slikmar

I disagree with this attitude so much. "Changed" is not a synonym for "ruined," and is almost always preferable to "held completely static for decades."
 
In the specific case of Peter's marriage, I thought letting Peter grow up and change really strengthened the character, and some of the storylines around his marriage with MJ were quite well done. (Say what you will about Straczynski's run on Spidey, but he wrote the Peter-MJ dynamic really well.) And there was something genuinely comforting to know that despite everything Pete went through as a kid and everything he's still going through, he nonetheless managed to find a little bit of happiness for himself. That's not a bad story for people to hear now and then.
 
What ruined Spidey for me was when they retconned away all that progress because "fans don't want to see a married Spider-Man." So we're back to Square 1, and nobody learns from anything? No possibility for character growth? What the hell is interesting about that? Where's the drama in knowing that no matter what a character goes through, nothing is ever going to change?
 
The only alternative is the DC approach of rebooting the universe every 5 years so you have an excuse to keep everyone in the exact same place and keep retelling the same damn stories over and over again. Yawn.
 
By contrast, if Marvel had kept Carol Danvers in the same box she'd been in since the 70s, no one would care about the character today and she certainly wouldn't be getting her own movie. But by letting the character evolve (starting with 2005's House Of M, and really taking off when DeConnick took over), they not only made her a far more interesting character, but they also opened up room for new characters to come in behind her.
 
I hope you don't feel I'm picking on you personally CT - I'm addressing a much wider attitude. (You just happen to be the guy that pushed the button - sorry for that!) But I genuinely feel like this instinctive, visceral resistance to change is the biggest problem with fandom today and is the main reason we can't have nice things.

Sorry, making the argument for Batman to frame the Joker for the murder of Harvey Dent is not appealing in any way to me.  I can't believe it would even be discussed as 'a better ending' for a Batman movie.

I never had a problem with the ending of Dark Knight.  Batman's rep suffers but you could never question his personal ethics.  I actually thought it was a brilliant sacrifice on his part.

Probably so. But the superhero genre isn't primarily about what would happen, but about what we want to happen. It isn't the way the world is, but it's the world the way it should be. And it inspires us to try to make our world more like that.

Just saying that The Incredible Hulk remains one of my favorite Marvel movies, and made decent box office. So crap is in the eye of... actually, I think I'll leave that one right there.

I don't know why everybody is complaining about Eisenberg...I thought he was an awesome Joker.

Just saw suicide squad. Don't believe the critics. I have to give a caveat, I really started most of these characters from the new 52 on or the dcau. The characters are nailed. If you pay attention you see why they are chosen for the squad. With the exception of boomerang, they all have a reason to want to do some good. The back and forth comparison of Flag and Lawton is done well. Robbie steals every scene she us in, which says a lot given Smith isn't mailing in his work. You actually care about the characters, and there is no doubt who is probably the most vicious of the people. Not sold on Leto's Joker, but I really liked the dcau Hamil one and Ledgers Joker.

Just saw suicide squad. Don't believe the critics. I have to give a caveat, I really started most of these characters from the new 52 on or the dcau. The characters are nailed. If you pay attention you see why they are chosen for the squad. With the exception of boomerang, they all have a reason to want to do some good. The back and forth comparison of Flag and Lawton is done well. Robbie steals every scene she us in, which says a lot given Smith isn't mailing in his work. You actually care about the characters, and there is no doubt who is probably the most vicious of the people. Not sold on Leto's Joker, but I really liked the dcau Hamil one and Ledgers Joker.

Something occurred to me today, and I am sure I am not the first one to think of this. When you make a Batman movie, Bruce Wayne is a secondary character and I think that usually works. When you make a Superman movie, what you should be doing is making a Clark Kent, Investigative Journalist movie, with Superman being almost secondary. I know that would be hard to sell, but if you did a real Investigative Journalist movie where Clark is investigating a series of crimes or something bigger (Lexcorp illegal science or Crime Syndicate) and then added Supes into it, you would probably get a much better movie then Superman vs. the huge monster/powerperson you want to use. It's really how he came into conflict with Lex in the beginning, not to mention many others. It's one of the reasons I liked Lois and Clark series - they were reporters first and then Superman. People seem to forget that Clark was at least almost as good as Lois at investigating stuff. They actually have done a decent job of making Lois do the investigating and figuring out stuff in these latest movies, but they seem to dumb down Clark a lot.
I wish that they would try to do this. Course, i wish they would do a detective movie with Batman.

Something occurred to me today, and I am sure I am not the first one to think of this. When you make a Batman movie, Bruce Wayne is a secondary character and I think that usually works. When you make a Superman movie, what you should be doing is making a Clark Kent, Investigative Journalist movie, with Superman being almost secondary. I know that would be hard to sell, but if you did a real Investigative Journalist movie where Clark is investigating a series of crimes or something bigger (Lexcorp illegal science or Crime Syndicate) and then added Supes into it, you would probably get a much better movie then Superman vs. the huge monster/powerperson you want to use. It's really how he came into conflict with Lex in the beginning, not to mention many others. It's one of the reasons I liked Lois and Clark series - they were reporters first and then Superman. People seem to forget that Clark was at least almost as good as Lois at investigating stuff. They actually have done a decent job of making Lois do the investigating and figuring out stuff in these latest movies, but they seem to dumb down Clark a lot.
I wish that they would try to do this. Course, i wish they would do a detective movie with Batman.

Hmm, I think I agree with the assessment from CTRL-ALT-DEL on the DC universe. Read his comments below, as they pretty much sum up my opinions. I will see SS tomorrow, so havent seen it yet.
http://www.cad-comic.com/cad/

To me, it all comes down to making a good movie.  If Pixar can make us care about bugs, cars, robots, etc., then WB can make us care about Green Lantern or any other character in their stable. Write a good story with strongly written characters, make the audience care what happens to them, and then execute well. That's what needs to happen.
 
All the rest is just stuff around the edges, to me.

The costume looks good, so we will complain because it mixes the same colours as other costumes.
 
I'll be happy if it simply turns out that Wally is not the Season 3 "Speedster who infiltrates the team as a friend but turns out to be the Big Bad Guy for the season". Why couldn't Jay Garrick actually BE Jay Garrick?

It was so hot here yesterday that two hobbits threw a ring into my backyard.

I wish they had either taken Agents of Shield to introduce pre-powered Carol or some of the movies as either an airforce pilot, Shield agent, DOD agent etc. Then most of her origin you could have skipped. Heck, introduce her in something else and then have the accident happen at the end.

Those two priorities aren't necessarily mutually exclusive in a movie, though. Civil War amply demonstrates that. And FWIW I thought Whedon accomplished that in AoU a lot better than many people seem to give him credit for.
 
I see a lot of folks comparing CW to the first Avengers movie, but the former wouldn't exist without the latter. What Joss Whedon did in that movie had never been done before, and many were the nay-sayers who said it couldn't be done. Whedon demonstrated how it could be, and the Russo brothers built on his example.

Really, I'm hoping for a cameo by Morgan Freeman in a white suit as the Speed Force saying "What did we JUST talk about?" the instant he turns around.

Well, I guess at the end of the day they still left a few frames free for Flash special effects in the murder house for when he has to run back in time and change what happened that night *again*.
 
"Ok, ok! Places people! Reverse Flash, you come in from the right and try and kill her.  Flash number 1 - come in and save Young Barry. Put up your hand to ward off Flash number 2 before saving us.  Flash 3 - now you come in and deck Reverse Flash in the snozz.  Ok, Flash 2 - your part of the plan now is instead of getting closure by holding her in her dying moments and letting her know we're safe you get erased from history. Cool? Cool.  Alright since we ALL know how well stopping the murder worked out we're on to Flash 4 - attack Flash before he decks Reversie.  Flash's 6 and 7 - intercept Flash 5 when he changes his mind again.  Flash 8 through 10 - watch out for Jay and Wally this time."
 
"Remember, people, half of us are time remnants now so Flash 11 and 12 - you're wraith bait.  Let's move, we only have infinite more times we can do this to get it right!"

What incentive is there for someone to dig his own grave for the guy pointing a gun at him? He isn't killing you RIGHT NOW. He might kill you (or get you killed tomorrow or next week), but for the moment, you're still alive.

Hidden by Benedict Jacka.
When Anne Walker is kidnapped from her new home, Alex Verus tries to find her although she does not want to see him after the events of the previous book. Alex runs up against a gathering of Dark Mages and the apprentices of Anne's former master, the mage Sagash. This book is best read as part of the series rather than a stand alone.

Chosen by Benedict Jacka.
A group of adepts target Alex Verus for death after events that he was involved in when he was a potential Chosen for Richard Drakh. After several attempts which also injure a Keeper, Alex takes drastic action. As this involves Deleo and Cinder, it is drastic. You get more background on the two potential chosen ho have died, Shireen and Tobruk and what Rachel did to become Deleo.
You need to have read other books in the series in order to appreciate this one. If you have then this is very good.

Those ideas are not mutually exclusive.
 
There's an excellent fantasy novel by Steven Brust, TO REIGN IN HELL. It's probably my favorite fantasy novel. It's about how Lucifer rebelled against God, and why. I won't spoil it, except to say that there IS someone to blame for the split between Lucifer and God (Yahweh) in the novel, someone pursuing his own selfish agenda and putting these two long-time friends and allies at odds.
 
The thing is, they're all proud individuals, and by the time the real culprit is exposed, too much has been said and done--by everyone--for everything to go back to the way it was, no matter how much everyone would like it to.
 
So if, for instance, someone IS behind the conflict in Civil War, even if he/she gets exposed, too much betrayal, violence and death may have occurred for things ever to be the way they were before, even if both sides were doing what they thought right and wish it could be forgotten and forgiven.

Interesting, yes; but it also seems to me to be a heavily-biased reading of the role of each medium in developing the Marvel Universe, with a lot of "Marvel TV Studio Good/Marvel Movie Studio Bad" generalizations presented as self-evident, which anyone watching both could readily contest.

It wasn't my impression that Cap and co. had "regained control of the three helicarriers." Those were still full of HYDRA crew, whom Cap and Falcon were in no position to fully subdue by themselves. What they seemed to gain control of -- at least temporarily -- was the targeting system for the carriers' automated guns. Is it reasonable to assume that if their crews had been left intact on those craft, they would not have eventually gotten control of their weapons back? Shooting them down while they had the chance may have been their only viable option.
 
But beyond that, Nick Fury's statement of the carriers' purpose was not to protect against alien threats; it was to deal with perceived terrestrial threats such as terrorists, as soon as those were identified... and eliminate them before they had acted. Or as Cap put it, punishing them before the crime. From his perspective, the ships' very existence amounted to "holding a gun to the head of everyone on Earth, and calling it protection."
 
Tony Stark's actions in creating Ultron were an extension of that basic concept: concentrating nearly-unlimited power to control into a small package, something that as it turned out, could be corrupted and turned against its purpose. The fact that Tony was ultimately responsible for the damage Ultron did probably had a lot to do with his change of heart about putting the Avengers under supervision, since they in a way represent the same concentration of power. But Cap probably sees the team's independence as the best way to assure that power doesn't become corrupted, as he says: "We're not perfect, but the safest hands are still ours."
 
Over and above those issues, though, Bucky appears to be the catalyst for this conflict. I noticed in the first trailer that Cap mentioned the special forces coming for Bucky were "not planning on taking you alive." Steve Rogers isn't trying to keep his closest friend from being arrested and tried by government forces, but from being assassinated by government forces. Knowing and believing in Bucky as he does, Steve likely sees this as one more example of the need for superheroes not to be subject to political agendas.
 
(Please note that all of the above are raised as subjects for discussion. I recognize those points can be legitimately disagreed with and debated. In fact I'm looking forward to it.)

Jason, How will you hold up in a fight scene with Superman, Batman and Wonder Woman?
 
I played Khal Drogo and Conan.  The first line on my resume says, "Call me if you need asses kicked".  My eyebrows alone could crush Cavill, drive Affleck before me and laugh at the lamentations of the Gadot.