|
But Negasonic Teenage Warhead is basically already Cannonball.
|
#
¿
May 5, 2016 22:15
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 2, 2024 18:16 |
|
|
Sion posted:It's funny you think he'd still be in his seat instead of standing up and
|
|
#
¿
May 5, 2016 22:50
|
|
|
I don't think it's fair to say that Tony was 100 % right. His fixation on adhering to the accords and hold everyone together blinds him to the enemy that's manipulating them. He's focused too much inward, on not losing the friends he's made, to make up for his past sins. He can't see that Zemo is manipulating them, he's fixated on trying to do the right thing. Meanwhile, Bucky is not only innocent, he's been weaponized against them, to play on their insecurities. In the comic, he leaps over the moral event horizon in the name of the greater good, all in the name of a mistake someone else made. Here, he does it because of guilt and regret over his own actions, and his own trauma being used against him. He loses sight of Zemo time and time again because he's focused inward. Of course, Steve isn't right either. He's laser focused on trusting only the direction in front of him. His rebellious spirit and his clear vision are targeted forward, not on those around him. He makes decisions based on what he thinks is better for others, not out of apathy, but because his unflinching spirit is convinced and certain. Tony Stark didn't have faith in himself. Steve didn't have faith in Tony Stark. Zemo exploited that and had them betray each other. Only T'Challa, an outsider looking in, a man who wasn't an Avenger, saw the big picture in the end. You're right that their emotional arcs aren't concluded, but the movie shows they've recognized a bit of the problem within themselves and have the strength to overcome them.
|
|
#
¿
May 6, 2016 04:29
|
|
|
Sockser posted:Most of Marvels female heroes' film rights belong to other studios though. Cloak and Dagger is getting a series (I think?) so there's one and She-Hulk is, honestly, probably a bit too hard to shoehorn into the MCU. We're getting a Captain Marvel movie and Marvel half-owns the rights to Spider-Man so we could get that whole crew now but what other big name ladies are there in Marvel that aren't part of the X-Men? Angela Valkyrie Tigra Moondragon Quasar Crystal Medusa Spider-Woman Silk Enchantress Firestar Spectrum Kate Bishop Misty Knight Squirrel Girl Ms. Marvel Arana/Spider-Girl
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2016 20:58
|
|
|
The guy mentioned Cloak and Dagger. That casts a wide net. EDIT - as for Firestar, she's never actually had a notable run as an X-Man, so there's a case for her falling into the same category as Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver.
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2016 21:30
|
|
|
Ignite Memories posted:He said big name again, the guy I replied to mentioned Cloak and Dagger. None of these characters have to appear in FILM, either. Or as main characters.
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2016 21:34
|
|
|
On the subject of my earlier list, why exactly do people think the idea of other spider-people showing up in the Spider-films unlikely? I dunno. The idea of Peter as a loner never sat well with me, especially when he had a long running book about teaming up with people.
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2016 22:16
|
|
|
They're obviously willing to play with different ideas for the television properties, going into noir with Daredevil and Jessica Jones. I think a comedic series for Squirrel Girl would work just fine.
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2016 22:23
|
|
|
I dunno why She-Hulk being derivative is a bad thing when we have War Machine as a major recurring character, to be honest.
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2016 22:33
|
|
|
... okay but why do these characters all necessarily need to get their own films? We don't need to hold representation back by restricting things to headliners.
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2016 22:38
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:A Black Widow film would just be a Bourne-style action film that happens to take place in the MCU. again, make the villain Taskmaster.
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2016 22:57
|
|
|
Too much of the X-Men mythos is too up its own butt and doesn't even acknowledge or fit well with the rest of the MU. For decades they let them be the special snowflakes, with even their own cosmic aliens and stuff that rarely interacted with everyone else's cosmic aliens. We lose a lot of great characters but I think it's better in the end.
|
|
#
¿
May 10, 2016 00:21
|
|
|
Travis343 posted:Since they're obviously going to be full-on Apokalips by JL2 I wonder if they can get Ed Asner back to play Granny Goodness. To be honest, that casting always made me uncomfortable.
|
|
#
¿
May 12, 2016 00:21
|
|
|
Karnith posted:Both the band and the character are probably named after Herman Hesse's novel (that, or after the literal meaning of the word, which is the German term for coyote or "steppe wolf"). "Steppenwolf" in Hesse's book is a name for the bestial and antisocial side of human nature, which makes it sort of appropriate for a villain character, I guess? he's a huntsman, so that's why Kirby chose that sort of theme, I suspect
|
|
#
¿
May 12, 2016 00:59
|
|
|
I'd guess that Jordan would be playing Erik Killmonger. He doesn't have the build to play M'Baku.
|
|
#
¿
May 13, 2016 22:58
|
|
|
X-O posted:When has that ever mattered? But that's also a possibility for him to play, especially if Klaw is back. I would expect they'd want a guy who's physically huge to play a dude whose visual theme is a gorilla, is all.
|
|
#
¿
May 13, 2016 23:07
|
|
|
I will defend Harley in Iron Man 3 to my dying breath.
|
|
#
¿
May 14, 2016 00:22
|
|
|
Travis343 posted:Well Robin has pretty much never been written well outside of comic books. Even Dick on B:TAS wasn't well done outside of his origin story. Tim on TNBA was a lot better, he got a few great episodes. And he was unambiguously a little kid. Robin is great on The Batman.
|
|
#
¿
May 14, 2016 00:48
|
|
|
"JEEEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAN!"
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2016 01:01
|
|
|
Kitty's role in the plot is more aggravating cuz it was originally HER going back in time and saving everybody, not Wolverine.
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2016 03:23
|
|
|
There's a lot of things I hate about the X-Men movies, but I'll admit, Patrick Stewart is the one of the consistently great parts of it.
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2016 03:59
|
|
|
I actually can't stand Fassbender. He's a right git. ... Can I call him that? I'm not British so I'm legitimately unsure. Anyway I don't care for him.
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2016 04:38
|
|
|
yeah, Whedon said Pietro died because he thought killing Hawkeye would be too predictable and because everyone assumed new characters like Pietro were automatically safe.
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2016 19:33
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:Superman is just a man. Except that scene doesn't humanize him either. His concern for his fellow man in that season is barely evident, he shows more horror at what's happened to Zod than what happened to people in the bombing. He makes no effort to explain himself, he makes no effort to save anyone hurt there, he just flies away. Because the story needs him to look worse in people's eyes, so he just reacts like an idiot because the plot says he needs to. That's not a human failing or a god failing, it's reducing the character to a scripted doll that only serves to enable the events that transpire.
|
|
#
¿
May 18, 2016 23:21
|
|
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:Getting away from horrible, numbing violence after feeling like you've failed everyone is a perfectly human thing to do. He'll fly to Central America to save a girl from a fire, but he doesn't even check for survivors after a bomb goes off in his face? And that's not to trivialize the first thing either. But it's not consistent even with things that happen in the movie itself. It makes no sense for him to do what he did there.
|
|
#
¿
May 18, 2016 23:30
|
|
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:This is a character arc. He thinks he only makes things worse, so he leaves. Then it's a poorly constructed one. He's been at the epicenter of destruction before. The moment falls utterly flat if it's supposed to be the straw that broke the camel's back, because that's not the way someone with experience being at the center of the fire and flames reacts. quote:This is what I was talking about an earlier. I don't know about everyone else, but I don't CARE if Batman is "pure". Many of the best Batman stories cover the fact that Batman's code has flaws. It's not about saving Batman's integrity, it's about ignoring one of the most crucial points of debate about his character in favor of something that's, frankly, easier to portray. Readers and viewers are SUPPOSED to ask if what Batman is doing is right and they're forgoing all the ambiguity. quote:They literally explain this one in the film. He was deeply ashamed and humiliated that he didn't stop it because he wasn't willing to look at the man he thought he crippled. He was actually blaming himself for it and it caused him to go off and do some soul searching. Then have him do that after the crisis has passed. I have issues with MoS and the rest of the movie, but this kind of rampant immaturity isn't at all consistent even with how Snyder has written him.
|
|
#
¿
May 18, 2016 23:46
|
|
|
quote:I thought your complaint was that Superman was numb to the violence, not that he wasn't detached and professional enough. He fought desperately to stop Zod and even committed an act that caused him considerable mental anguish. Why isn't he showing that same furious need to hunt for survivors? Why is it THIS moment that causes him to suddenly go "I need to leave immediately"? I don't see how it tracks. quote:...Why did you think there was no ambiguity in Batman mutilating someone? That's not my point at all. "Is beating the holy hell out of them REALLY any better than killing them?" is one of the questions you're supposed to be asking about the character. As is "What happens if you throw the Joker in jail and he just escapes and kills someone all over again?" And so on, and so forth. It's not about keeping Batman pure, it's about exploring whether or not what he's doing is even helping stop crime or right in the first place.
|
|
#
¿
May 18, 2016 23:58
|
|
|
MacheteZombie posted:But Batman tried it that way, for 20 years, and had nothing to show for it. Combined with finding out that space Gods exist, he broke. I think those questions are important ones to ask, and that if you're not, you're not really telling a story about Batman anymore. That and I don't think many of the Batman movies have effectively tackled these issues, either, so. I'm still kind of waiting for a movie that does.
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2016 00:07
|
|
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:Because he's frustrated. This is why he seems so apathetic despite rescuing people, and despite getting the dream job at the Planet. Because he thinks he's failing. The Congress attack is where he breaks, because there's no chance to defend himself. He thinks Superman is a lost cause. A farmer's dream. "He's frustrated." That's the point. That's all he is. How do we go from someone desperately pleading Zod not to fry some innocent people to making a frowny face and then flying away? People don't fundamentally detach that immediately. The idea that this is a Sisyphus-like effort he's just DONE WITH is poorly sold.
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2016 00:16
|
|
|
MacheteZombie posted:I disagree. Well, you're certainly welcome to that opinion. But I just want to stress that I'm not arguing this because I want Batman to be "pure".
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2016 00:18
|
|
|
Travis343 posted:Do you have a loving red phone in your study that beeps when somebody mentions BvS in this thread and you push a button in Shakespeare's neck then slide down a pole and post feverishly on your giant atomic computer or what ... Huh? Are you talking to me?
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2016 00:20
|
|
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:The irony is that you're both in the movie: His pain and frustration is sold with all the sincerity of someone wondering who farted. But that's more on Cavill I guess.
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2016 00:22
|
|
|
so can people stop acting like they're not responding to the negative reception now or are people gonna keep clinging to that? MacheteZombie posted:Looks more worried, maybe crestfallen, to me. I get that he's SUPPOSED to be somber but it's just not conveyed very well. And like, I'm autistic. I'm not gonna say all people visibly emote the same way. But I've also seen Cavill's other work and I don't think that's the case here. I know I said "I guess that's on Cavill" but after thinking about it, I'm gonna chalk this one up to poor direction.
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2016 00:31
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 2, 2024 18:16 |
|
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:"Superman isn't empathetic at all. He doesn't care for others!" I get what Snyder is trying to go for, as I've said. But a film is ultimately the sum of its parts, and whatever led to Cavill's dull performance (not even dour, just DULL) undermines the sense that Superman is "broken" by these experiences.
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2016 00:33
|
|