Jump to content

DC Movies- if at first you don't succeed...


Cassandra

Recommended Posts

Yeah, generally, I like one superhero= 1 secret ID.  I don't like one leaving, and someone taking on "the mantle".  Not that it cant be done, but as a general rule. 

 

THough while I don't generally care about using minorities or not.   I have to make an exception on THor.  The Norse god of thunder has to be a dude.   You've got plenty of goddesses you can use, if you want a female character.

 

No we don't.  The list of usable Norse goddesses starts and ends with Freya.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the last 35 years, I'd pick 3 movies as excellent/brilliant comic book films - Superman, The Dark Knight, and Captain America:  Winter Soldier.

 

In that time, the number of movies that were really bad/awful was much greater - Superman 3-4, Batman and Robin, Blade 3, Catwoman, all 3 FF movies, The Spirit, Jonah Hex, Spawn, Ghost Rider 2, Elektra, Steel, Supergirl, Howard the Duck, Barb Wire, Hulk, The 2nd Spider-Man 2, 2nd Punisher, the 1st Judge Dredd, Green Hornet and I'm probably forgetting a few more.

 

There is a part of me that could agree that alot of Superhero movies are bad.

 

PS:  Box office sales could be used as one factor in determining a movie's brilliance, but it should not be used as the sole factor.  Note that the top two grossing films of all time (not adjusted for inflation) are Avatar and Titanic.  Both decidedly average films in my estimation.  Avatar was a brilliant technical achievement with an underwhelming story and unoriginal and formulaic plot.  Titanic, while better than I thought it would be, was still a pandering standard teen romance story told a 100 times before.

 

At least this is your own opinion.

 

Would that be "2nd Punisher" as in "Punisher: Warzone" or Punisher with Tom Jane as there was an earlier iteration with Dolph Lundgren in the Castle role.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing I find interesting:

 

Iron Man's (cinematic) origin is changed from the Cold War to The War on TerrorTM and nobody bats an eye.

 

Wonder Woman's (cinematic) origin is changed from WWII to WWI and there's controversy.

 

Just an observation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing I find interesting:

 

Iron Man's (cinematic) origin is changed from the Cold War to The War on TerrorTM and nobody bats an eye.

 

Wonder Woman's (cinematic) origin is changed from WWII to WWI and there's controversy.

 

Just an observation.

The one is perceived as "updating" the story to make it more credible in a contemporary setting. There is a readily perceived reason for it.

 

The other is seen as coming out of left field and the reason for it is less obvious. So there's a certain response of "what the heck?"

 

Doesn't bother me either way, personally.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Trying to explain it to a palindromedary

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At least this is your own opinion.

 

Would that be "2nd Punisher" as in "Punisher: Warzone" or Punisher with Tom Jane as there was an earlier iteration with Dolph Lundgren in the Castle role.

 

- I'm assuming you liked Avatar and Titanic maybe?  If you actually enjoyed some of the awful movies I listed then yeah we are far apart on movies.  :)

 

My primary point was that when saying they are the top two grossing movies I've never heard anyone add, "and those two movies are also the best movies I've ever seen."  I know some people adore Avatar.  That's fine.  I don't actually know anyone who adores Titanic though.  In fact, I actually know a few ladies who adored it when it came out, but it has not stood the test of time for them.

 

- Actually I'd forgotten Dolph Lundgren.  I thought the Tom Jane (I'm a fan) version was decent.  So I guess it would be 1st and 3rd Punisher then.  I'd also throw in a couple of the TMNT movies on the awful side as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Was not crazy about The Incredibles.  It's okay, but it ranks well below X-Men and X2 for me.  It's somewhere around Spider-Man 3 level.

 

Each of us will find something important in a character that we feel can't be changed.  To us, that characteristic is a vital part of who the character is.  To me, Johnny Storm is a wealthy spoiled white kid.  Making him black made me say "that's NOT Johnny Storm".  However I had no problem with Laurence Fishburne playing Perry White.  An older, established actor with good screen presence was all that was needed there.

 

Sometimes I'm willing to make concessions on character purity if I feel it's necessary to portraying it on the big screen.  I liked what they did with Ant Man, despite the fact that that's not really the same character from the comics.  I do think it would be hard to translate comic-book Hank Pym to film.  Chris Evans did such a great job with the Human Torch, though, that you really don't need to do anything different to make it work.

 

People can (and will) have different opinions on exactly which changes are "going too far".  Ultimately, financial success is a decent measuring stick of whether a change to a character is important enough to matter to the audience.  Of course, that can be attributed to other factors as well.  Making Heimdall black in Thor didn't bother me, despite the fact that he's white in the comics (and in the myth).  But Idris Elba did a great job, and the movie looked cool.  But too often, to me, changing a character to make him black/a woman/gay, just feels like the director or the studio is doing it for very cynical reasons.  Making the character "edgier", or to try and generate "buzz".  Usually I don't think it's done for story reasons.

 

Ultimately, changes to characters need to be done right.  Samuel L Jackson Nick Fury was okay.  But a mixed-race black/Chinese transgender lesbian Buddhist Superman just doesn't quite work for me, I don't care how tolerant I'm supposed to be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Was not crazy about The Incredibles.  It's okay, but it ranks well below X-Men and X2 for me.  It's somewhere around Spider-Man 3 level.

 

Each of us will find something important in a character that we feel can't be changed.  To us, that characteristic is a vital part of who the character is.  To me, Johnny Storm is a wealthy spoiled white kid.  Making him black made me say "that's NOT Johnny Storm".  However I had no problem with Laurence Fishburne playing Perry White.  An older, established actor with good screen presence was all that was needed there.

 

Sometimes I'm willing to make concessions on character purity if I feel it's necessary to portraying it on the big screen.  I liked what they did with Ant Man, despite the fact that that's not really the same character from the comics.  I do think it would be hard to translate comic-book Hank Pym to film.  Chris Evans did such a great job with the Human Torch, though, that you really don't need to do anything different to make it work.

 

People can (and will) have different opinions on exactly which changes are "going too far".  Ultimately, financial success is a decent measuring stick of whether a change to a character is important enough to matter to the audience.  Of course, that can be attributed to other factors as well.  Making Heimdall black in Thor didn't bother me, despite the fact that he's white in the comics (and in the myth).  But Idris Elba did a great job, and the movie looked cool.  But too often, to me, changing a character to make him black/a woman/gay, just feels like the director or the studio is doing it for very cynical reasons.  Making the character "edgier", or to try and generate "buzz".  Usually I don't think it's done for story reasons.

 

Ultimately, changes to characters need to be done right.  Samuel L Jackson Nick Fury was okay.  But a mixed-race black/Chinese transgender lesbian Buddhist Superman just doesn't quite work for me, I don't care how tolerant I'm supposed to be.

Heh. Liking the X-Movies has done more to damage your credibility in my eyes than almost anything ever. I must now consider you to be...insane. I'm sorry. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After many years of being a drama teacher, watching endless debates over various entertainments, I've come to realize that many people conflate "I don't like it" with "It's no good." They unconsciously take their subjective reactions to a given product's subject or style as an objective standard for its quality.

 

There have been many entertainments that many people liked or loved, to which I responded with varying degrees of dislike, but which I still appreciated for their intelligence of script, or technical skill, or quality of performances, etc. OTOH there are entertainments I like, even love, which I recognize are deficient in any or all of those areas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After many years of being a drama teacher, watching endless debates over various entertainments, I've come to realize that many people conflate "I don't like it" with "It's no good." They unconsciously take their subjective reactions to a given product's subject or style as an objective standard for its quality.

 

There have been many entertainments that many people liked or loved, to which I responded with varying degrees of dislike, but which I still appreciated for their intelligence of script, or technical skill, or quality of performances, etc. OTOH there are entertainments I like, even love, which I recognize are deficient in any or all of those areas.

 

This post is no good

 

;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After many years of being a drama teacher, watching endless debates over various entertainments, I've come to realize that many people conflate "I don't like it" with "It's no good." They unconsciously take their subjective reactions to a given product's subject or style as an objective standard for its quality.

 

There have been many entertainments that many people liked or loved, to which I responded with varying degrees of dislike, but which I still appreciated for their intelligence of script, or technical skill, or quality of performances, etc. OTOH there are entertainments I like, even love, which I recognize are deficient in any or all of those areas.

 

That's nice.

 

Can we get back to childishly attacking other's preferences and the crass objectification of women, please?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After many years of being a drama teacher, watching endless debates over various entertainments, I've come to realize that many people conflate "I don't like it" with "It's no good." They unconsciously take their subjective reactions to a given product's subject or style as an objective standard for its quality.

 

There have been many entertainments that many people liked or loved, to which I responded with varying degrees of dislike, but which I still appreciated for their intelligence of script, or technical skill, or quality of performances, etc. OTOH there are entertainments I like, even love, which I recognize are deficient in any or all of those areas.

 

Yeah, whose bright idea was it to bring logic and reason into an interwebs forum discussion?

 

 

 

:winkgrin:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought the X movies were decent, except X3 and the solo wolverine stuff.

 

I know some people can't fathom a 6'2" Wolverine for example.  However, I think watching a 5' Wolverine onscreen would be comparable to watching Yoda's first lightsaber battle.

I disagree, but I hate the X-Men and Wolverine, so that's where my insanity lies :) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After many years of being a drama teacher, watching endless debates over various entertainments, I've come to realize that many people conflate "I don't like it" with "It's no good." They unconsciously take their subjective reactions to a given product's subject or style as an objective standard for its quality.

 

There have been many entertainments that many people liked or loved, to which I responded with varying degrees of dislike, but which I still appreciated for their intelligence of script, or technical skill, or quality of performances, etc. OTOH there are entertainments I like, even love, which I recognize are deficient in any or all of those areas.

It's harder to put people down when you humanize them, darnit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sif, Frigga, Eir, Nanna, Hel, Hlin, Idunn, Lofn, Not, Ran, Skadi....what do you use to define "usable"?

 

I mean "usable as a lead superheroine in Marvel comics".  

 

In order to be that, she must first of all have a name the English speakers can easily pronounce.  So you can forget characters like Hlin, Thrudr, and Lofn.  She should appear in relatively well known myths so her recognizability can be used and she can inspire the writer.  So not Nott, Nanna, Eir...  She should be the actual goddess of something.  Sif is the goddess of "being Thor's wife and Loki's victim".  Great, this has led to her superheroic niche being "one of Thor's girlfriends", and her exciting superpower of "being a generic Asgardian".  Yay.  She shouldn't be the goddess of something that can't really be used to fight bad guys in a non-ridiculous way.  Idunn is the goddess of youth.  What's she going to do, turn bad guys into babies?  She should not be a mythological villain.  So not Hel, goddess of death, and not Ran, goddess of drowning at sea.  Skadi almost qualifies.  She at least has a myth, although it consists of nothing but skiing to Asgard and launching a formal complaint.  But really she's only got the makings of a villain or a secondary character.  I would like to see her though.  I can see her now sliding along on Iceman style ice-slides while shooting arrows made of ice that explode to freeze things.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I mean "usable as a lead superheroine in Marvel comics".  

 

In order to be that, she must first of all have a name the English speakers can easily pronounce.  So you can forget characters like Hlin, Thrudr, and Lofn.  She should appear in relatively well known myths so her recognizability can be used and she can inspire the writer.  So not Nott, Nanna, Eir...  She should be the actual goddess of something.  Sif is the goddess of "being Thor's wife and Loki's victim".  Great, this has led to her superheroic niche being "one of Thor's girlfriends", and her exciting superpower of "being a generic Asgardian".  Yay.  She shouldn't be the goddess of something that can't really be used to fight bad guys in a non-ridiculous way.  Idunn is the goddess of youth.  What's she going to do, turn bad guys into babies?  She should not be a mythological villain.  So not Hel, goddess of death, and not Ran, goddess of drowning at sea.  Skadi almost qualifies.  She at least has a myth, although it consists of nothing but skiing to Asgard and launching a formal complaint.  But really she's only got the makings of a villain or a secondary character.  I would like to see her though.  I can see her now sliding along on Iceman style ice-slides while shooting arrows made of ice that explode to freeze things.  

 

Not sure how Freya differentiates herself from any of the examples you've mentioned here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure how Freya differentiates herself from any of the examples you've mentioned here.

 

Freya's name is quite pronounceable, she's the most famous and important goddess in Norse mythology (excluding Hel who is famous for all the wrong reasons), and while her spheres of gold and beauty don't give a lot to work with, she's also goddess of war and (non-evil) death, the only war goddess the Norse have, and the mistress of the Valkyries.  Specific mythical details like her cloak of flight, ability to control cats, and power of precognition would help to make her non-generic in a way that Sif isn't.  She'd also probably have light powers seeing as how she's Frey's twin sister.  If any Norse goddess was going to be a model for a lead superhero, Freya's the only option I can see (except for Valkyries in general, and they've already done that).  

 

She's still not in Thor's class as a marketable property of course.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...