zslane

I think that if you tone down the crass humor and blatant fourth wall-breaking in Deadpool you have the foundation for a highly entertaining comic book superhero movie. The lesson was still conveyed, though you have to be able to recognize it as such from the movie we actually got. Of course, I don't believe for a second that Hollywood, as a whole, is.

It would be nice if Hollywood would get hip to the fact that one meta-genre they can also do is the Superhero Comic Book movie. Deadpool, the only recent example that comes immediately to mind, was regarded as an outrageous experiment that they feared would flop hard, until it scored huge because holy crap! audiences actually like the wacky costumes, the silly code-names, and the wild, unrealistic antics/storytelling after all!

Perhaps, but their idiosyncrasies didn't prevent TOS-era Starfleet from making transporters the primary short-distance deployment technology on most vessels.

Is Lockheed even in this movie?

That shot of her hovering in the wind was a nice touch, but I couldn't help but wonder when it was she installed weights at the bottom of the blanket, er, cape to allow it to maintain its billowy shape while getting whipped about by wind. Or why she always needs to have one knee bent when hovering. Or her arms outstretched when flying (they aren't control surfaces after all).

I think the one element that sweeps away such analysis is that this show is a devoted tribute to Star Trek where there are no such concerns. I would expect none on The Orville either.

Even with Guardians, the movies are about a ragtag group of sci-fi misfits thrown together by circumstance. Had Marvel wanted a GL Corps type movie, they would have started with a Nova Corps movie rather than a Guardians movie. Advantage Marvel.

This movie was probably too far into production to benefit from the lessons learned from Deadpool's success.

Yeah, I figured the number of Syleans was very low. Well, the Orville has a Holodeck, so there are technological answers to some of her, um, dating issues. Which brings me to the lack of transporter technology. As I recall in Star Trek, transporters used the same technology as replicators (and later, the Holodeck). The Orville has two of these devices on board; it makes no sense (within the diagesis) that they don't have the third as well.

Yeah, maybe it's just an unfortunate coincidence that Fox is doing a non-X movie called "The New Mutants", but somehow I doubt it. I think maybe they just picked up the DC/WB Wrong Direction virus...

The whole second act felt like I was watching Abbott and Costello Meet the Krill. It was a real chore to get to the more thought-provoking ending. Other thoughts: 1. Lt. Kitan really needs to find other Syleans (sp?) to date. 2. The homage-like devotion to 90s alien design (for the Krill and the Maclin, for instance) is still distracting to me. 3. How was Mercer and the other guy able to understand and speak Krill?

That trailer makes it look like a conventional horror flick. Is that really what it's supposed to be?

Affleck's Batman is supposed to be kinda like the grizzled old Batman from Dark Knight Returns, isn't he? He should be slower and grumpier than Keaton, Kilmer, Klooney, or Kale--I mean Bale.

In what way do you feel that Ben Affleck was physically unconvincing? He's bigger and more imposing than any of the actors who came before him in the role.

Bryan Singer went through this. Harvey Weinstein is going through this. I guess it's Ben Affleck's turn at the stake. This is all fuel for the "Your Fave is Problematic" meme that is grabbing mindspace in various corners of the Internet these days.

The problem, in my view, with the Ryan Reynolds GL movie wasn't the cast. Merely changing the lead actor would not have saved that film.

Um, anyone who saw BvS and acknowledged that WW was the best thing about that movie (and the min-JL team-up it represented)?

Well, even if Bats doesn't get to brand a bunch of street thugs, I'm sure he'll have plenty of opportunities to sweep the field clean of parademons with the .50 cals on his Batmobile.

I wonder how much of the more quippy bits were the result of Joss' rewrites/reshoots...

I'm really only looking forward to seeing Wonder Woman on screen again. I know she's not the star of the show, but for me the rest of the Justice League members are just supporting roles.

There is "evolving" (which is an organic process that follows naturally from what has come before), and then there is completely re-imagining. I just feel that if you are going to substantially re-imagine a character, just make it a new character and let it have a life of its own in the marketplace and in pop culture. Don't appropriate an existing, iconic character just to cash in on name recognition. Especially since the only thing anyone will recognize is the name anyway. If you've created a new character, give it a new name. It's as simple as that.

That's pretty much what I'm referring to. Costume changes aren't quite what I'm referring to, as that is an aesthetic choice that indicates a different kind of creatively limited vision. No, it is the brooding Superman indifferent to civilian casualties that I refer to. It is the Miller-esque Batman who brands people and behaves as viciously as the villains that I refer to. It is a Lex Luthor characterization that has more in common with the Joker than any Lex I know (from the comics) that I refer to. Outside of superheroes, there are the Abrams Star Trek movies, which I feel are also horrible offenders in this area. The RDJ version of Sherlock Holmes is a good example, as is virtually every version of the Three Musketeers to come out since the Richard Lester films of the mid-70s. I mean, there are countless examples where iconic characters are altered to the point of unrecognizability, aside from their names, and foisted upon us as a "fresh take".

It's all part of a trend in Hollywood to take iconic characters, change them in fairly drastic ways (origin, personality, appearance, etc.) and cravenly use the iconic name just to cash in on the name recognition. 99% of the time these changes aren't fresh and exciting, they are just creatively dishonest.

They can, but how often do they show that kind of restraint? I mean, the #1 argument against making a superhero show "like the comics" is that live-action adaptations have to be realistic (with inevitable comparisons to the real world trotted out) in order to find an accepting audience.

The thing is, tv shows which attempt to come across as "realistic" inevitably find validation among its fans by comparison with the real world. The thesis usually is that a show like this is topical, relevant, and "more acceptable" to a general audience because it reflects the current political climate. Once that line of argument is trotted out, you can't shut down the comparisons, either in support of or in refutation of that line of debate, without eliminating that line of debate entirely. Hence, real world politics have become integral to the discussion about (this particular) tv show based on Marvel comics.