Movies and Superheroes [Archive] - HERO Games Discussion Boards

rjcurrie

Sep 28th, '03, 06:38 PM

If I hear the movie is entertaining, I'll go see it. However, there is no choice in your poll that comes even close to this point of view.

I have absolutely no problem wih different interpretations of characters in different media or even in the same media (for example, the Tangent Universe of DC). Legends evolve and change over the years and often spawn alternate takes. Look at all the various Arthurian legends over the years. Is that really any different?

J4y

Sep 28th, '03, 08:20 PM

10 mintues of Halle Barry in a catwoman suit makes it about 10x better than the majority of movies out this year. I'm up for that!

Blue

Sep 29th, '03, 07:01 AM

Try "No, I won't see it, It's Halle Berry for Pete's Sake!"

I know that anyone thinking catwoman and Halle in the same sentence has visions of catsuits dancing in their heads. I just can't get past her weak acting.

I'll hang on for Spidey2: The Spidening! and X3.

'sides... Famke Jansen and Anna Paquin have it all over Halle Berry.

But then this thread was about scavenging the name from superhero movies and nothing else. Naturally, I think that's evil and ridiculously unnecessary. There's a reason the books are popular and worthy of a movie.

proditor

Sep 29th, '03, 07:12 AM

"I have absolutely no problem wih different interpretations of characters in different media or even in the same media (for example, the Tangent Universe of DC). Legends evolve and change over the years and often spawn alternate takes. Look at all the various Arthurian legends over the years. Is that really any different?"

Agreed, to a point. The director, Pitof, has been quoted as saying that he thinks that it is awersome that folks will come to the movie expecting to see Selina Kyla and a batfamily story and that he's going to give them something completely different from what they paid to see. I shouldn't be shocked, he worked on Alien: Resurrection after all. Yes, reinventing a character can be good and needed. But in this case, not only is it not warranted, it is being done in a decpetive manner. And the director thinks this is cool.

This is the same mentality that thought the Superman suit was silly, hated his powers, and thought it should link into more cultural areas. Supes would be in an all black bodysuit, use guns, and have Krypto as his sidekick discovering his new identidy now that he was talking and homosexual. Now I have no problem with having a homosexual superhero, but the dog for pete's sake?????

To me it's an example of reinventing the wheel. Not needed, not necessary, not desired and not appreciated.

Spectrum

Sep 29th, '03, 07:22 AM

I'm likely to go see it. As much as I am bothered that WB only optioned for the name Catwoman so they could do whatever they wanted, I've always been a sucker for comic book based movies. But this will probably be something that I'll only pay the matinee price for.

Supreme Serpent

Sep 29th, '03, 08:50 AM

Don't know if I'll go see this particular one. Will probably end up borrowing it from someone who buys the DVD.

I generally don't mind changes to comics when they become movies. Several reasons:

1) If it's a change that is done to make the character more workable in movie format, or to tie in to the story better, no problem. For example: In Batman, Joker not starting out as "The Red Hood". No biggie.

2) Characters get changed and updated from time to time. Do you want the original Selina Kyle? The one who started as a streetwalker? The mousy secretary Michelle Pfiffer (sp) one? Someone's going to be disappointed whichever way you go. Judge the story/movie on its own.

3) Some of my favorite comics are the "What If?" and "Elseworlds" type of alternate takes/situations on established characters. I look at most comic-based movies the same way, so if the movie itself is good, I won't mind.

However...when the changes SUCK, and the movie itself suffers as a result, or are made for no good reason (such as the Red Skull being...Italian? Huh?) then that's a no-no. But if some movie maker can make a plot where Superman is actually a super-advanced android powered by a special isotope that Kryptonite degrades (hence his problem) and MAKES IT WORK, I won't have an issue. It will be filed away into the Elseworlds category. Lord knows there are some story arcs in OFFICIAL comics that I wish I could do that with (Spider-man is a clone? Nope, alternate universe. :rolleyes: ) .

Isaiah_26_4

Sep 29th, '03, 09:11 AM

Chello!

Silly people! Everyone knows that Julie Newmar is the only Catwoman....

;)

Tony

Hermit

Sep 29th, '03, 09:21 AM

In the "my goodness, can't they leave things well enough alone" dept. the latest rumor is that The Human Torch will only have his fingers flame up in the Fantastic Four movie.

http://www.superherohype.com/fantasticfour/index.php?id=197

Premise Notes: (9/27/03) I've received word from an anonymous but reliable source that one of the slight changes that is being made for this movie to keep it at least slightly grounded within the realm of credibility and realism applies to Johnny Storm, the Human Torch. In the comics, Johnny is able to light his entire body on fire, which gives him heat-generated buoyancy and propulsion, allowing him to fly. In the movie, however, his power will be limited to just lighting his fingers on fire, making his arms a sort of "human torch" (just not his whole body). Johnny will also be able to control the flames that he generates. In a way, this change makes the Human Torch very similar to the character of Pyro from the X-Men movies (except Pyro needs a lighter to generate the flames he controls). In addition to making the character seem less unrealistically "fantastic," this will no doubt help keep the budget of the F/X budget down considerably.

*Sigh*

Supreme Serpent

Sep 29th, '03, 09:31 AM

Why not do that with everyone and save more money? Reed can only stretch his arms, Sue can make her arms invisible, Ben has orange rocky arms. They'd save a bundle! :rolleyes:

Jeff T.

Sep 29th, '03, 09:39 AM

What about another poll option?

I'm not going because I could care less about the character of Catwoman.

Comic movies are great, but only if I give a crap about the hero/heroine/villain. I'll get it on DVD I guess.

Vanguard00

Sep 29th, '03, 12:03 PM

While I think Halle Berry is more than a little tastey, I rarely go see movies because of the actors/actresses. I'm with the "wait for DVD/cable" crowd unless the reviews surprise me. I'm a bit of a traditionalist when it comes to comic-based movies, and while poetic license is certainly understandable given the vast differences of media, an attempt at authenticity is still appreciated.

proditor

Sep 29th, '03, 12:37 PM

The thing that kills me about the FF logic is that they said people won't understand why his cotume doesn't burn, but somehow they won't have an issue with a costume stretching or becoming invisible?!?!?!?

Own that you don't think you can do it on your budget and you'll at least have my respect. Make up a load of week-old fish like that and it smells just like what it is.

Addendum: As to which Selina? Well as much as I love Michelle, I try to consciously block her Catwoman from memory, so that narrows the field.

Mark Rand

Sep 29th, '03, 12:59 PM

I'll wait for the DVD, then either rent or buy it.

Spectrum

Sep 30th, '03, 05:48 AM

Superherohype.com just posted a picture of the costume for Catwoman. I honestly don't know what to make of it.
http://www.superherohype.com/catwoman/index.php?id=207

Killer Shrike

Sep 30th, '03, 06:59 AM

Hmm. Thats pretty lame IMHO.

Hermit

Sep 30th, '03, 07:22 AM

Mark Rand

Sep 30th, '03, 07:47 AM

I disagree with Hermit. Black Scorpian's was cooler.

Hermit

Sep 30th, '03, 07:56 AM

Originally posted by Mark Rand
I disagree with Hermit. Black Scorpian's was cooler.

Okay, you got me there. But I still think this looks like she raided the left overs in B.S.'s closet ;)

At this rate I am so glad I'm not seeing this movie when it first comes out. Why should I when if they continue treating the IP like this, it'll be on Skinimax or something like it in 10 months after?

GenreFiend

Sep 30th, '03, 07:56 AM

Originally posted by Mark Rand
I disagree with Hermit. Black Scorpian's was cooler.
Ditto. What is Warner Brothers thinking? *Are* they thinking? Sheesh:confused: !

Hermit

Sep 30th, '03, 08:05 AM

Of course, if they use this costume and the audiance hates the film because it's NOT Catwoman,... if the movie tanks, I can just see the WB execs now.

"I KNEW Costumes and masks weren't the way to go."
"Right! Time to get rid of that sort of nonsense. WE know what the people want."
"Definitely, this is clearly the fault of the fanboys. We gave them what they wanted, and what they want doesn't work on film."
"Excellent.. I mean, a shame. Now, I have the new costume design for Superman right here... edgier, darker, no cape and ridged black leather!'
*And there is much clapping in the board room*

:rolleyes:

Sorry, unfair to assume that, but the cynic in me says it will happen.

Spectrum

Sep 30th, '03, 08:17 AM

The more I think about it, the more I wonder if WB is trying to kill off superhero movies (however I want to be proven wrong w/Batman, there is some hope there). They own DC Comics, which means they have access to all of these characters, but they seem unable or unwilling to do it right. It's like they had this idea and the only way they could sell it was to slap the name of comic book on as the title. But I'm willing to give it a chance, but I'm a little skeptical.

proditor

Sep 30th, '03, 09:24 AM

I actually clenched my teeth in anger at that pic. I don't care how hot Halle Berry is this, this smacks of the same stuff that gave us Joel Schumaker putting rubber nipples on the Batsuit to fulfill some buried fantasy of his.

Sidenote: Best one off bit in Animated Batman. Three kids are explaining what Batman is "really" like and the stories have a 60's camp batman, a Dark Knight Batman, and the animated Batman. They walk along telling each other how they are wrong, when they come across some kid who says "Ooooo! Batman? With the leather and rubber? I LOVE him!"

The kids all smirk and say "Oh Joel, you have no idea what you're talking about."

All hail Paul Dini.

Kevin Scrivner

Sep 30th, '03, 01:52 PM

Originally posted by Hermit
Looks like Someone has been looting the Black Scorpian's wardrobe ;)

Egad! They're giving Halle Berry the "Birds of Prey Huntress" treatment: "Let's see if we can make the audience confuse the heroine with a passing prostitute." Like, gag me with a whole place setting!

If such a movie MUST be made, make the antihero an original and spare DC's license from further embarrassment. I enjoy Berry's curves as much as the next guy and I'm certainly no John Byrne, but even I could come up with a better costume and plotline than this.

zornwil

Oct 1st, '03, 12:01 AM

I didn't even know this was a movie until seeing this thread. I didn't respond to the poll as I don't know if I'll see it or not - not too likely though as I don't see too many movies and this doesn't seem like a priority.

Gary Ciaramella

Oct 1st, '03, 12:23 AM

I HATE when they screw up the characters like this... it is like, "Duuuuuuuuuuuuh... we can't come up wit any 'riginal thoughts, let take this here character and use her name!" I read a bit on Superhero Hype about how in the upcoming Fantastic Four movie they are going to limit The Human Torch to just flamming on his hands... oh well... there goes another hero movie into the toilet.

Black Rose

Oct 1st, '03, 02:48 AM

Originally posted by Spectrum
Superherohype.com just posted a picture of the costume for Catwoman. I honestly don't know what to make of it.
http://www.superherohype.com/catwoman/index.php?id=207

Read down a bit further. Am I wrong in wanting to see a heroine who doesn't have, or even need, a love interest? What's wrong with an opposite-sex friend? I have opposite-sex friends, you have opposite-sex friends (I assume); why is it that wearing your underwear on the outside makes you into a hormone bomb?

For a Catwoman-type, I'd much rather see her "play" with him; more like Huntress with the detective in the very first episodes of BoP. But then, maybe I'm different from everyone else.:rolleyes:

J4y

Oct 1st, '03, 07:27 AM

Am I wrong in wanting to see a heroine who doesn't have, or even need, a love interest? What's wrong with an opposite-sex friend?

I can't really think of an action movie with a male lead that doesn't have a love interest. If theres a sequal, she's gone and theres a new one! *shrug* It's the formula. Makes it easier to show off their goodies if there is "romance."

Hermit

Oct 1st, '03, 08:01 AM

Originally posted by Black Rose
Read down a bit further. Am I wrong in wanting to see a heroine who doesn't have, or even need, a love interest? What's wrong with an opposite-sex friend?

Nope, you're not wrong, but like j4y says, there aren't many movies where the male hero doesn't have a love interest either. Forgive my cynicism, but Hollywood generally doesn't seem to understand that friendships can exist without sex. If your main character isn't having sex with his/her opposite sex friend, why then he or she MUST be a homosexual :rolleyes:

Really, it's kind of insulting no matter what your orientation is.

There are exceptions, of course, and like Hollywood- I'm generalizing.

I have opposite-sex friends, you have opposite-sex friends (I assume); why is it that wearing your underwear on the outside makes you into a hormone bomb?

I'm going to answer that seriously. Like a handle on the internet, a costume and mask provides you some annoymity. You can be who you want to be without immediate social reprecusions. This can make some rude where normally they wouldn't, or ... act uninhibited.

Perhaps Tony Runningbear is a nice enough guy, but he's never had the guts to tell a certain lady how hot she is. As Icestorm though, he saves her- He can flirt with her outragouesly, and if she rejects such, hey, it was ICESTORM, not Tony, that got rejected. Here's hoping he doesn't let it go to his head and make him act like a jerk.

Jessica Franklin might be a no nonsense bussinesswoman, but when in hero ID, her costume and altered Skin keep the world from knowing she's "Lavender". Wouldn't now be the time to put a bit more swing in her hips- She's clearly got the power now to defend herself if someone presumes something and it won't endanger the career she's worked so hard on either.

That 'could' theoritically lead to more serious dalliances for both of them, but I think it's a factor.

zornwil

Oct 1st, '03, 11:29 AM

Originally posted by Hermit
Nope, you're not wrong, but like j4y says, there aren't many movies where the male hero doesn't have a love interest either. Forgive my cynicism, but Hollywood generally doesn't seem to understand that friendships can exist without sex. If your main character isn't having sex with his/her opposite sex friend, why then he or she MUST be a homosexual :rolleyes:

Really, it's kind of insulting no matter what your orientation is.

There are exceptions, of course, and like Hollywood- I'm generalizing.

I'm going to answer that seriously. Like a handle on the internet, a costume and mask provides you some annoymity. You can be who you want to be without immediate social reprecusions. This can make some rude where normally they wouldn't, or ... act uninhibited.

Perhaps Tony Runningbear is a nice enough guy, but he's never had the guts to tell a certain lady how hot she is. As Icestorm though, he saves her- He can flirt with her outragouesly, and if she rejects such, hey, it was ICESTORM, not Tony, that got rejected. Here's hoping he doesn't let it go to his head and make him act like a jerk.

Jessica Franklin might be a no nonsense bussinesswoman, but when in hero ID, her costume and altered Skin keep the world from knowing she's "Lavender". Wouldn't now be the time to put a bit more swing in her hips- She's clearly got the power now to defend herself if someone presumes something and it won't endanger the career she's worked so hard on either.

That 'could' theoritically lead to more serious dalliances for both of them, but I think it's a factor.

That's a good point. When looking at the suit for Catwoman, I could easily imagine a woman seeing that as a feline super-outfit. Of course the problem is how many female and male supers engage in rather revealing costumery in the source material, but your points are good Hermit, there's no question some people, especially athletic (therefore fit-bodied) people with enough of an extroverted nature to parade around in public in a costume, would draw attention to their physical beauty.

wcw43921

Oct 1st, '03, 03:21 PM

Originally posted by Spectrum
Superherohype.com just posted a picture of the costume for Catwoman. I honestly don't know what to make of it.
http://www.superherohype.com/catwoman/index.php?id=207

I like it a lot better than Famke Janssen's Lady X outfit in the Model By Day TV-movie. Although I would cover the shoulders (I'm thinking pads) and for practicality's sake, include reinforced knees and elbows--not just to protect those areas, but to hit harder with them as well. Same with the gloves; reinforce the back of the hand and the heel of the palm, so that striking with those does more damage.

I'd also include a wrist-mounted pepper-spray canister and maybe a shock baton, but that's just me.

One other point--this isn't the first time an established character's name/powers/motifs have been used for a whole new character. While it's not exactly a comics tradition, without it we would not have had Barry Allen as The Flash, Hal Jordan as Green Lantern, Johnny Storm as The Human Torch, and Katar Hol as Hawkman. Not to mention Daredevil, although Stan Lee's creation bears no resemblance whatsoever to the Golden Age character with the red/black bodysuit and spiked belt--but do you think anyone raised a tremendous fuss about it? ("How can they call that stupid chump Daredevil??? The REAL Daredevil is blahblablah, blahblablah, yadadayada, yadadayada. . .")

Actually, this isn't the first time they've rewritten Catwoman. The character was originally a jewel thief, sleek and sophisticated, described by Bob Kane (in his autobiography Batman And Me) as "a female Batman, except she was a villainess and Batman was a hero." Which seems to be the angle they're going for in this movie, with this character fighting crime. Which is very much different from the victimized-milquetoast turned man-hating vengeance-goddess we saw in Batman Returns, or the low-rent streetwalker turned costumed thief we saw in Batman: Year One. (I can only imagine what Bob Kane thought of that one.)

The more I think about, the more I'm willing to give this version a chance--and I hope more of you are willing to do the same.

Hermit

Oct 1st, '03, 04:35 PM

Originally posted by wcw43921
The more I think about, the more I'm willing to give this version a chance--and I hope more of you are willing to do the same.

Excellently worded, but I'm afraid I still don't think I will be. However you slice it, however you cut it, this simply comes across as cashing in only on name recognition.It may have been done in the past, that doesn't make it 'right' now. If there weren't 3 or 4 other super hero movies coming out, I'd chalk it up to being 'beggers can't be choosers'. Thank goodness we've got options that are truer to the character they promise. I think I'll choose to excercise those. To each their own though.

proditor

Oct 1st, '03, 06:33 PM

I agree with Hermit on all counts. That was a cogent and very good recitation of why someone should be willing to give a new take on an old character a try. However, I also agree that it smacks of just cashing in on the name and honestly, I just loathe the costume. I heard a few suggestions on how to make it more practical, I'd include covering most of the exposed skin and making it out of biker leathers so that it actually serves some protective function.

rayoman

Oct 1st, '03, 06:39 PM

I'll probably see it.

If Halle Berry is nude in it then that probably gets bumped to a definitely.

Kevin Scrivner

Oct 1st, '03, 06:45 PM

Originally posted by proditor
I agree with Hermit on all counts. That was a cogent and very good recitation of why someone should be willing to give a new take on an old character a try. However, I also agree that it smacks of just cashing in on the name and honestly, I just loathe the costume. I heard a few suggestions on how to make it more practical, I'd include covering most of the exposed skin and making it out of biker leathers so that it actually serves some protective function.

Hmmm. We could always add ears to the slinky outfit Halle Berry wore as Jinx in the last Bond flick.

I have no objection, per se, to Berry being slinky. But a mask, bra, and go-go boots do not a superhero costume make. What's wrong with dark grey skintight spandex and clawed gloves -- the Animated Series look?

zornwil

Oct 1st, '03, 10:12 PM

Originally posted by Hermit
Excellently worded, but I'm afraid I still don't think I will be. However you slice it, however you cut it, this simply comes across as cashing in only on name recognition.It may have been done in the past, that doesn't make it 'right' now. If there weren't 3 or 4 other super hero movies coming out, I'd chalk it up to being 'beggers can't be choosers'. Thank goodness we've got options that are truer to the character they promise. I think I'll choose to excercise those. To each their own though.

Well, you're presuming that the story can't simply be good in its own right, which is, although playing probability well, not entirely fair. If I hear it's a great movie from people whose opinions I respect, I'll go see it before I'd see, say, X-Men 3 (and I did enjoy X-Men 2) just by way of example. I think it should be said that although the current crop of super-hero films are vastly superior to those past, they still are not particularly in-depth as stories or in character development, not in terms of being great dramatic or action works. I was hoping Unbreakable would get a sequel to see that storyline extended, but doubt it will happen.

Hermit

Oct 1st, '03, 10:41 PM

Originally posted by zornwil
Well, you're presuming that the story can't simply be good in its own right, which is, although playing probability well, not entirely fair.

Not presuming any such thing. It could be quite good. If I pay for a Dodge, and someone sells me a Ford... the Ford might be just as good or even better. It doesn't change the fact it's not the Dodge I was asking for. I find WB's 'pitch' on 'Catwoman' a bit unethical.

But that's me.

zornwil

Oct 1st, '03, 11:13 PM

Originally posted by Hermit
Not presuming any such thing. It could be quite good. If I pay for a Dodge, and someone sells me a Ford... the Ford might be just as good or even better. It doesn't change the fact it's not the Dodge I was asking for. I find WB's 'pitch' on 'Catwoman' a bit unethical.

But that's me.

Well, I don't know enough about cars to quite get it, but as far as the ethicality issue, well I understand (even if I don't agree) that should steer you away from bothering with it.