zslane

While, on the other hand, some people making superhero movies at other studios became way too infatuated with Alan Moore and his deconstructionist/subversive proclivities. We got guys like Ennis who hates anything resembling traditional heroics, and guys like Snyder who thinks everyone is as jaded and tired of classic superhero storytelling as he is. Thankfully, the success of the MCU serves as a strong argument against their nihilistic points of view.

While, on the other hand, some people making superhero movies at other studios became way too infatuated with Alan Moore and his deconstructionist/subversive proclivities. We got guys like Ennis who hates anything resembling traditional heroics, and guys like Snyder who thinks everyone is as jaded and tired of classic superhero storytelling as he is. Thankfully, the success of the MCU serves as a strong argument against their nihilistic points of view.

While, on the other hand, some people making superhero movies at other studios became way too infatuated with Alan Moore and his deconstructionist/subversive proclivities. We got guys like Ennis who hates anything resembling traditional heroics, and guys like Snyder who thinks everyone is as jaded and tired of classic superhero storytelling as he is. Thankfully, the success of the MCU serves as a strong argument against their nihilistic points of view.

While, on the other hand, some people making superhero movies at other studios became way too infatuated with Alan Moore and his deconstructionist/subversive proclivities. We got guys like Ennis who hates anything resembling traditional heroics, and guys like Snyder who thinks everyone is as jaded and tired of classic superhero storytelling as he is. Thankfully, the success of the MCU serves as a strong argument against their nihilistic points of view.

I've tried looking at mainstream comic books from time to time over the past decade. Comparing them to the comics I grew up with, I've almost always been disappointed. The writers don't understand inspirational heroism. The artists don't know how to tell a story graphically. It's all flash and noise, no heart.

That's true, but it's even more true of movies.  Cars famously made $1.5B at the box office, and ten times as much in merchandising (so far).  Frozen merch made even more.  The MCU made $41B on licensing in 2013 alone.  And that's after Perlmutter stonewalled the Black Widow movie for years because he didn't think Black Widow toys would sell.

It has to be endlessly embarrassing to WB/DC brass that Marvel can turn a sentient tree--who can only say three words--into a household name, while they in turn can't even keep Clark Kent as Superman beyond three movies. Say what you will about the dubiousness of Marvel's insistence on a consistent look and feel to their movies, they have done a remarkable job of introducing a vast array of colorful characters over the course of ten years, drawing deeply from their comic book roster. Their willingness to try out new characters, even when there's a real chance they won't succeed wildly, shows the difference in creative commitment between Marvel and DC. I'd rather see a studio try something like The Eternals, and achieve less than towering success with it, than see them tediously reboot Iron Man with a new actor and new setting every few years.

It has to be endlessly embarrassing to WB/DC brass that Marvel can turn a sentient tree--who can only say three words--into a household name, while they in turn can't even keep Clark Kent as Superman beyond three movies. Say what you will about the dubiousness of Marvel's insistence on a consistent look and feel to their movies, they have done a remarkable job of introducing a vast array of colorful characters over the course of ten years, drawing deeply from their comic book roster. Their willingness to try out new characters, even when there's a real chance they won't succeed wildly, shows the difference in creative commitment between Marvel and DC. I'd rather see a studio try something like The Eternals, and achieve less than towering success with it, than see them tediously reboot Iron Man with a new actor and new setting every few years.

It has to be endlessly embarrassing to WB/DC brass that Marvel can turn a sentient tree--who can only say three words--into a household name, while they in turn can't even keep Clark Kent as Superman beyond three movies. Say what you will about the dubiousness of Marvel's insistence on a consistent look and feel to their movies, they have done a remarkable job of introducing a vast array of colorful characters over the course of ten years, drawing deeply from their comic book roster. Their willingness to try out new characters, even when there's a real chance they won't succeed wildly, shows the difference in creative commitment between Marvel and DC. I'd rather see a studio try something like The Eternals, and achieve less than towering success with it, than see them tediously reboot Iron Man with a new actor and new setting every few years.

It has to be endlessly embarrassing to WB/DC brass that Marvel can turn a sentient tree--who can only say three words--into a household name, while they in turn can't even keep Clark Kent as Superman beyond three movies. Say what you will about the dubiousness of Marvel's insistence on a consistent look and feel to their movies, they have done a remarkable job of introducing a vast array of colorful characters over the course of ten years, drawing deeply from their comic book roster. Their willingness to try out new characters, even when there's a real chance they won't succeed wildly, shows the difference in creative commitment between Marvel and DC. I'd rather see a studio try something like The Eternals, and achieve less than towering success with it, than see them tediously reboot Iron Man with a new actor and new setting every few years.

It has to be endlessly embarrassing to WB/DC brass that Marvel can turn a sentient tree--who can only say three words--into a household name, while they in turn can't even keep Clark Kent as Superman beyond three movies. Say what you will about the dubiousness of Marvel's insistence on a consistent look and feel to their movies, they have done a remarkable job of introducing a vast array of colorful characters over the course of ten years, drawing deeply from their comic book roster. Their willingness to try out new characters, even when there's a real chance they won't succeed wildly, shows the difference in creative commitment between Marvel and DC. I'd rather see a studio try something like The Eternals, and achieve less than towering success with it, than see them tediously reboot Iron Man with a new actor and new setting every few years.

It has to be endlessly embarrassing to WB/DC brass that Marvel can turn a sentient tree--who can only say three words--into a household name, while they in turn can't even keep Clark Kent as Superman beyond three movies. Say what you will about the dubiousness of Marvel's insistence on a consistent look and feel to their movies, they have done a remarkable job of introducing a vast array of colorful characters over the course of ten years, drawing deeply from their comic book roster. Their willingness to try out new characters, even when there's a real chance they won't succeed wildly, shows the difference in creative commitment between Marvel and DC. I'd rather see a studio try something like The Eternals, and achieve less than towering success with it, than see them tediously reboot Iron Man with a new actor and new setting every few years.

It has to be endlessly embarrassing to WB/DC brass that Marvel can turn a sentient tree--who can only say three words--into a household name, while they in turn can't even keep Clark Kent as Superman beyond three movies. Say what you will about the dubiousness of Marvel's insistence on a consistent look and feel to their movies, they have done a remarkable job of introducing a vast array of colorful characters over the course of ten years, drawing deeply from their comic book roster. Their willingness to try out new characters, even when there's a real chance they won't succeed wildly, shows the difference in creative commitment between Marvel and DC. I'd rather see a studio try something like The Eternals, and achieve less than towering success with it, than see them tediously reboot Iron Man with a new actor and new setting every few years.

I suspect the main reason superhero movies get any kind of begrudging respect from self-appointed cultural taste-makers is that they make billions of dollars and have become beloved entertainment to the masses. Superhero comic books never did that. After all, there was never an Avengers comic book "event" storyline that earned (nearly) five billion dollars for Marvel. So while some people might publicly dismiss them from their ivory towers, you can usually hear them grumbling in private envy over the money they make.
 
If guys like Scorsese and Scott didn't have any skin in the game then I would probably be more sympathetic to their point of view. But while they can say that superhero movies aren't their cup of tea, they can't credibly deny the fact that these movie have had a huge impact on our culture, and have provided many, many hours of much needed entertainment for people. Moreover, they've pumped much needed energy (and money) into the movie business; basically a massively high tide that has raised a lot of boats these last (roughly) 20 years.

I suspect the main reason superhero movies get any kind of begrudging respect from self-appointed cultural taste-makers is that they make billions of dollars and have become beloved entertainment to the masses. Superhero comic books never did that. After all, there was never an Avengers comic book "event" storyline that earned (nearly) five billion dollars for Marvel. So while some people might publicly dismiss them from their ivory towers, you can usually hear them grumbling in private envy over the money they make.
 
If guys like Scorsese and Scott didn't have any skin in the game then I would probably be more sympathetic to their point of view. But while they can say that superhero movies aren't their cup of tea, they can't credibly deny the fact that these movie have had a huge impact on our culture, and have provided many, many hours of much needed entertainment for people. Moreover, they've pumped much needed energy (and money) into the movie business; basically a massively high tide that has raised a lot of boats these last (roughly) 20 years.

I just want to watch a movie that tells a good story, with characters that I have some reason to care about. 
 
If that's a superhero movie, then so be it. Marvel has done a good job making such movies. (DC not so much, IMHO).
 
But if that's a historical piece, or a political thriller, or a rom-com, or a documentary, then that's great too.

Honestly I think EVERY Trend eventually gets resented by creators who feel pressured by the success of said trend.  It happened with Westerns, IIRC. And likely others too. Newspapers/sites enjoy quoting such things because it gets fans of the trend riled and stirs clicks and traffic. 
 
To Ridley Scott, I say "I hear you even if I don't agree. I hope you make another good movie that brings you and others joy, meanwhile I'm going to watch Shang-Chi and have some popcorn. Later, dude!"

I'm not sure why people get all anxious about a Fantastic Four movie. Pixar did two of them, and one of them (the first) is arguably one of the greatest superhero movies ever made.

That's exactly how I read that scene.
 
I found the movie to be pretty fun and entertaining. However, I have to say that I didn't particularly care for the two leads. Simu Liu simply didn't radiate the kind of charisma I expected from a character (originally, and forever in my heart) meant to be a Bruce Lee analog. Also, I'm not an Akwafina fan so the Katy character pretty much just annoyed me. I did like the sister character, and it is always awesome to see Michelle Yeoh on screen. Also, I was disappointed that they didn't develop the henchman with the cool mask more; he/she was probably the most intriguing villain in the whole movie (for me, anyway).
 
The big battle at the end was kinda fun, though it felt a bit rushed narratively. Overall, the fight scenes were a fun mixture of wuxia fantasy and classic Jackie Chan set pieces. I'm not sure how I feel about Shang-Chi turned into something more akin to a Mortal Kombat character than an idealized paragon of pure kung fu mastery. But I guess that's why the movie was titled Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings and not the more traditional Shang-Chi Master of Kung-Fu.

I just watched it a couple days ago and I think people are reaching to try and find something to be upset about. 
The movie wasn't the best one, but I thought it was better than the Dark World, Iron Man 3 and Endgame.
 
As far as his comment about the mandarin and the orange.  I took it as him being sarcastic and scornful toward the entire idea that someone had even tried to impersonate him. 
 
All in all the movie wasn't bad and I enjoyed it.  It isn't Captain America 1, but it wasn't IM3 either.

You figure the Chinese call those oranges Mandarin?  It makes at least if not more sense for someone to use the term when they refer to themselves to westerners because that's something they'd be familiar with and their true name is hidden.  The line was ridiculous, and just desperate spinning "See?  See? We're not doing that old stuff, we hate it, please show our movie in China!" 
 
Mocking your own source material to curry favor with one market that is already hostile to you is just ludicrous.  And it didn't work.  It just annoys long-term fans pointlessly.

There are advantages to using D-listers.  Make a change to the icons, and watch the furore.  But we can make Shang-Chi a flying energy blaster and people are quite happy with it.  There's a greater ability to adapt the characters to the medium, and to anticipated audience reaction.  We want more female characters?  OK.  Makkarri, Sprite and Ikaris are female now.  Would that have worked with Flash and Cyborg?

I had similar feelings when Guardians of the Galaxy came out. I mean, these guys are a D-list title at best. Why give them a movie?
 
It turned out all right, and I expect this will too.

I think we are largely agreeing. To most viewers, the Eternals appear to be as connected to the rest of the MCU as the Guardians of the Galaxy did when their first movie came out (which is to day, not very). "Fitting in" isn't that big of an issue. It is the fun factor, along with the elements you mention that really matters.

I sympathize completely. However, banning smartphones and tablets for players is one thing (and mostly a good thing), but the GM should not be similarly banned from using incredibly useful computer tools to help run the game and keep everything organized. My first introduction to RPG assistance tools was back in 1982 when the dungeon masters for the AD&D group I played with used software they had written on a Honeywell mainframe to track monsters, characters, treasure, and combat. Given the complexity of the games we're talking about here, computer assistance for the GM is a real no-brainer.
 
I don't think players need computer assistance during play anyway. They are only controlling one character (maybe two, if allowed to play a sidekick or important DNPC), whereas the GM is typically having to manage far more characters at once.