|
BiggerBoat posted:Who would be a good Wolverine moving forward since Jackman appears to be done. I can't think of anyone. That depends. Do you just want to recast Logan, or have Laura become Wolverine?
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2017 16:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 23:24 |
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:E; Cross posting but I wonder why no one has ever thought about making Plastic Man movie. I think there's a lot of potential there for a really cool film, especially with the proper tone. There was as stated before. It never got off the ground. A cartoon-live action show was made in from 79-81. https://youtu.be/VLIuRluy10I They did try a cartoon in the mid 00's and the pilot is good. It wasn't picked up and seems to be scrubbed from the Internet. He was voiced by Tom Kenny and the animation had a serious ren & stimpy vibe. It doesn't help that Plastic Man's last major appearance was in the Rogue's mini for flashpoint.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2017 16:22
|
|
|
Plastic Man had some extremely memorable appearances in Injustice recently.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2017 16:33
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:Who would be a good Wolverine moving forward since Jackman appears to be done. I can't think of anyone. Danny DeVito, versus Kaitlin Olson as Sauron.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2017 17:10
|
|
|
Phylodox posted:Man of Steel is, like, a baseline for superhero movies. Not terrible, not fantastic. Just somewhere comfortably in the middle between Thor 1 and 2. I would argue that Batman Begins fits that mold better. MoS falls below that line. Thor 1 probably meeting it. Blade a little above. X-Men a little below. Etcetera etcetera. Big Mean Jerk posted:Man of Steel is great right up until the scene where Pa Kent tells Clark he shouldn't help people. It's all downhill from that point on. I'd say Iron Man 1 is a better baseline. It's consistent the whole way through, it's just kind of okay, and it has a very standard plot and villain. The first Iron Man is pretty good, it might be tough to make that the middle point. Like a lot of superhero movies are not as good as IM1. I don't remember if the flashbacks are told in chronological order or if they jump around. When does Pa hop into a tornado? Because that was when I went from "This just isn't for me" to "This is stupid and I hate it".
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2017 17:24
|
|
|
That's also a great example of how people are hilariously unable to articulate to say what's bad about it. They're honestly angered by its sheer inexplicability, as if it were a particularly annoying plot hole - or as if Pa Kent was a real person who committed suicide before them. A character making an inexplicable gesture/moral choice is actually great. Mr Hootington posted:There was as stated before. It never got off the ground. And there used to be a script by... pre-Matrix Wachowskis. BravestOfTheLamps fucked around with this message at 17:39 on Jan 22, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2017 17:35
|
|
|
At the risk of directly engaging a fairly blatant troll (not because he has an unpopular opinion of a film, but because he's baiting people by pretending any opposing viewpoint is without basis and thus invalid) , the reason Pa's portrayal hurts Man Of Steel is because Superman is shown, pretty much throughout every incarnation, to be altruistic. Now the usual way this would create tension would be to show his father figure instilling a moral code of trying to help others in him, while Pa is also afraid of what might happen if Clark is exposed. That creates drama from the friction of two opposing desires. The movie removes this tension by removing the conflict. Jonathan doesn't say definitively that Clark should've let those people die, but he also doesn't appear all that conflicted about it. Now whether that's poor directing, poor editing, poor writing or poor performance by Costner, it fundamentally damages the arc of Clark becoming Superman because that's supposed to be the synthesis and resolution of that conflict. He can help others AND stay hidden by adopting a new identity. Similarly, the killing of Zod and disregard for collateral damage demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of why this character works as heroic. Now a very solid deconstruction of the concept can exist by having him not restrain that power, much like a examination of a deranged vigilante killing poors in an urban wasteland could be an interesting film, but those are poor adaptations of Superman and Batman. In fact the very act of marketing a film as such lessens the power of such deconstruction as it reduces it to shock value. It's less about 'what would a being with this power REALLY do' and more about shocking the audience that SUPERMAN is doing this. Plus, don't act like they didn't intend a direct adaptation. The thematic stuff with the S shield being for hope and beats like the handcuffs and the denouement in MoS make it pretty clear they're going for a fairly straightforward version of the character, which makes the zig-zags all the more glaringly obvious missteps. (As a contrast, I kind of like the part where he wrecks the bar bully's truck. That feels like a character beat that works along an arc of growth. Hell, make Clark a bit younger when it happens and have it take place in Smallville and boom, you've got a rebellious teen railing against hiding his gifts that works nicely contrasted with his father's fears of if said gifts are discovered) e:I think part of the issues with Pa's death is poor editing. It takes SO long for the twister to devour him that it feels like he literally waits for death, not because he took a risk to protect his son's secret, but because the script said it's time for him to die. It also feels unsatisfying both on it's own, as it adds nothing new to the arc of the film in the sense of the hiding the gift, nor does it effectively communicate the point that most other versions of the death convey: That even Superman is powerless to prevent some things, thus rendering him more human and relateable to the audience. But, yeah, sure, no-one can articulate what they dislike about it, sure, go with that. Gaz-L fucked around with this message at 17:49 on Jan 22, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2017 17:45
|
|
|
Did anyone else think the gas station clerk in the Logan trailer was Aaron Tyler-Johnson (quicksilver)?
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2017 18:37
|
|
|
Mr Hootington posted:There was as stated before. It never got off the ground. He made a couple of appearances in the shorts that DC was putting out back when Young Justice and Green Lantern were airing on Cartoon Network.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2017 18:40
|
|
|
Gaz-L posted:But, yeah, sure, no-one can articulate what they dislike about it, sure, go with that. I appreciate the insight and effort you put into that post, but BotL has had good arguments made against them many, many times in this thread. BotL posts from inside Zack Snyder's muscular anus and is literally incapable of comprehending when people give reasons for disliking DC movies.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2017 18:43
|
|
|
muscles like this! posted:He made a couple of appearances in the shorts that DC was putting out back when Young Justice and Green Lantern were airing on Cartoon Network. And he was a fairly popular character on Batman brave and the bold.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2017 18:47
|
|
|
Gaz-L posted:At the risk of directly engaging a fairly blatant troll (not because he has an unpopular opinion of a film, but because he's baiting people by pretending any opposing viewpoint is without basis and thus invalid) , the reason Pa's portrayal hurts Man Of Steel is because Superman is shown, pretty much throughout, to be altruistic. Now the usual way this would create tension would be to show his father figure instilling a moral code of trying to help others in him, while Pa is also afraid of what might happen if Clark is exposed. That creates drama from the friction of two opposing desires. The movie removes this tension by removing the conflict. That's not really a criticism, that's just the movie not being what people might expect. It didn't have a different and specific conflict ("the usual way"). That might be a explanationfor disliking it, but it's not really a reason or imperative to do so. Gaz-L posted:Similarly, the killing of Zod and disregard for collateral damage demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of why this character works as heroic. Characters are just tools for storytelling, what they "real" character is supposed to be is at best a secondary concerns. What matters is what they are. What makes Superman heroic in all incarnations is that he chooses to use his immense powers for good. This tends to translate into a comfortable paternal figure. MoS Superman on the other hand is used to emphaise the "choose" part. This is why Jonathan Kent says "maybe" and dies to protect Clark's secret: instead of comfort, he offers freedom, the responsibility that comes with it, and sacrifice. Killing Zod was sacrilegious for fans because there should have been "another way," a third option between killing and letting people die: a safety net like a Phantom Zone Projector to banish Zod away. But there's no safety net, no way to defer freedom and responsibility. Superman not "caring enough" for collateral damage in Metropolis is the same appeal for a comforting safety net. The idea is that Superman should be more or less in control of things and able to avoid the catastrophe that fighting for Earth's survival means. quote:Plus, don't act like they didn't intend a direct adaptation. The thematic stuff with the S shield being for hope and beats like the handcuffs and the denouement in MoS make it pretty clear they're going for a fairly straightforward version of the character, which makes the zig-zags all the more glaringly obvious missteps. If you imagine the creative team trying to tell a different story than what they end up telling, of course there's going to be some dissonance. It doesn't matter what story they're trying to tell or supposed to tell, but what they end up telling. Characters are ultimately arbitrary tools for storytelling. MCU Star-Lord is diametrically opposed to his counterpart in characterisation (beyond being "snarky") and themes, but that's not really grounds for criticism. He is what he is. SlimGoodbody posted:BotL posts from inside Zack Snyder's muscular anus and is literally incapable of comprehending when people give reasons for disliking DC movies. I do understand them, I think they're just overwhelmingly really silly. Like a movie being bad because a character wasn't reassuring or inspiring enough.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2017 18:49
|
|
|
More a movie being disliked because it tells us a character IS inspiring and reassuring while showing us information that contradicts it. And my point about the dramatic tension wasn't that the movie ignored a cliche, but that it defused all dramatic tension from itself by removing a clear and obvious source of conflict without replacing it. What you call freedom, I'm seeing as aimlessness disguised as an attempt at reinforcing fear (in this case, fear of exposing himself, but this was already set up with the bus scene, so the tornado scene serves no narrative purpose except to kill Jonathan, and I've noted why I dislike that beat both technically and thematically) And no-one is misunderstanding the Zod scene. I get what Snyder was going for. But as you keep stating, that situation is a narrative device, a fictional tool. A tool that ill-fits the purpose around it. If the movie had set up a Superman with a code against killing, (as in the John Byrne story inspiring that scene, so I'm fully aware that it being 'inaccurate' isn't a totally fair shot in that sense) then the audience would feel the tragedy of him sacrificing that value to protect his other need to protect life. Instead the tension is supposed (death of the author and all that, but this is what Snyder's said) to be that he's killing the last Kryptonian. Except he has no connection to Zod personally, and has been raised on Earth, so the audience is given no reason to believe he'd value a murderer's life over humans. It'd be like The Killing Joke opening with Batman slitting a mugger's throat and still acting like it's a tragic eventuality that he'll kill the Joker. Sure the characters are just tools, but badly used tools make a lovely wobbly table. It's only partially about it being a bad traditional Superman tale, it's a poorly told version of the story it purports to tell because it feels like half of one and half the other. Gaz-L fucked around with this message at 19:05 on Jan 22, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2017 19:03
|
|
|
Jamesman posted:If you're gonna cast someone from Always Sunny as The Joker, you gotta go with Nate Mooney/Ryan McPoyle. I think he'd be a better Riddler.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2017 19:19
|
|
|
Kingtheninja posted:Did anyone else think the gas station clerk in the Logan trailer was Aaron Tyler-Johnson (quicksilver)? Considering that other than having two arms and a head they look nothing alike? No.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2017 20:35
|
|
|
Even when Superman is not the traditional Superman he still is out there saving people without hesitation; Red Son and Gods and Monsters for example. You can forgive people to go "wtf?" when presented with a Superman who hesitates in saving people because that is a core aspect of the character. It would be like him not being able to fly or without super strength. It would be like Batman saying "eh not going to bother" when he sees a woman being robbed at gunpoint. You can go on about subverting expectations but changing core principles of the character goes beyond that. So Guardians 2 takes place only a short time after the end of the first one?
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2017 20:36
|
|
|
Rhyno posted:Considering that other than having two arms and a head they look nothing alike? Eh, he does have a similar amount of face-scruff and hair dye to Taylor-Johnson in Avengers. For a half-second I was like "Wait, Quicksilver's in thi- wait, wrong one". Only in the close up of Laura, though. Once he's in focus it's obviously a different guy.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2017 20:42
|
|
|
Gaz-L posted:Eh, he does have a similar amount of face-scruff and hair dye to Taylor-Johnson in Avengers. For a half-second I was like "Wait, Quicksilver's in thi- wait, wrong one". Only in the close up of Laura, though. Once he's in focus it's obviously a different guy. You think all scruffy looking white guys look the same?
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2017 20:45
|
|
|
I really hope the movie has that backstory of the villains having been amputated by Wolverine at some point. It'd be delightfully blunt. It's strange feeling, looking forward to a X-Man movie. Superman is inspiring and reassuring - but only in-universe. The audience is privy to all of his weakness. This is why no audience member worships Superman like how some characters do in BvS. The conflict with Clark Kent becoming Superman is whether or not he can help the world. Jonathan Kent represents the responsibility and sacrifices that are the flip-side of freedom and power. The tornado scene works on symbolic logic where Jonathan performs the ultimate sacrifice to show what it means to hold onto convictions until the end. The much-maligned Jesus stainglass is an example of that thinking. Viewers complain about the lazy symbolism of comparing Superman to Jesus so bluntly, but they miss that it's not representing Superman as Jesus, it's showing that Superman thinks of himself as Jesus going to his death, hence talking to a priest. The tragedy with killing Zod isn't that he has to break a code against killing, it's that he has to choose to kill someone (like you implied with "the Last Kryptonian," specifically someone who's his only real equal and peer) and bear all the responsibility for it. Using your owns hands to kill someone you've come to know and understand (even in the compressed time of a movie) is terrible. twistedmentat posted:Even when Superman is not the traditional Superman he still is out there saving people without hesitation; Red Son and Gods and Monsters for example. You can forgive people to go "wtf?" when presented with a Superman who hesitates in saving people because that is a core aspect of the character. It would be like him not being able to fly or without super strength. MoS Superman doesn't actually hesitate to save people.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2017 20:49
|
|
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:Superman is inspiring and reassuring - but only in-universe. The audience is privy to all of his weakness. This is why no audience member worships Superman like how some characters do in BvS. My goal here isn't, by the way, to prove that the movie is objectively bad, just to try and explain the POV of the consensus of people who DO think it's bad in such a way as to make it clear it's not just "WAHHHHH, SUPERMAN DOESN'T WEAR RED BRIEFS SO IT SUX!" as you imply. EDIT: Oh, can you remind me when Superman actively saves ANYone in the movie? Not in the sense of "he smashed the big machine so Zod's plan failed" but literally saves people that aren't the 3 people in the train station? Compare to the much-maligned Avengers 2 where the entire last act is hooked around the Avengers evacuating civilians while the villain tries to ensure as many casualties as possible, or the bridge scene from the first Raimi Spider-Man, again where Spidey directly intervenes to save others without having to learn a valuable lesson about murder being bad. Gaz-L fucked around with this message at 21:02 on Jan 22, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2017 20:59
|
|
|
twistedmentat posted:Even when Superman is not the traditional Superman he still is out there saving people without hesitation; Red Son and Gods and Monsters for example. You can forgive people to go "wtf?" when presented with a Superman who hesitates in saving people because that is a core aspect of the character. It would be like him not being able to fly or without super strength. Marvel says that the time between their movies is about real time, so it woulda been a couple years.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2017 21:53
|
|
|
I believe they've actually stated that Guardians 2 takes place like a few months after the first.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2017 21:58
|
|
|
The running theme of choice as a character arc for Superman falls flat with me because there's literally never any question of what he's going to do. I know that the movie has to end with him wearing tights and being Superman. The character has only ever expressed in-universe that he wants to put on tights and be Superman. Being Superman is what saves lives and helps people. So sitting through Jonathan (and later Martha) tell Clark "Hey, you don't have to be Superman" is just grating. He always answers "Yeah, but I'm going to anyway." The only scene where he doesn't make that choice is when his dad tells him not to and then he dies in a tornado because he wanted to save the family dog and ugh
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2017 22:02
|
|
|
Arist posted:I believe they've actually stated that Guardians 2 takes place like a few months after the first. It doesn't sound like there's anything demanding a big time-skip, so that sounds about right. Gaz-L posted:And I feel the film poorly conveyed that knowing and understanding. Without that you're left with a moment that carries little weight beyond "killing is bad" (which, again, referring to the director's words is apparently what Superman LEARNS in that moment? I mean, gosh, I never killed anyone so I have no idea that it's bad!) "Killing is horrible" is very weighty statement. It may be a banal platitude, but you underestimate just how true a banal platitude can be. Gaz-L posted:EDIT: Oh, can you remind me when Superman actively saves ANYone in the movie? Well of the top of my head, as Clark Kent he saves the oil-rig workers. As a child he saves everyone on the school bus. He stops Lois Lane from being killed by the scout-ship's defences. As Superman he saves soldiers in the Smallville battle, Lois (again), and some people from being heat-visioned from Zod. He does stop Zod and company from killing all of humanity, but that doesn't count for some reason? The Avengers 2 stuff was a rather direct reaction to MoS. The aim was to make superheroes reassuring again. Most everyone was pleased at the contrast to the horrors of MoS. I recall that in-universe, the Avengers are trying to redeem bad PR from their Joburg screw-up, so there's the unfortunate subtext (and meta-statement) that it's primarily about appearances. SonicRulez posted:The running theme of choice as a character arc for Superman falls flat with me because there's literally never any question of what he's going to do. He's introduced saving an oil-rig, so it's never in question that he's going to help people. The conflict is in what it's like to make a choice rather than what he chooses. He might say that he can't trust humanity, but he's already resigned himself to being a sacrifice. There's only one way of stopping Zod, but making that choice is still terrible.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2017 22:13
|
|
|
Interesting question, BotL: Are there any superhero stories (and Superman in particular) that aren't deconstructions of the Garth Ennis vein that you feel are enjoyable or have value, as from your discussion I sort of get a low level disdain for the genre and concept in total?
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2017 22:23
|
|
|
Silver Age superhero comics are the absolute pinnacle of pop art, and superhero comics after that are mostly chaff. Also it's easy to be distracted by something as dumb as The Boys, but Garth Ennis also wrote Hitman #34.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2017 22:40
|
|
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:Silver Age superhero comics are the absolute pinnacle of pop art, and superhero comics after that are mostly chaff. See, I think that's where the disconnect comes in. If I hate jazz music, and my favourite rock band release a jazz album, I'm still going to hate it, whereas a jazz fan might think it's great. You don't like superheroes, so when a film 'takes down' the myth of them in an attempt at 'realism' it works for you in a way it doesn't for those of us who enjoy those stories on their own terms. It's the difference between The Boys and Astro City. And I'm fully aware of Ennis' work. He also wrote the most contrived Daredevil/Punisher scene ever imagined that the Netflix show somehow managed to fix for the most part.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2017 22:50
|
|
|
Codependent Poster posted:Marvel says that the time between their movies is about real time, so it woulda been a couple years. Yea, that's why I asked, I thought it was this, but then I heard it's actually a short time. I'd not be surprised if this was more to explain baby Groot than anything else.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2017 22:55
|
|
|
Gaz-L posted:You don't like superheroes You make very strange assumptions.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2017 08:12
|
|
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:You make very strange assumptions. BravestOfTheLamps posted:Silver Age superhero comics are the absolute pinnacle of pop art, and superhero comics after that are mostly chaff..  OK, I'll correct myself: You don't like superhero stories from the last 50 years.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2017 16:03
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:Who would be a good Wolverine moving forward since Jackman appears to be done. I can't think of anyone. They should just quit with Logan and make X-23 Wolverine.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2017 17:11
|
|
|
Tom Cruise would make a good Wolvie, he's short and has Berserker Rage: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRbhE3GRiUE
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2017 17:20
|
|
|
Gaz-L posted:e:I think part of the issues with Pa's death is poor editing. It takes SO long for the twister to devour him that it feels like he literally waits for death, not because he took a risk to protect his son's secret, but because the script said it's time for him to die. It also feels unsatisfying both on it's own, as it adds nothing new to the arc of the film in the sense of the hiding the gift, nor does it effectively communicate the point that most other versions of the death convey: That even Superman is powerless to prevent some things, thus rendering him more human and relateable to the audience. Pa Kent's death, from the comics (like All-Star) to the original movie, always did such a great and heartfelt job with it. It's surprising how big the whiff is here. EDIT: It's people behind the scenes who don't have a handle on not only the type of hero they want, but the type of movie as well.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2017 18:39
|
|
|
The underlying argument is always there - it was appropriate, uplifting, and humanizing. It was sad and bitter, but there is safety and comfort to it. Paternal comfort. But now there is no safety and comfort. Rocksicles posted:They should just quit with Logan and make X-23 Wolverine. She should join the "present-day" X-Men, as an adult. It's not like it'd mess anything up at this point. BravestOfTheLamps fucked around with this message at 19:18 on Jan 23, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2017 19:15
|
|
|
Mostly on-topic but the Razzies put up its nominations and BvS is up for quite a bit of them. Some of them are pretty bullshit though - Cavill, Affleck and Irons are all nominated for Worst Actor, which...Even if you didn't like the movie there's no way any of those loving guys handed in the worst performance of the year. Really does feel like they just wanted to get in on the dogpile.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2017 19:24
|
|
|
purple death ray posted:Mostly on-topic but the Razzies put up its nominations and BvS is up for quite a bit of them. Some of them are pretty bullshit though - Cavill, Affleck and Irons are all nominated for Worst Actor, which...Even if you didn't like the movie there's no way any of those loving guys handed in the worst performance of the year. Yeah, that's bullshit. Affleck is held up as a high point of the film even by people who dislike it. He didn't do a bad job with the role he was given and even if you dislike the role it doesn't make it badly acted.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2017 19:25
|
|
|
The Razzies kinda suck about that in general. Irons just confuses me, though, because I keep forgetting he was in that movie. Why even bother nominating him?
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2017 19:27
|
|
|
The Razzies are just as stupid as actual awards shows.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2017 19:27
|
|
|
Place your bets, what categories will BvS beat Hillary's America in?
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2017 19:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 23:24 |
|
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:Place your bets, what categories will BvS beat Hillary's America in? Honestly? Probably none that they share. I'm pretty sure they're going to go all-in on the chance to tear that apart since we're in Trump's America now.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2017 19:29
|
|