|
twistedmentat posted:I'd think that would be an Aquaman/Hal Jordan movie. Or an Aquaman/Flash movie, which I could totally get into if they went with a fun version of Aquaman instead of Khal Drogo, King of the Sea.
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2016 04:38
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 08:29 |
|
|
ihatepants posted:This is an interesting article and seems to paint Perlmutter in a better light than I have seen anyone talk about him before. It was the same way when Bleeding Cool originally reported on the split, if I remember right. Rich Johnston really wants Perlmutter to be the good guy, for some reason.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2016 05:03
|
|
|
Dexo posted:What Sexism issue? You're joking, right?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2016 02:10
|
|
|
E: ^^^ That happened in JLU.BiggerBoat posted:The Joker is still considered a villain, right ? A bad guy? THE bad guy most of the time. He murders people constantly. He's a terrorist. Some of us remember a time when the Joker wasn't a slasher movie villain. We miss those days.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2016 05:45
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:Yeah, but I admit that is why I'm annoyed at Alan Moore bashing. Rebirth's basic thesis is "it isn't fair that Alan Moore wrote these stories we horribly misunderstood. It's all his fault!" And not even Grant Morrison is immune to that with his framing Alan Moore as the Horrible Corruptive Vampire who ruined pure good DC comics. Rather than putting the blame on DC editorial where it belongs there's a lot of shifting it to crazy snake god guy because he's a convenient target. They keep blaming other people and outside sources for why DC comics are cruel and violent and horrible instead of acknowledging that they're the ones at fault. Morrison is, again, the closest but even there he can't resist framing himself as the Pure Guy Fighting For Fun regardless of how much violence, sexualized danger and horror he includes in his own comics. I think most of us are in agreement with this. I love a lot of Morrison's work while mostly only appreciating Moore's on the abstract level, and I've talked a lot of poo poo about Moore in my time, but I think it's safe to say he doesn't have his head nearly as far up his rear end as Morrison, who doesn't have his head nearly as far up his rear end as DC editorial. quote:And that's fine to acknowledge as a problem with the comic but it isn't the same thing as it being wrong for including rape, nor does it suddenly render the entire comic without value. Making Barbara into Oracle was a way to re-empower her without simply handwaving away The Bad Thing. I personally would have preferred if the mainstream DCU had simply ignored TKJ, but I can't fault a writer for salvaging the situation by portraying Barbara as someone with the strength to adapt to a hosed up situation and carry on being a hero in whatever way she can.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2016 17:39
|
|
|
Heathen posted:The real problem is that Superman has a poor group of villains. Lex the human with an inferiority complex, Zod the bad Superman, Bizarro the dumb Superman and Doomsday the death of Superman. I really wish they would just ditch Snyder/Goyer and hire someone who can make a Superman movie that examines the concept of heroism from multiple angles while giving the audience a bit of "good guys win by being good" catharsis, with a few good-natured laughs and a dash of warm fuzzy feeling thrown in. Caped Jesus was old when it was Cyberpunk Jesus in 2003.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2016 05:54
|
|
|
CelticPredator posted:Yeah like...in what world does this not red flag mental illness? The DC universe. Also the Marvel universe.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2016 05:05
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:I really hope it's not Vulture and The Tinkerer as the villains like they are speculating. What are you talking about? That would be amazing!
|
|
#
¿
Jun 17, 2016 04:48
|
|
|
SlimGoodbody posted:I can't believe I'm saying this, but I'm in total agreement with BotL on this. Yeah, this feels weird. They would obviously scrap the Fox canon. It's like someone said upthread, apart from it not being the 70s, the Avengers are at a point in their history where - in the comics - mutants weren't really getting attention in their universe. Just have this be the time that the X-Men first appear publicly and upgrade mutants from "weird urban legend that probably isn't true" to "holy poo poo, they're actually real?!". Sure, it doesn't make sense that an entire population of people with such fantastic powers could conceal themselves for so long, but I can't think of a single superhero movie that could exist without a similar degree of nonsense.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 18, 2016 08:12
|
|
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:I don't think you quite got the movie. This is like the Godwin of film discussion.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 21, 2016 17:37
|
|
|
AdjectiveNoun posted:Does anyone have some examples of comics where Harley is portrayed in an interesting/nuanced fashion? I know way less about the DC Comics continuity than Marvel Comics, so I have no idea where to even start looking. She made an appearance in one of the main Bat titles some time before Final Crisis I think, where she got busted out of prison to help the new Ventriloquist with some caper, but ended up turning the tables and helping Batman take the Ventriloquist down, earning her parole in the process (Bruce Wayne had been the dissenting vote that kept her from getting it initially). I liked it because it showed a mostly reformed, highly competent Harley earning a bit of redemption by sticking up for the little guy (part of her motive for helping Batman was to get some justice for the original Ventriloquist, murdered by the new one, because Harley considered him a friend).
|
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2016 07:48
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:The protagonist of The Force Awakens, the person who literally follows all of Luke Skywalker's path and eventually inherits his lightsaber and defeats the villain before going to train with Luke Skywalker, is Rey. Claiming she isn't the protagonist is dishonest as poo poo in your attempt to justify your cynicism. Even if you ignore that the protagonist of Rogue One is unarguably a woman so your point is still invalid. Stop being stupid so you can justify being cynical. You're arguing with CharlesTheHammer. Why even bother?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 2, 2016 18:37
|
|
|
"Rather than deal with the potential complications of extricating these two characters from an uncomfortable storyline that has come to define them in the comics (which we rarely stick to anyway,) let's just fridge the woman." You're right, that's much better.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 10, 2016 22:58
|
|
|
If you need a reason to keep the abuse out of the movies that is tonally consistent with the comics, think about how including it would affect the film version of Janet. In the comics, Jan has long since grown past being defined by the incident. More Wasp-savvy readers might correct me, but I would argue that even in the years immediately following that issue, "abuse victim" was not one of Jan's defining characteristics. Given that Hank and Jan's hero days, and the entirety of their relationship, are long in the past, the hypothetical assault would need to be deliberately brought up and explained. Given that this explanation would necessarily be tied into Jan's first appearance on screen (barring her brief masked appearance in Ant Man,) it would be almost impossible to avoid turning that abuse into a defining trait of the character. It's understandable to argue that leaving it out lets Hank off the hook, but given that Hank isn't a real person, and that movie Hank is not the same person as comic Hank (and also not real,) I would argue that it's less relevant than the injustice it would do to what may be the first female superhero (chronologically) of the MCU by immediately redefining her as a victim. That being said, I'm not an expert, and your mileage may vary.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 11, 2016 00:21
|
|
|
CAPTAIN CAPSLOCK posted:Scott should hit Hank Pym. Let's address the abuse of the elderly in society. Doesn't really work with a version of Hank who's more than happy to knock a dude on his rear end.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 11, 2016 00:33
|
|
|
Easy enough to fix. AIM has always been a fractious organisation, with splinter groups almost beyond count.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 11, 2016 00:57
|
|
|
Argue posted:I know the breakdown in the post above is the official word but it always made more sense to me to have Aether be Power, Orb be Soul (since it kills living things while leaving nonliving things intact), and the Eye be Reality. Nothing about the Aether really screamed "Reality Gem" to me while on the other hand you'd think the Eye of Agamotto would be the prime candidate for it. The orb destroyed the Collector's gallery in an impossible-to-miss catastrophic purple explosion. There is nothing in the movie that suggests it only kills living things.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 11, 2016 09:23
|
|
|
He can hardly make it worse.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 13, 2016 01:05
|
|
|
CharlestheHammer posted:Does her expression ever change? Four pictures, four different expressions. Are you incapable of differentiating facial expressions? Or is it just when they're not cartoonishly exaggerated?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 15, 2016 09:06
|
|
|
CharlestheHammer posted:Could you post these pics thanks. Here you go.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 15, 2016 18:34
|
|
|
Aphrodite posted:He went from some nomad peasant to ruling reality. That's not what a Mary Sue is. I'm hesitant to drag the BvS discussion back up, but I finally just watched it yesterday so we could review it on the podcast. It's really bad. Badly shot, badly edited, badly written, badly directed. Casting was on point, but that is literally the only good thing about this movie. A movie about superheroes should have more than seven seconds of fun in it. Especially if one of the heroes is Superman. gently caress Snyder, gently caress Goyer, and gently caress this movie.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 16, 2016 23:54
|
|
|
There's no pleasing some of you fuckers. It looks to me like they're at least trying to make Justice League fun, and that's all I really wanted. The movie might still be a mess, but if it's a fun mess with jokes and at least one person who smiles occasionally it'll be a vast improvement. Also, I kind of love the idea that Bruce just can't stop himself from being a bit of a douche.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 23, 2016 23:46
|
|
|
site posted:The only winning move is not to click. I lost.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 2, 2016 06:04
|
|
|
RevKrule posted:Let's be honest, if DC were making Spider-Man 3, they'd make Batman And Robin again. You know, at this point, I would be delighted if they made Batman and Robin again.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 5, 2016 08:03
|
|
|
ButtWolf posted:Its no Guardians, but its no XMen either. I hate the flashbacks that were just poo poo we saw 20 min ago, cameras that let the US see stuff explode, and 'my daughter'. Music didnt really bother me. I don't want to pile on but....yeah. Yeah I do. You've failed to grasp the basic concept of sexism. Helpful hint: if your thoughts on something include the phrase "too PC", your thoughts are objectively wrong.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 7, 2016 01:41
|
|
|
WickedHate posted:Is it bad I kind of want Wonder Woman to fail? Hatred of Gal Godot aside, I'd like the crashing and burning of the current cinematic universe to hurry up and conclude so we can start over with one whose bedrock isn't Man of loving Steel. As much as I hate Man of Steel, it's much too early for the "salt the earth and start again" strategy. That would only work if Warner and DC were prepared to let the franchise lie fallow for at least a few years, and I really doubt they'd be willing to do that when when the age of the superhero franchise is hitting its peak.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 13, 2016 07:07
|
|
|
Did I seriously just read a multipage argument about Mary Jane's hair? Seriously? I don't say this very much, but y'all need to shut the gently caress up.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 19, 2016 05:18
|
|
|
You also need to shut the gently caress up. That picture is terrible. E: Unless that was the joke? I am very tired.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 19, 2016 05:35
|
|
|
Toxxupation posted:Did you not read anything I wrote? I'll answer that question for you, you didn't. My whole point is that she was hurt by the association with the comics entirely. She would've been a better character if she was completely original over this weird half-measure of being sorta but not really associated with a comic book character. My entire point is that they should've forged their own canon and made their own character over utilizing the name of a Marvel comics character nobody knows anything about anyways. I still think she would've been a weaker element of JJ (especially considering her arc in JJ season one is "causes problems for JJ, has sex, and gets In Trouble" with very little variation) but at the very least, like I mentioned in that post you quoted but didn't read as you are wont to do, she would've arrived with a clean slate. Nobody but you cares.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 19, 2016 17:38
|
|
|
Toxxupation posted:I considered that but I thought Tom looked more like Kyle, and Depp in the early nineties was both not really that big a star (he was still sorta transitioning from TV and had only been in a couple of Burton projects at that point) and far less famous then Tom so they'd probably stick him behind a full-face mask over Kyle Rayner's domino. Superman Lives was first pitched in 1996, and would have begun filming in 1998, most likely to be released in 1999 or 2000. The hypothetical Justice League movie would thus be a product of the early '00s, also known as the peak of Depp's career. If such a thing had happened, and Depp had been cast, he might not have ended up playing Jack Sparrow in Pirates of the Caribbean. Both movies would have likely bombed, Depp's career would fizzle out, and he would be a forgotten has-been by 2016. Some of that might be wishful thinking on my part.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 27, 2016 00:35
|
|
|
Lurdiak posted:That is a really vague offhanded statement to be taken as rock-solid confirmation. My thoughts exactly. Unless Marvel officially proclaims that the TV and movie universes shall forever remain separate, I'm going to assume it's not set in stone. I figure they won't bother crossing the two over unless they have compelling motivation to do so, but I doubt they'd be so shortsighted as to permanently close the door on that possibility. Especially since one of the earliest scenes in their first Netflix series directly references The Avengers.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 28, 2016 18:50
|
|
|
Patrick Warburton as Carol Danvers. Don't tell me you don't want it.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 1, 2016 02:51
|
|
|
JT Smiley posted:What a missed opportunity on all counts. Tobey's Peter was just a constantly mopey sad sack that I could never get into him in the role. Add to the fact that he and Dunst had negative charisma together. Seriously, I don't understand how anyone enjoyed watching a Peter Parker who looked and sounded like he was seconds away from bursting into tears at all times. I'll admit that my memory might be a little exaggerated because I've avoided those movies like the plague for about fifteen years, but I really don't get anyone who thinks Maguire was anything other than terrible casting.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 3, 2016 05:31
|
|
|
CharlestheHammer posted:Someone never read early ASM. Every time I try to read 60's-era Marvel comics, I end up regretting it.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 3, 2016 05:51
|
|
|
SonicRulez posted:In the wake of the current Netflix stuff, I'm hard-pressed to name a superhero that wouldn't be awesome in a Netflix television show. Forbush Man. Actually nevermind, that would probably rule.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 6, 2016 04:08
|
|
|
I would take Nic Cage over most of the names on that list. If nothing else, it'd be an entertaining train wreck.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 8, 2016 17:32
|
|
|
Scott, Jean, and Ororo being teenagers in the 80s isn't really a major change. The thing that's hard to swallow is Havok, who was probably in his early 20s in 1963, having vaguely middle-aged parents and a teenage brother 20 years later. That and everyone else who's apparently aged about 4 years in the last 20.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2016 01:24
|
|
|
ub posted:Maybe they're taking bizarre advantage of the actual comic's floating timeline where the ages of the characters as published in the 60's isn't 20 years different from those published in the 80's. Same difference, really.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2016 05:34
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:Go for another Mortal Kombat crossover and get Jonny Cage as the antagonist. You do know that's not a coincidence, right?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 17, 2016 08:27
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 08:29 |
|
|
twistedmentat posted:I find it silly to get upset that the new Trek movies have too many referance to the origonal stuff, becauase that's literally what they were intended to be; a re-imagining of the original series. Honestly I think this made Beyond much better because they laid in all the ground work already that they could tell a new story that felt like a classic story. The problem with Into Darkness isn't that it references classic Trek. The problem is that, if you remove the ham-fisted Wrath of Khan references, the movie has no substance to speak of. It's hopelessly generic and has no depth beyond "hey, remember when this happened in another, much better movie?" For the record, the only good Star Trek movies are Wrath of Khan, First Contact, and Beyond (which was such a relief.) That's not to say I don't enjoy any other Trek movies, but I accept that my love for them is largely nostalgic and heavily biased. On topic: It looks like Doctor Strange is trying to become my new favourite Marvel movie. I hope it succeeds.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 28, 2016 05:18
|
|