|
Toxxupation posted:That's branding and you know it. Stop arguing in bad faith. That isn't bad faith? It's literally the point. She is a spinoff of The Hulk. Her powers, history and her name all rely on the Hulk. Unless they change all of that then she literally can not exist without being tied to the Hulk regardless of what they do to her story. This is the point X-O is making. These characters begin with "this is a lady version of (x)" and even if they change things up after the fact they are still inherently tied to being the lady version of a male character.
|
#
¿
May 9, 2016 22:27
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 18, 2024 00:04 |
|
|
Toxxupation posted:Like I honestly can't remember the last time She-Hulk even interacted with Hulk in any capacity whatsoever. It certainly didn't happen, ever, in her most recent solo. I don't think she even mentions him in any capacity during the Soule run. She interacts with him all the time in Hulk comics. He's not currently The Hulk so obviously he isn't an issue at the moment but her interactions with Hulk (or when they were things Red Hulk, or Red She-Hulk or whatever) frequently come up. Also even if she isn't directly interacting with him it doesn't change the fact she is named after and got her powers from the Hulk, any more than Robin is still part of Batman even when he's with the Teen Titans.
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2016 22:33
|
|
|
TFRazorsaw posted:I dunno why She-Hulk being derivative is a bad thing when we have War Machine as a major recurring character, to be honest. War Machine is kind of an entirely different bundle of issues. He's basically defined as Iron Man's Black Friend these days (not due in any small part to the films) and has uncomfortable and unintentional similarities to the kind of thing Milestone's Hardware criticized in terms of his 'powers' belonging to Tony Stark. He's also not getting his own film. He's an Iron Man supporting character.
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2016 22:35
|
|
|
Toxxupation posted:And if we're going to go on and say that a character is derivative of X or of Y than really what we're saying is every character is a derivative of Superman, making the point moot. Because that's the logical extreme of the argument, really. And you accuse other people of making bad faith arguments.
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2016 22:43
|
|
|
X-O posted:They don't. The question at hand was what big name female heroes there were that Marvel. And that naturally became about which ones could carry a movie on their own. I mean a lot of these could easily guest in other movies, but I'm not sure that's really addressing the problem of female leads. I think it really boils down to the big issue of comics. They're decades old but by and large the defining characters are also decades old. There are very few new success stories and just due to the nature of comics most of the new success stories are themselves spinoffs of already popular characters . The key is to make new successful characters but where are you going to make those characters? In the increasingly small comic market? Are you going to risk headlining a new character in a film? Maybe a television show but even then you can just use an existing characters and... welp. I don't think there are many existing characters. I think they have to make them... and they have little reason to when they can keep using their existing ones. Toxxupation posted:That's not a bad faith argument. It's literally true. Every single superhero is a commentary on or reaction to Superman. Because he was the first, and set the tone for modern superhero comics that can still be felt to this day. You really fundamentally don't see the difference between someone starting a genre and a character named after another character, who is related to that character, and who got their power from that character and how it's a bit dishonest to claim they're the same thing? (Also no, Batman is totally a response to stuff like The Shadow, Green Lantern has Lensman to thank as much as Superman, ect, ect.)
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2016 22:47
|
|
|
Toxxupation posted:I never said it was the same thing. I said it was the logical extreme of the argument. You know, the part in the post you quoted that said "because that's the logical extreme of the argument"? Going to the 'logical extreme' of an argument is pretty bad faith argument, yes, because you ignore the context in favor of making it extreme to the point of irrelevance. Shawn posted:Squirrel Girl argument is dumb because if Marvel has proved anything, it's that they can make anything work with the right creative forces and care for the source. However, I think a Big Hero 6 style Squirrel Girl sounds like something I'd like to happen. Big Hero 6 is another great example though I doubt BH6 had many fans who gave a poo poo they changed literally everything about it.
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2016 22:51
|
|
|
qntm posted:A Black Widow film sounds like a difficult sell to me, in the same way that a Hawkeye film would be. A Black Widow film would just be a Bourne-style action film that happens to take place in the MCU.
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2016 22:54
|
|
|
Toxxupation posted:And Superman was inspired by dime store serials, and there's actually zero truly original ideas because everything is iterative. Because that's the logical extreme of that argument, too. In which case it doesn't matter that She-Hulk is derivative of Hulk, because the entire body of creative thought has been building on itself since the invention of storytelling. Again, no, it isn't really the same thing. There's a difference between inspiration and "is named after, powered by and related to a character." If they released a film named Barry Potter, starring Harry's cousin, where he is a small-town sheriff that happens to have magical powers and a wand he borrowed from Harry, it would still be a Harry Potter spinoff in a way that Percy Jackson isn't.
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2016 22:58
|
|
|
Aphrodite posted:Ant Man didn't do well. 500m on 130m budget isn't good. It's merely okay. Ant-Man's sequel is already announced so they apparently believe it's worth enough to keep going.
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2016 23:00
|
|
|
X-O posted:Early reviews of X-Men Apocalypse are coming in, and are not good. Fantastic Four not good or Superman v Batman not good?
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2016 23:14
|
|
|
She-Hulk is not this divorced character who doesn't want to be part of the Hulk. She frequently appears as part of the Hulk's storylines, is partially defined by caring about and being worried about her cousin, and is part of the 'extended Hulk family" to the point we got a Red She-Hulk. If there's some big Hulk crossover event she ends up as part of it and a wikipedia-style rundown of her history is going to include more Hulk than Not Hulk. This doesn't make her a bad character but she absolutely falls into the same niche as Supergirl or Batgirl or whoever where they can be good characters on their own but they're unfortunately tied to and defined by (up to and including their names) the male superhero they are derivative of. This doesn't make them bad but it does mean they are effectively the Girl Version of a hero, and unfortunately for She-Hulk it is also fair to point out that she is not identical to the Hulk because drawing a hot green woman in exploding clothing is a thing people wanted to do. Edit: There are even writers who have tried to tie her personality/character/ect to just being an alternate version of The Hulk only with different traits emphasized which is pretty hosed up in its own way but has been a part of her solo books even when the Hulk isn't around. ImpAtom fucked around with this message at 01:40 on May 10, 2016 |
|
#
¿
May 10, 2016 01:36
|
|
|
rantmo posted:I've never been a big Hulk reader but I've been reading the last dozen or so years of She-Hulk and whatever the state of affairs at the time of her creation and early run, she is not tied to Banner or the Hulk at all. She's certainly the thematic inverse of Hulk; she retains her intellect and can shift between Shulkie and Jennifer but chooses not to because She-Hulk is who she is. Being a Hulk is not a curse for her, it's the truest expression of who she is. Her series tend to be about the fear society has for an independent, powerful (in all meanings), sexually liberated, professional woman and tonally her books are more like workplace comedies. She's not defined by her connection to the Hulk anymore and stands as a unique character (who needs to be the MCU in some fashion dammit.) So the constant appearances in Hulk comics are for no reason at all then? Pictured: A character who has nothing to do with the Hulk:  I really don't understand why there is even an argument that a character named She-Hulk is perhaps connected to a character named The Hulk and if there is any big plotline involving Hulk it probably will end up dragging She-Hulk in because she is considered a part of the Hulk Family. This is not an objective thing. She can have his own excellent book (and does) but that doesn't make her not connected to The Hulk any more than Nightwing isn't connected to Batman. ImpAtom fucked around with this message at 02:41 on May 10, 2016 |
|
#
¿
May 10, 2016 02:34
|
|
|
X-O posted:I mean She-Hulk might be the best consistently and independently portrayed female character Marvel has. She's been around with a solo book forever. I personally would love to see a Netflix series that's half or even mostly a law procedural with her. The logistics of that from a rights and special effects perspective makes it seem impossible at the moment but still it could be a great series. That doesn't mean she's not a derivative character though and they're gun shy about the actual Hulk right now nevermind what most people would consider just a female version no matter how wrong that descriptor is. Yeah, I don't think She-Hulk is bad and I would love to see a legal show involving her and think it could be excellent. It just doesn't change what it is.
|
|
#
¿
May 10, 2016 03:04
|
|
|
Madkal posted:The Shallows looks like fun but I am a sucker for shark movies. No lie for the first like minute of the trailer before Civil War I was going "wait, are they remaking Jaws? Holy poo poo they're remaking Jaws how did I not hear about this?" But then it turned out to merely be derivative rather than a direct remake instead.
|
|
#
¿
May 10, 2016 17:06
|
|
|
Aphrodite posted:But everyone is also aware her age might prevent her from being cast. If they're planning another 15+ year run for the post-Infinity characters, they're probably not going to cast someone in their 40s. This is, unfair or not, probably the real answer.
|
|
#
¿
May 10, 2016 18:08
|
|
|
zoux posted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tg6n5TBRLJw I honestly assumed that would be the case because it allows them to have the now-traditional "Avengers are separated and fighting" drama the last two films had.
|
|
#
¿
May 10, 2016 22:10
|
|
|
I'm not really sure what is dumb about that. It's a two-part film and having a minion dude be around for the first part is more sensible than trying to drag Darkseid out over two movies. Plus they have to bring Superman back and having him come back for a victory is more likely.
|
|
#
¿
May 11, 2016 22:47
|
|
|
Darkseid is interesting because he is an omnipotent dark force who can't be easily defeated and who commonly acts through catspaws and minions. Blowing your load on him right out of the bat is less interesting than having his stable of interesting minions around followed by building up to the big man himself. This isn't even just DC, it's pretty common stuff in general. Bond fights Oddjob or Jaws before he fights the mastermind and so-on.
|
|
#
¿
May 11, 2016 23:14
|
|
|
Toxxupation posted:Considering that the two main villains of the DCCU have been Zod and Doomsday, respectively, implying that it's not a series fully intent on blowing its load at every available opportunity seems faulty at best. And either way there's a middle ground between "Darkseid can't be the main villain of both movies" and "Steppenwolf should be the main villain of one movie". He's Steppenwolf. He's an immensely uninteresting villain. What precisely is wrong with Steppenwolf? Like I don't get why you're acting like he's The Worst Thing Ever. Edit: I also presume it won't just be Steppenwolf punching the Justice League, it will be Steppenwolf as the commander of Darkseid's forces and will include other members of the New Gods Krew. Also like this is a movie version so it's pretty likely he'll be a fairly different version of the character anyway. ImpAtom fucked around with this message at 23:39 on May 11, 2016 |
|
#
¿
May 11, 2016 23:35
|
|
|
Sp1r0_Agn3W posted:i can think of one thing. When the film involves people named Granny Goodness, Desaad, Darkseid and Vermin Vunderbar you're basically gonna have to accept that is where it's going.
|
|
#
¿
May 12, 2016 00:09
|
|
|
Sp1r0_Agn3W posted:id argue that all these are stupid but naming a character after a popular band (i checked the years) is something else entirely. dc is so goddamned stupid The band did not invent Steppenwolf. I'm glad you also jumped to "DC is so stupid" for something created by Jack Kirby who as we all know has nothing to do with Marvel comics. ImpAtom fucked around with this message at 02:18 on May 12, 2016 |
|
#
¿
May 12, 2016 02:15
|
|
|
Booster Gold is a fantastic choice for a film and only hurt a bit by Ant-Man and Deadpool long beating him to the punch. His core concept is both extremely filmable and extremely marketable while his power set translates easily to film. In terms of heroes who translate easily to film Booster Gold is honestly really high up there. He's a normal dude from the future who travels back in time to get rich as a superhero and through his adventures ends up becoming a real hero. It's nothing groundbreaking but get a good charismatic lead and you've got an easy success.
|
|
#
¿
May 12, 2016 15:15
|
|
|
Wheat Loaf posted:Sure, didn't Disney make back around half the cost of the Lucasfilm acquisition on TFA merchandising alone? Batman and Superman are considered two of the most valuable IPs in the world. Iron Man and Captain America probably are on their way there if they're not already but even with their wild success nothing can quite touch Batman, not to mention the first megacrossover between the two (as opposed to the third in CW's case.) It had higher expectations than CW did.
|
|
#
¿
May 12, 2016 16:27
|
|
).
|
BrianWilly posted:That sounds pretty cool, honestly. If it is accurate I assume those are just representations and not the actual thing.
|
|
#
¿
May 12, 2016 21:24
|
|
|
There are still plenty of large-scale stories they can have. Darkseid isn't the only major villain and there's plenty of room for smaller-scale-but-still-threatening dangers. Civil War was basically the Avengers 3 and consisted of a bunch of superheroes arguing over laws and Baron Zemo. In terms of big threats you still haven't seen Braniac, Eclipse, Trigon, Amazo, they could dig up dumbasses like ~IMPERIEX-PRIME~ and of course there's the Injustice League Also if Zach Snyder hangs around I wouldn't be surprised to see Magog or something. ImpAtom fucked around with this message at 02:41 on May 13, 2016 |
|
#
¿
May 13, 2016 02:39
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:He's still Batman so he's still overplayed, but this at least is an interesting and different version of the character who you won't mistake for any of the earlier film versions. Basically the only early version of cinematic Batman with a no-kill code was Nolan and Nolan did the "aging Batman coming out of retirement who eventually gives up his code" thing in Rises already. I mean I liked Affleck's Batman but I wouldn't say he was fresh and new.
|
|
#
¿
May 13, 2016 02:56
|
|
|
Toxxupation posted:Civil War was a story 5 or 6 years, at a bare minimum, and at least 8 movies in the making It really wasn't. There is no particular reason they couldn't have made it prior to this. Movies don't need twelve different movies of buildup. It doesn't hurt to have them but Civil War isn't the first film about two groups fighting and many of those films don't need buildup. Civil War uses the context of the previous films well, don't get me wrong, but the core idea isn't something that needed those films. It took advantage of it but it wasn't necessary. The idea that films need twelve movies of buildup to have powerful imagery or connect with audiences is something opposed by literally the entire history of film. ImpAtom fucked around with this message at 03:33 on May 13, 2016 |
|
#
¿
May 13, 2016 03:25
|
|
|
Toxxupation posted:No, it doesn't, but if you don't establish a baseline - a status quo for a movie like CW to invert - to your shared universe then it's inherently less effective. Yeah, but you can do that without needing buildup in other films. The Incredibles for example sets up the stakes quite well within the confines of a single film. I do get what you're saying, I guess I'm just more thinking that the DCU doesn't really need to set up a status quo to invert as long as they do so within the film itself. Suicide Squad looks like it MAY do that, starting off with established villains being already established and playing the villain-turned-hero card but we'll have to see if they actually pull it off. ImpAtom fucked around with this message at 04:12 on May 13, 2016 |
|
#
¿
May 13, 2016 04:10
|
|
|
Ignite Memories posted:I mean, that's one opinion, but if you look at the amount of money these respective movies are making you will see a clear difference in how effectively each approach entertains and satisfies the public. That doesn't have anything to do with needing films to set it up and more to do with the tone and context of the film. If you're going to compare box office success then you just have to look at Star Wars (eventually got but didn't NEED films of setup) or Avatar (Original The Story Do Not Steal) or whatnot. It's hard to say what specifically makes a film successful because each one is different and while the MCU is obviously a selling point for those films it doesn't mean that every film from now on needs to do 12 movies of setup before they can have meaningful scenes. ImpAtom fucked around with this message at 16:03 on May 13, 2016 |
|
#
¿
May 13, 2016 15:59
|
|
|
Ignite Memories posted:You're comparing self-contained stories about the hero's journey to big crossover events where established independent characters butt heads. I'm really not. Films have been doing those kinds of stories for years. There's no actually a big difference between Civil War and any films about two theoretically-sympathetic sides butting heads. They're smart in that they use previously established personality traits to define the character's motivations but a film (especially a film that wasn't spending time on introducing Spider-Man as an ad for Spider-Man or whatever) would have more than enough time to establish characters and motivations. The fact that there's an 'ensemble phase' now is silly. Ensemble films existed for years without needing buildup to them. George Miller was at one point working on a Justice League film and while it may have been flawed it wouldn't have been because he didn't have three films of setup.
|
|
#
¿
May 13, 2016 16:26
|
|
|
Toxxupation posted:I think it would be hard to argue that as a collected body of work, the MCU films aren't the best versions of superhero films. I'd argue they're the most successful. The best? Eh. Even in terms of success they have to compete with the Nolan Batman films.
|
|
#
¿
May 13, 2016 17:03
|
|
|
SonicRulez posted:Which of these new age adaptations of superhero films will finally embrace sidekicks? Bucky gets aged up. Robin is killed off. Speedy has been thrown out of Arrow. Twice possibly. Wally's not a thing on The Flash. Why are comics so ashamed of their own history? Because having an underequipped teenage boy fighting murderous supervillains is a relic of a bygone era that looks really hosed up on film unless you age them up or make it something cartoony or lighthearted Edit: And even in that era it was "Robin is trapped in a giant pie" and not "Turns out he was molested by Dr. Light." SonicRulez posted:I have to ask. Who the hell is Eclipse? An autocorrect of Eclipso.
|
|
#
¿
May 13, 2016 17:30
|
|
|
Toxxupation posted:Eh, Fair. Either way my point is she's easily the only female character on the list, would place in a position where she would follow solely characters who had already gotten or were about to get solo movies (and would place above characters who had already gotten solo movies, like the Hulk). She's really, really recognizable. You might argue that's solely iconography but that's more the point. She works perfectly for a stand-alone movie because everyone knows who she is, but nobody knows who she is. The Hulk would actually be very high up the list. He has a fairly iconic television series and his character (and especially his catchphrase "you wouldn't like me when I'm angry") are fairly ingrained in the public consciousness. People can probably tell you more about the Hulk than they can about Wonder Woman. The issue with Wonder Woman is figuring out what to do with her which something even the comics struggle with. A big part of it is that then expectations for Wonder Woman are high because she's an icon but she is an icon for her gender than her character. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing but it makes it hard to find a niche because everyone has a different idea of what that means. (And going back to their history means you veer between consensual bondage and Xena: Warrior Princess.)
|
|
#
¿
May 13, 2016 17:38
|
|
|
SonicRulez posted:There can't be very many people who are even alive that could know of a Batman without Robin. So if audiences are already down for it on some level, why not lean into it? There are tons of people who know Robin. The key is that Robin is hard to do well when you're aiming for even slightly a realistic movie. Like look at Civil War. Tony Stark grabbing Spider-Man is a fun moment but it trends on the side of hosed up the entire time. Everyone treats Tony as kind of weird for bringing a kid along and Tony panics and sends him home at the first sign of trouble. Spider-Man acting as a hero on his own vs Spider-Man acting as a hero at the behest of an adult presents very different images and Civil War had to work to get around that with a character who is objectively a superpowered badass only fighting guys who have no real interest in hurting him. Now imagine Robin in the Nolanverse where he is a 14-16 year old boy with no superpowers being given a suit of armor and send to fight guys who have a moderate success rate at beating the poo poo out of ninja-trained competent Bruce Wayne. There is no time or place that wouldn't result in everyone both in-film and out-of-film calling Wayne a complete monster. Even B:TAS veers towards criticism of Bruce Wayne's wards and Tim Drake ends up ruined by the Joker in the film and is another of Batman's main failures.
|
|
#
¿
May 13, 2016 17:46
|
|
|
SonicRulez posted:The danger of the universe is defined by the writer. If they engineer a universe where Ninja Rich Boy is only ever in mild danger, they could do the same for Flippy Teenager. They didn't do that though. Ninja Rich Boy gets shot, stabbed, the living poo poo beaten out of him, his life ruined, his home destroyed and is crippled at least once. SonicRulez posted:Unless it's like incredibly off putting. Robin isn't that far. I would say he is unless you use a very cartoonish atmosphere. There is a reason so many Batman stories involving Robin ends with a bad ending for Robin and a black mark for Batman. A teenage boy with no superpowers sent to fight murderers is actually pretty hosed up. Robin is a legacy character so he isn't going away but outside of Brave and the Bold-style action it is really weird when Batman asks a 14 year old boy to dodge bullets. ImpAtom fucked around with this message at 18:11 on May 13, 2016 |
|
#
¿
May 13, 2016 18:07
|
|
|
theflyingorc posted:It's also weird as hell that Tony recruited him instead of, y'know, Jessica Jones. I presume because Jessica Jones would have started laughing and then threw his rear end out the door.
|
|
#
¿
May 13, 2016 18:15
|
|
|
Was the cast really the problem for FF?
|
|
#
¿
May 13, 2016 21:33
|
|
|
rantmo posted:The Hollywood Reporter is reporting that Michael B. Jordan has signed on to Black Panther possibly as a villain. I hope he's still Johnny Storm. Just like, evil.
|
|
#
¿
May 13, 2016 21:54
|
|
|
MacheteZombie posted:I skipped this earlier, but Batman Forever features a Robin who is a minor. Isn't Robin in Batman Forever in his 20s? His actor at least was 25 at the time and I always got the impresion he was at least 20.
|
|
#
¿
May 13, 2016 22:01
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 18, 2024 00:04 |
|
|
MacheteZombie posted:His age isn't given but he's described as being a minor. Huh. That's pretty hosed up, though I guess it helps it's in the Schumacher version.
|
|
#
¿
May 13, 2016 22:05
|
|