slikmar

Well, first off they have to actually make some movies and release them. All the good will and momentum of WW 1, Aquaman and Shazam! were wasted by having no follow ups ready to go except the pretty weak WW2, the even weaker Harley Quinn movie and Joker(Which is not part of the DECU.).
 
The batman was an excellent show though and Black Adam is better than I expected given it's long development time. A couple more like these two will have them up and running.

Wow, this reviewer really doesn't get it.
 
He shows his ignorance of comics right away right away by calling Black Adam and Hawkman  obscure characters and then his bias by saying that DC shouldn't try because Marvel has already done that better with GotG. Says that they wasted The Rock when The Rock campaigned for this role for years so he could play this character. Then pushes his ongoing premise that edginess in superhero movies is dead and out of place because, Moribus, a truly obscure Marvel movie character wasn't good despite having Leto as lead.
 
I guess writing quality is down across all industries related to comics.

I read them. the characterizations are actually somewhat different then the video games, but deeper. Geralt doesn't have as much outside magic, its much more potions and stuff. And the first book is really a lot of short stories as is the last, the middle 3 are a trilogy. They are decent, not great, but worth the read. But a lot of what makes them what they are needs to be in the show and was, at least season 1.

When the writers actively dislike the source, they're far more likely to try to reconstruct it.  How often does that work?  And even if they can't get their way, it makes for terrible team dynamics...because it shows.
 
Oh, I can definitely believe the writing's not exactly top-drawer.  The original stories came from Polish fantasy...how many of us have ever read those?  So I'd presume that the characters are as per the video games.  Characterization is VERY likely to be......thin.  Quite plausibly less than you need.  That said:  fine, there's lots to expand, but that doesn't mean radical departures.

But if I didnt explain to her exactly how the powers in the movie worked, how would she have ever known?

"Sit with a pretty girl for a minute, and to her, it seems like an hour."

From a good friend of mine...
 
 

On one of the web comics I read, the main writer's daughter had discovered the MCU - due to She-Hulk. So he is watching his way through the MCU with her. He made a great comment that I think shows a major difference in why I liked Favreau's directing vs Waititi:
The Favreau Effect
I say “somehow”, but it’s largely thanks to Jon Favreau. He made a lot of decisions that established the MCU formula. In fact, the first Iron Man addresses some common complaints of later MCU movies. There are plenty of jokes, but it doesn’t feel like the movie needs to hit a quips quota. And not every character is funny. Really, it’s just Tony and Happy. Everyone else is serious.
Speaking of serious, the film takes its villain seriously. No jokes about the villain’s name, not off hand comments at the villain’s expense, no scene of the villain looking foolish. In fact, the finale is the longest stretch of the movie without a joke.
Director Jon Favreau knew when to emphasize the fantastic and when to ground Iron Man. Stark Industries weapons, for example, aren’t outside the realm of modern military possibility. And the Iron Man suit doesn’t have a technological solution to every problem. It has, like, two weapons. This emphasizes that without the suit, Tony Stark still has superpowers.
Jon Favreau got a lot of credit for directing the movie that launched the MCU, but these days Kevin Feige seems to be the name equated to its success. I know Favreau still regularly appears as Happy Hogan and he works with Disney on Star Wars, but I wonder if we’ll ever see him direct another MCU film.
 
Basically, he knows when to be funny and when to be serious. Ragnarok had way to many moments of try to be funny when it should be serious.

On one of the web comics I read, the main writer's daughter had discovered the MCU - due to She-Hulk. So he is watching his way through the MCU with her. He made a great comment that I think shows a major difference in why I liked Favreau's directing vs Waititi:
The Favreau Effect
I say “somehow”, but it’s largely thanks to Jon Favreau. He made a lot of decisions that established the MCU formula. In fact, the first Iron Man addresses some common complaints of later MCU movies. There are plenty of jokes, but it doesn’t feel like the movie needs to hit a quips quota. And not every character is funny. Really, it’s just Tony and Happy. Everyone else is serious.
Speaking of serious, the film takes its villain seriously. No jokes about the villain’s name, not off hand comments at the villain’s expense, no scene of the villain looking foolish. In fact, the finale is the longest stretch of the movie without a joke.
Director Jon Favreau knew when to emphasize the fantastic and when to ground Iron Man. Stark Industries weapons, for example, aren’t outside the realm of modern military possibility. And the Iron Man suit doesn’t have a technological solution to every problem. It has, like, two weapons. This emphasizes that without the suit, Tony Stark still has superpowers.
Jon Favreau got a lot of credit for directing the movie that launched the MCU, but these days Kevin Feige seems to be the name equated to its success. I know Favreau still regularly appears as Happy Hogan and he works with Disney on Star Wars, but I wonder if we’ll ever see him direct another MCU film.
 
Basically, he knows when to be funny and when to be serious. Ragnarok had way to many moments of try to be funny when it should be serious.

On one of the web comics I read, the main writer's daughter had discovered the MCU - due to She-Hulk. So he is watching his way through the MCU with her. He made a great comment that I think shows a major difference in why I liked Favreau's directing vs Waititi:
The Favreau Effect
I say “somehow”, but it’s largely thanks to Jon Favreau. He made a lot of decisions that established the MCU formula. In fact, the first Iron Man addresses some common complaints of later MCU movies. There are plenty of jokes, but it doesn’t feel like the movie needs to hit a quips quota. And not every character is funny. Really, it’s just Tony and Happy. Everyone else is serious.
Speaking of serious, the film takes its villain seriously. No jokes about the villain’s name, not off hand comments at the villain’s expense, no scene of the villain looking foolish. In fact, the finale is the longest stretch of the movie without a joke.
Director Jon Favreau knew when to emphasize the fantastic and when to ground Iron Man. Stark Industries weapons, for example, aren’t outside the realm of modern military possibility. And the Iron Man suit doesn’t have a technological solution to every problem. It has, like, two weapons. This emphasizes that without the suit, Tony Stark still has superpowers.
Jon Favreau got a lot of credit for directing the movie that launched the MCU, but these days Kevin Feige seems to be the name equated to its success. I know Favreau still regularly appears as Happy Hogan and he works with Disney on Star Wars, but I wonder if we’ll ever see him direct another MCU film.
 
Basically, he knows when to be funny and when to be serious. Ragnarok had way to many moments of try to be funny when it should be serious.

On one of the web comics I read, the main writer's daughter had discovered the MCU - due to She-Hulk. So he is watching his way through the MCU with her. He made a great comment that I think shows a major difference in why I liked Favreau's directing vs Waititi:
The Favreau Effect
I say “somehow”, but it’s largely thanks to Jon Favreau. He made a lot of decisions that established the MCU formula. In fact, the first Iron Man addresses some common complaints of later MCU movies. There are plenty of jokes, but it doesn’t feel like the movie needs to hit a quips quota. And not every character is funny. Really, it’s just Tony and Happy. Everyone else is serious.
Speaking of serious, the film takes its villain seriously. No jokes about the villain’s name, not off hand comments at the villain’s expense, no scene of the villain looking foolish. In fact, the finale is the longest stretch of the movie without a joke.
Director Jon Favreau knew when to emphasize the fantastic and when to ground Iron Man. Stark Industries weapons, for example, aren’t outside the realm of modern military possibility. And the Iron Man suit doesn’t have a technological solution to every problem. It has, like, two weapons. This emphasizes that without the suit, Tony Stark still has superpowers.
Jon Favreau got a lot of credit for directing the movie that launched the MCU, but these days Kevin Feige seems to be the name equated to its success. I know Favreau still regularly appears as Happy Hogan and he works with Disney on Star Wars, but I wonder if we’ll ever see him direct another MCU film.
 
Basically, he knows when to be funny and when to be serious. Ragnarok had way to many moments of try to be funny when it should be serious.

Well, considering the Niner game...or the Seahawks game...or the Texans game...or the Colts game...or the Jets game...
 
There's a VERY, VERY high bar for Worst Ever Look, just this season, to pick from
 
 
Oh, you mean the uniforms.....
 
 
I don't have ESPN+ either, and I am soooo glad I can't be tempted...doesn't help the fact that the over-under is set at 39.5, and my feeling is...the under is close to a bloody LOCK.  
 
BIG spreads this week.  Eagles -10.5 over Steelers, Cowboys -9 over Bears, Bills -11 over the Packers (!!!!).  Well, hey, the Bears were +8.5 against the Pats, so maybe they can double up.  Hey, if they can pull it off, they might become my favorite team...for a week or two, anyway.  
 
Interesting points from NFL.com's power rankings:
 
 
 

On one of the web comics I read, the main writer's daughter had discovered the MCU - due to She-Hulk. So he is watching his way through the MCU with her. He made a great comment that I think shows a major difference in why I liked Favreau's directing vs Waititi:
The Favreau Effect
I say “somehow”, but it’s largely thanks to Jon Favreau. He made a lot of decisions that established the MCU formula. In fact, the first Iron Man addresses some common complaints of later MCU movies. There are plenty of jokes, but it doesn’t feel like the movie needs to hit a quips quota. And not every character is funny. Really, it’s just Tony and Happy. Everyone else is serious.
Speaking of serious, the film takes its villain seriously. No jokes about the villain’s name, not off hand comments at the villain’s expense, no scene of the villain looking foolish. In fact, the finale is the longest stretch of the movie without a joke.
Director Jon Favreau knew when to emphasize the fantastic and when to ground Iron Man. Stark Industries weapons, for example, aren’t outside the realm of modern military possibility. And the Iron Man suit doesn’t have a technological solution to every problem. It has, like, two weapons. This emphasizes that without the suit, Tony Stark still has superpowers.
Jon Favreau got a lot of credit for directing the movie that launched the MCU, but these days Kevin Feige seems to be the name equated to its success. I know Favreau still regularly appears as Happy Hogan and he works with Disney on Star Wars, but I wonder if we’ll ever see him direct another MCU film.
 
Basically, he knows when to be funny and when to be serious. Ragnarok had way to many moments of try to be funny when it should be serious.

On one of the web comics I read, the main writer's daughter had discovered the MCU - due to She-Hulk. So he is watching his way through the MCU with her. He made a great comment that I think shows a major difference in why I liked Favreau's directing vs Waititi:
The Favreau Effect
I say “somehow”, but it’s largely thanks to Jon Favreau. He made a lot of decisions that established the MCU formula. In fact, the first Iron Man addresses some common complaints of later MCU movies. There are plenty of jokes, but it doesn’t feel like the movie needs to hit a quips quota. And not every character is funny. Really, it’s just Tony and Happy. Everyone else is serious.
Speaking of serious, the film takes its villain seriously. No jokes about the villain’s name, not off hand comments at the villain’s expense, no scene of the villain looking foolish. In fact, the finale is the longest stretch of the movie without a joke.
Director Jon Favreau knew when to emphasize the fantastic and when to ground Iron Man. Stark Industries weapons, for example, aren’t outside the realm of modern military possibility. And the Iron Man suit doesn’t have a technological solution to every problem. It has, like, two weapons. This emphasizes that without the suit, Tony Stark still has superpowers.
Jon Favreau got a lot of credit for directing the movie that launched the MCU, but these days Kevin Feige seems to be the name equated to its success. I know Favreau still regularly appears as Happy Hogan and he works with Disney on Star Wars, but I wonder if we’ll ever see him direct another MCU film.
 
Basically, he knows when to be funny and when to be serious. Ragnarok had way to many moments of try to be funny when it should be serious.

DC seems to be willing to lean into its characters a bit more than Marvel.  They are often more faithful in their adaptations, then they're way off base and crazy, its hard to predict.  I still think a Booster Gold movie would be a big winner.
 
Update: watched Black Adam, it was pretty fun.  Not a great movie, but worth 3 stars out of 5 for just entertainment.  Dr Fate and Hawkman really propped up what was a pretty weak plot with some annoying kids and weak themes of oppressors and breaking the bondage of nameless bad guys (I mean, they had a name, it was Intergang but, they were just interchangable villains that vanished without explanation in the third act).
 
There was a LOT of killing, with Black Adam doing the bulk of it and as is typical in DC movies, a ton of property damage.  The main non super characters had their home obliterated, just blown to pieces and trashed inside.  Black Adam is apparently the Kool Aid Man but no one seems to care.  
 
It felt an awful lot like they were trying to make their own Wakanda, this time Arabic with its magical mineral that is never really explained and more or less ignored halfway through the movie.  But the action is fun, Dr Fate is depowered quite a bit but entertaining and they made his magic feel unique and interesting (and Pierce Brosnan does a great job).  Hawkman was interesting as well, for the first time I kinda liked the character. There's a wind girl in the movie as well and the way they used her and how she looks was truly amazing to behold.  Atom Smasher is mostly dorky kid comic relief.
 
There is a lot of what I considered inappropriate humor, with people being murdered horribly played for laughs.  I mean they are bad guys but uh is it that funny to see someone fall screaming to their death?  The audience thought so.  A really awkward romance shows up in the movie but thankfully is really background stuff.  I appreciate DC's commitment to superheroes; they use their superhero names, they wear the costumes, they do not back off from it at all.
 
Really, in the DC universe lots of people would have shown up to help the people of Wakan-- I mean Khandaq, such as the Justice League, but DC movies feel more like isolated stories, they aren't feeling so forced that they have to have one big overarching storyline or make everything connected.  Each story is its own story and that feels nice to me.