 lines between them, but they look good and get some neat action scenes. They have more personality than, say, Sabertooth in the first movie at least. Horseman recruitment scene: When Apocalypse recruits Angel and gives him his metal wings he's listening to Judas Priest and his wings look like they're straight from the Painkiller cover. Hakkesshu fucked around with this message at 21:19 on May 18, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 21:02
|
|
|
I'm such a Marvel homer that there's basically no chance I won't like X-men even if I know it's bad ._.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 21:19
|
|
|
Also, really silly gag in the middle of the film that I can't tell if I liked or not: The kids go see Return of the Jedi in a theatre and after leaving they're like "Man Empire was so much better" - "Nah the first movie started it all" - "Well at least we can agree that the third movie is always the worst! WINK WINK"
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 21:19
|
|
|
Batman v. Superman made it glaringly clear that WB was treating DC like a content farm and "put someone on staff who knows who these loving characters are and cares about them" wasn't even the tiniest bit of a priority for them. Say what you want about Geoff Johns, but he knows who the characters are and when he cares, he cares a lot. As long as they're going to have someone reading over scripts and then returning them with "okay so here's literally 75 years of comic books about Batman and guns and his feelings about that, Superman and saving people and his feelings about that, and if either of them think killing is a cool thing to do, why don't you glance over a couple and then make some revisions" notes, it's a step forward.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 21:22
|
|
|
CapnAndy posted:Batman v. Superman made it glaringly clear that WB was treating DC like a content farm and "put someone on staff who knows who these loving characters are and cares about them" wasn't even the tiniest bit of a priority for them. Say what you want about Geoff Johns, but he knows who the characters are and when he cares, he cares a lot. I think this is a refreshing change from "Zack Snyder is Satan".
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 21:38
|
|
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:I think this is a refreshing change from "Zack Snyder is Satan". Meh, he's still using the usual talking points.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 22:07
|
|
|
I really don't understand why people think Zach Snyder doesn't know the characters. Every single movie he makes is filled with direct references, homages and in-jokes to comics, in some cases fairly obscure poo poo. Both BvS and MoS are closer to their comic counterparts than a lot of the Marvel films are and Watchmen is probably the closest we've ever come to a straight comic-to-film adaptation. Now, I don't agree with what he thinks are the most interesting parts of those characters and I think he has at minimum a weird reading of certain parts of TDKR and Watchmen, but it isn't because he doesn't know them.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 22:14
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:Now, I don't agree with what he thinks are the most interesting parts of those characters and I think he has at minimum a weird reading of certain parts of TDKR and Watchmen, but it isn't because he doesn't know them. What makes him not understand Watchmen? I haven't read the comic in about 10 years, but I watched the Director's Cut of Watchmen last week and other than the ending change I felt it captured as much of the books themes and ideas as it could.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 22:18
|
|
|
He both knows and reviles them for being counter to his philosophy. Zack Snyder's Mr.A would probably be wonderful though.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 22:18
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:I really don't understand why people think Zach Snyder doesn't know the characters. Every single movie he makes is filled with direct references, homages and in-jokes to comics, in some cases fairly obscure poo poo. Both BvS and MoS are closer to their comic counterparts than a lot of the Marvel films are and Watchmen is probably the closest we've ever come to a straight comic-to-film adaptation. well, for one, he's exhibited a factual misunderstanding of the events in The Dark Knight Returns.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 22:20
|
|
|
TFRazorsaw posted:well, for one, he's exhibited a factual misunderstanding of the events in The Dark Knight Returns. Yeah that dude didn't have a flame thrower in the comic book, poor form Snyder!
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 22:27
|
|
|
MacheteZombie posted:What makes him not understand Watchmen? I haven't read the comic in about 10 years, but I watched the Director's Cut of Watchmen last week and other than the ending change I felt it captured as much of the books themes and ideas as it could. I feel the ending change is a more significant one than a lot of people because it drastically, at least to me, misreads the Cold War feel and the connection between Manhattan and American military might. I've said it before but I find it completely implausible for the time and setting that Moscow could vanish in a flash of light only associated with America's Superman and NOT have nukes fly instantly, even if the American Superman was previously disgraced. I also feel that the change to Nite Owl angrily attacking Adrian in response to Rorschach's death is a lot weaker from a character perspective. I also feel like it hurts the final scenes a bit more that "nothing ever ends" doesn't come from Dr. Manhattan himself. Basically almost every scene I think is done poorly and misses the themes of the story revolves around the changed ending.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 22:29
|
|
|
MacheteZombie posted:Yeah that dude didn't have a flame thrower in the comic book, poor form Snyder! You're hilarious. But, despite what Snyder says, no one actually dies in TDKR. There's lots of lamp-shading and tounge in cheek "THEY'RE OKAY!" and "rubber bullets, honest", but nobody is actually killed. Everyone who appears in that page that gets posted out of context actually survived. This is observable in the story itself.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 22:32
|
|
|
Apparently Snyder once referenced this Youtube video of Batman's total kill counts in an effort to explain why his Batman kills people in BvS. The creator of that video, who does a podcast for comicbookmovies.com, talked about how annoyed he was at that because the whole point of the video was to show how absurd it is for Batman to kill so many people and not for people to think "Hey look Batman totally kills people so you should feel free to have him kill people." (It was pretty funny, I generally enjoy that podcast) Snyder might "know" these characters. But the way he portrays them, whether by intent or mistake, often makes it seem like he doesn't actually get the point of the stuff that he "knows." If it's by mistake, then that speaks to ineptitude. If it's by intent, then that's just annoying.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 22:34
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:I really don't understand why people think Zach Snyder doesn't know the characters. He has a fundamental and serious misunderstanding of TDKR, a glorified what-if comic anyways, which he uses to defend his vision of BvS. He might "know" Watchmen (and I agree it's basically a comic book movie adaptation), but there's absolutely nothing that he's shown about Batman or Superman that illustrates he knows anything about the movie characters he's portraying. And that's fine, because I consider comic book characters glorified archetypes within which creators should feel free to slot their interpretations and spins into, but MoS and BvS are both very bad films that run counter to the very centralized base themes - the very basic building blocks and personalities that define them both as characters - of Batman and Superman. And even then, that would be fine if they were done with any degree of craft at all - a Superman who kills might be fundamentally Not Superman (and, to be fair, it is), but that in and of itself could be interesting if done well. It's not done well. NieR Occomata fucked around with this message at 22:42 on May 18, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 22:38
|
|
|
TFRazorsaw posted:You're hilarious. But, despite what Snyder says, no one actually dies in TDKR. There's lots of lamp-shading and tounge in cheek "THEY'RE OKAY!" and "rubber bullets, honest", but nobody is actually killed. Everyone who appears in that page that gets posted out of context actually survived. This is observable in the story itself. Oh, don't be a baby. The one guy in the "I believe you" scene doesn't die, but those panels have been legendarily poor at communicating their intent since the comic came out. You could read it three or four times and think Batman killed the guy every time.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 22:41
|
|
|
Toxxupation posted:He has a fundamental and serious misunderstanding of TDKR, a glorified what-if comic anyways, which he uses to defend his vision of BvS. Look, you know I made that argument myself and am well aware of it. The key is that it revolves around a difference in interpretation rather than flat-out ignorance. He subscribes to some readings of TDKR which I don't but they're not wild out there SMG readings or anything and even if he misread that particular scene he misread it in a way that apparently is at least relatively common. Someone disagreeing on the themes and story behind something is not inherently the same as them being 'wrong'.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 22:43
|
|
|
BrianWilly posted:Apparently Snyder once referenced this Youtube video of Batman's total kill counts in an effort to explain why his Batman kills people in BvS. The creator of that video, who does a podcast for comicbookmovies.com, talked about how annoyed he was at that because the whole point of the video was to show how absurd it is for Batman to kill so many people and not for people to think "Hey look Batman totally kills people so you should feel free to have him kill people." (It was pretty funny, I generally enjoy that podcast) Are you sure? The video could be rehosted, but it says it was published almost a year after BvS finished filming. ImpAtom posted:I feel the ending change is a more significant one than a lot of people because it drastically, at least to me, misreads the Cold War feel and the connection between Manhattan and American military might. I've said it before but I find it completely implausible for the time and setting that Moscow could vanish in a flash of light only associated with America's Superman and NOT have nukes fly instantly, even if the American Superman was previously disgraced. I can see how structurally or plot wise that might bother some people, but I don't think thematically it really changes all that much. I remember being taken aback by the change when the movie first came out, but watching the director's cut last week I was much more receptive to it, and it works quite well within the context of the movie.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 22:45
|
|
|
theflyingorc posted:Oh, don't be a baby. The one guy in the "I believe you" scene doesn't die, but those panels have been legendarily poor at communicating their intent since the comic came out. You could read it three or four times and think Batman killed the guy every time. Yes, and that's because the creators of TDKR aren't as good of storytellers as most people would like you to believe. But I think a guy who's making a movie about Batman should have a better understanding of the text this work, if he's gonna choose to try and homage it so directly.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 22:46
|
|
|
TFRazorsaw posted:Yes, and that's because the creators of TDKR aren't as good of storytellers as most people would like you to believe. To be fair, BvS Bats doesn't kill that guy, he just doesn't save him. KGBeast, once his flamethrower pack was shot did not have to turn to flame Martha, he chose to do that, and subsequently caused himself to explode.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 22:49
|
|
|
TFRazorsaw posted:Yes, and that's because the creators of TDKR aren't as good of storytellers as most people would like you to believe. What are you specifically saying Snyder should have done differently RE: His reading of TDKR?
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 22:49
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:Look, you know I made that argument myself and am well aware of it. The key is that it revolves around a difference in interpretation rather than flat-out ignorance. He subscribes to some readings of TDKR which I don't but they're not wild out there SMG readings or anything and even if he misread that particular scene he misread it in a way that apparently is at least relatively common. Someone disagreeing on the themes and story behind something is not inherently the same as them being 'wrong'. BvS barely resembles TDKR in any real way beyond a couple of iconic panels being referenced and a grand total of one (1) plot event being used from TDKR - Batman and Superman fighting. I don't even like TDKR that much, but it's real disingenuous to imply what Snyder implies, that BvS is some comic-faithful interpretation or whatever. And that's fine. Creators should feel free to pick and choose whatever elements of comics they do or don't like when translating them to other mediums, I just find Snyder's defense of his bad boring movie as being some source-faithful thing to be in complete bad faith. It's Snyder shifting blame away from himself or David Goyer to a comic written thirty years prior that he barely used any plot events from in the first place, one that had a completely different plot and themes and characters and arc. And I honestly don't think Snyder's actually read TDKR, because hoo boy is BvS basically the complete opposite of it from beginning to end. Again, I'm not some purist because I don't even really like TDKR. I say this from having watched and liked Watchmen, even now, a movie that Snyder had very clearly read the source material because it's basically just the comic panels filmed with the addition of godawful sex scenes and a better ending. I know what Snyder's like when he interprets source material, because I've seen Watchmen. BvS is not that. NieR Occomata fucked around with this message at 22:59 on May 18, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 22:56
|
|
|
theflyingorc posted:What are you specifically saying Snyder should have done differently RE: His reading of TDKR? Not said that's what happens and made like it's constantly happening throughout the book. This isn't "death of the author" in action. There's no ambiguity invited by the creators, where they ask you "well, what do YOU think happened to them?". The ambiguity exists because the storytelling is poorly conveyed. I would think the job of a movie director would and should invite more research and awareness of the source material than he shows. Even saying he wanted his portrayal to have more honesty and sincerity while still homaging TDKR would have shown he gets the source material more than he does. MacheteZombie posted:To be fair, BvS Bats doesn't kill that guy, he just doesn't save him. KGBeast, once his flamethrower pack was shot did not have to turn to flame Martha, he chose to do that, and subsequently caused himself to explode. Well, that's fine. He kills enough people directly or indirectly elsewhere in the movie to make up for that.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 22:57
|
|
|
MacheteZombie posted:I can see how structurally or plot wise that might bother some people, but I don't think thematically it really changes all that much. I remember being taken aback by the change when the movie first came out, but watching the director's cut last week I was much more receptive to it, and it works quite well within the context of the movie. I really think the Nite Owl change is significant. The sheer uncomfortable nature of Rorschach being erased alone and forgotten feels a lot more a fitting end to his character than his best friend giving his sorta-murderer a beatdown, even if it's displayed ineffectually at the end. It gives Nite Owl a 'redemption' in his relationship with Rorschach which feels a lot more hollow than the ending where Nite Owl just goes inside and assumes Rorschach froze to death.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 22:57
|
|
|
TFRazorsaw posted:Not said that's what happens and made like it's constantly happening throughout the book. It is still beyond reasonable to look at those panels and think exactly what Zach Snyder thought, with no reason to research further. Unless you think he should have Googled "WHAT DO PEOPLE GET WRONG ABOUT DARK KNIGHT RETURNS"
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 23:00
|
|
|
Aphrodite posted:Geoff Johns is bad because he writes about the characters he remembers instead of the ones I remember. That's a reductive way of looking at things. My issue with that mindset is that I want him to write about the characters as they are presently. Not the ones that he remembers or the ones that I remember. I'm sick of reset buttons, granted I'm in the wrong medium if that's my axe to grind. It sets a bad precedent. He likes Hal Jordan, so he reboots Green Lantern to put him at the helm again. All that means is a few years later when they get a new guy on who grew up with Kyle Rayner, everything has to get trashed again to make it fit. You should try to be more objective.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 23:01
|
|
|
I always find this debate rather pointless because it dodges the real question of whether or not these characters killing works as part of the story (it does). The discussion goes into the "essence" of characters, even though they're just tools to tell stories. Granted, Batman and Superman are fine tools, but they're still tools. And there's the obscene subtext of this whole discussion: BrianWilly posted:The creator of that video, who does a podcast for comicbookmovies.com, talked about how annoyed he was at that because the whole point of the video was to show how absurd it is for Batman to kill so many people That is to say, the outrage isn't that Snyder has dared to include killing, but that he's acknowledged it. BravestOfTheLamps fucked around with this message at 19:35 on May 19, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 23:02
|
|
|
I mean, let's put it this way: Civil War is a more comic-faithful interpretation (as in, it tries to address the "everybody's right and everybody's wrong" idea at its heart that the comic tried and failed at putting across) than BvS is of TDKR. And hoo boy is Civil War the movie a bare resemblance of the comic event. It's just a movie that understood what the comic was trying to be about - good people in conflict over ideological differences - and interpreted it extremely well, as opposed to BvS being an almost completely original story that Snyder then tried to back it into being some combination of BvS + Death of Superman when it's very clearly neither.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 23:03
|
|
|
theflyingorc posted:So he should read the exact right nerd blogs then, got it. No reason to research further? He's the director and creative head of a huge film. Research is literally one of the things he SHOULD be doing. The book is several decades old by now. It's been analyzed to hell and back by more than just nerds with blogs. This is by no means OBSCURE.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 23:06
|
|
|
There's a rumor that John Boyega might be in Black Panther now, holy poo poo.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 23:08
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:I really don't understand why people think Zach Snyder doesn't know the characters. Also BvS contains a scene where Superman is right next to an explosion and his reaction to this is to stand still and watch a room full of people burn to death in slow motion and then leave and refuse to do any more super-heroing, so I just want to make the record clear that Zack Snyder is in fact 100% Satan.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 23:09
|
|
|
If, tomorrow, I tell the press that, like, Batman will torture a thug, or cripple a mobster, nobody panics, because it’s all ‘part of the plan’. But when I say that he kills someone, well then everyone loses their minds!
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 23:12
|
|
|
CapnAndy posted:Because, and I'm sorry to repeat myself, Batman carries and uses multiple guns, Superman is conflicted at best and apathetic at worst about saving people, and both of them kill people. Those are fundamental fuckups. Literally, actually literally fundamental. He hosed the characters up on their absolutely most basic levels. Why doesn't he try to pull anyone out of the rubble? Why is he not more visibly upset? Why doesn't he stick around to explain things? This isn't even a matter of empathy. It goes against his own personal interest and artificially makes things worse for him. He offers no explanation and there's no practical or emotional reason for him to leave, beyond that the story needs a reason for Batman to become even more resolute to murder him. It's just not cowardly, it's demonstrably and artificially stupid.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 23:14
|
|
|
MacheteZombie posted:Are you sure? The video could be rehosted, but it says it was published almost a year after BvS finished filming. Or I might be wrong. I don't know (or remember) what Snyder said about the video, I just heard the video creator complaining about it.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 23:14
|
|
|
SonicRulez posted:That's a reductive way of looking at things. My issue with that mindset is that I want him to write about the characters as they are presently. Not the ones that he remembers or the ones that I remember. I'm sick of reset buttons, granted I'm in the wrong medium if that's my axe to grind. It sets a bad precedent. He likes Hal Jordan, so he reboots Green Lantern to put him at the helm again. All that means is a few years later when they get a new guy on who grew up with Kyle Rayner, everything has to get trashed again to make it fit. You should try to be more objective. Green Lantern is a bad example, because nothing has to change to focus on a new one. Unlike Ron Marz, Geoff Johns didn't turn Kyle Rayner into a cackling genocidal maniac so it doesn't even require any retcons to just decide Green Lantern is going to focus on someone else now. It's even happened a few times.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 23:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 09:25 |
|
|
TFRazorsaw posted:Why doesn't he try to pull anyone out of the rubble? Why is he not more visibly upset? Why doesn't he stick around to explain things? Superman is just a man. The movie outright says that he's not God, I don't know why people keep missing it. BrianWilly posted:I don't think Snyder made Batman kill people because he watched that video or anything, I think he misconstrued the point of the video as a defense for his own choices, and the specific misconstruing in question shows his general mindset about the issue: "Batman totally kills, because he did it in all these films! These aren't mistakes, they're guidelines." Snyder didn't introduce killing, he just acknowledged it.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 23:17
|
|