Page 48 of 53 FirstFirst ... 38444546474849505152 ... LastLast
Results 706 to 720 of 795
  1. #706
    Blue Boba ABH-1979's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    California
    Posts
    4,651

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Holmes View Post
    The two extremes of Superman fandom.

    Btw did you do the Wayne of Gotham review on Amazon?
    Nope, wasn't me, I only use this username here. "Namtab" may not have been the most unique choice, I admit.
    DC: Action Comics - Detective Comics - Batman and... - Batman - Justice League
    Marvel: All-New X-Factor

  2. #707
    Elder Member Mat001's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    11,997

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kurosawa
    Maggin did way better stuff in his novels with their friendship than Smallville ever did.
    What's so different, really?

    The Clark/Lois relationship was okay but the actors were so corny it was hard for me to watch.
    I think it's less the actors and more the characters. Not just the way the show was written, but the characters in general.

    And if I had to hear about Clark's "destiny" one more time on that show I think I'd pull my hair out.
    Yet, Superman does have a destiny in the comics. He inspired an age of heroes, he inspired the Legion and the world as it is all comes from his actions in the present. All the show did was make it part of the hero's journey.

    That may be so, but that doesn't mean that it's good. Superman should create himself with some help from his parents if he's Superboy first, and that's it, IMO. And Jonathan's attitude in both Smallville and maybe in MOS is wrong. Clark should become Superman because of Jonathan Kent, not despite of Jonathan Kent. To me, that's just another instance of Hollywood destroying father figures by making them morally weak. Jonathan Kent is not just any other dad, he's supposed to be of unusually high morals. Think back to Maggin's books. THAT is an inspirational Jonathan Kent.
    Clark becomes Superman because of Jonathan. He's never discouraged from using his powers to help others, in the show by Jonathan. The only thing Jonathan worried was Clark's safety because of the Luthors, because of Jor-El and because of the Kryptonite which could kill Clark. Or at the very least, be used to make him into something that he was not. That's why in the final season Clark finally begins to realize what it was that Jonathan wanted. First when he saw what happened moments before his heart attack. Then when he talked to the Jonathan Kent of Earth-2. And finally in the series finale when he imagined seeing Jonathan's ghost and he was able to reconcile his guilt and his past with his future.

    Irrelevant. Those other shows were top ten shows. Much, much bigger than Smallville, and some of the actors from them have become movie stars. It's not even close.
    Why does being a top ten show matter? "Superboy" and "The Adventures Of Superboy" were not top ten shows, but they did tell solid stories. Same with all the various animated series. "Superman: The Motion Picture" did not make the kind of money that "Batman" and "The Dark Knight" made, but it still did a solid job. The fact is that "Smallville" has it's place in the lexicon.

    Well, I agree completely with Maggin's ideas on Clark. And Maggin's ideas on Clark come from Siegel and Shuster, and they created Superman, not Maggin, not Byrne, not Donner and not Gough and Millar. If Clark is not timid and meek, if he looks and acts and feels just like Superman, then there is no reason to even have Clark. The biggest loss in the 1986 revamp was the loss of Clark Kent. Clark is a persona that Superman created but over time he took on a life of his own, IMO. Clark represents Superman's vulnerable side and without him the character just lost too much fragility and humanity. The timid Clark was just as big a part of Superman's popularity as any of the superpowers.
    What proof is there that a timid Clark is more popular than a normal guy? Superman's popular not because of that, but in spite of that.

    He was. He was very childish and naive. He was a Lil Abner hayseed under Byrne.
    And he was under Maggin, Weisinger and Bates.

    That's the only reason I ever took any interest in it. It's not a big influence on Superman in general, certainly not on the level of the Donner/Reeve movies which is how the vast majority of the general public know Superman.
    Tell that to Mark Waid, Jeph Loeb, Geoff Johns, Kurt Busiek, Nick Spencer and Sterling Gates. They were all either influenced by that show, or influenced the show's creation.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lancerman
    I can't believe we are almost hitting 50 pages on this subject. Superhero movies are ADAPTATIONS. They are free to change whatever as long as the core concepts remain intact.
    Comic book fan boys, you gotta repress the urge to slap them.

  3. #708
    Senior Member Tiberious's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    US
    Posts
    1,725

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mat001 View Post
    Comic book fan boys, you gotta repress the urge to slap them.
    I don't think that's fair. We spend years collecting books at $3-$4 a pop. We buy toys and statues and shirts. We watch cartoons and shows. When a film gets maid, we get excited. Here's our hero that we love, that we spend tons of hours and money on. When that film adapts our hero into something that we don't enjoy, its a hard pill to swallow. Don't like an issue of a comic? There will be a new one next month. Don't like a film? It will get relaunched in a decade or so.

    Ex: I'm not a fan of Nolan's Batman. I've had to wait through three movies spanning a decade. Who knows how long it will be till they relaunch the title and if so, if they will alter the film back into a Batman I like. So even though I dish out my paycheck every month for a book and merchandise, I can't enjoy the films. Its hard not to complain when this is one of a few chances in your lifetime to see your hero on the big screen.

  4. #709
    Blue Boba ABH-1979's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    California
    Posts
    4,651

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tiberious View Post
    I don't think that's fair. We spend years collecting books at $3-$4 a pop. We buy toys and statues and shirts. We watch cartoons and shows. When a film gets maid, we get excited. Here's our hero that we love, that we spend tons of hours and money on. When that film adapts our hero into something that we don't enjoy, its a hard pill to swallow. Don't like an issue of a comic? There will be a new one next month. Don't like a film? It will get relaunched in a decade or so.

    Ex: I'm not a fan of Nolan's Batman. I've had to wait through three movies spanning a decade. Who knows how long it will be till they relaunch the title and if so, if they will alter the film back into a Batman I like. So even though I dish out my paycheck every month for a book and merchandise, I can't enjoy the films. Its hard not to complain when this is one of a few chances in your lifetime to see your hero on the big screen.
    It sucks, but them's the breaks. I'm also a Transformer fan, so it's upsetting that there has not been a good TF movie (imo) since the animated one in '86. There are 3 shitty (again, my opinion) Michael Bay movies, with apparently a 4th on the way. I've come to accept that I may never get the Transformers movie I want, but perhaps more importantly, I've accepted that Bay's Transformers are THE Transformers to a whole new generation of fans. Just like the Star Wars Prequels, is the Star Wars for the younger generation. (Though with SW, I'm praying somehow, someway, someone brings some of that OT magic back to episodes VII-IX)
    Last edited by ABH-1979; 12-18-2012 at 06:41 AM.
    DC: Action Comics - Detective Comics - Batman and... - Batman - Justice League
    Marvel: All-New X-Factor

  5. #710
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    150

    Default

    The overwhelmingly positive reactions to the trailer prove one thing-people want a good superman movie.His icon status has a lot of good will.What the Mos trailer simply did was to present Superman without the things that turn the public off the character and of course the Public was more than happy to jump on it.BUT dont let that fool you though.The movie has to be good otherwise.....well lets not think about that.

  6. #711

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Namtab View Post
    It sucks, but them's the breaks. I'm also a Transformer fan, so it's upsetting that there has not been a good TF movie (imo) since the animated one in '86. There are 3 shitty (again, my opinion) Michael Bay movies, with apparently a 4th on the way. I've come to accept that I may never get the Transformers movie I want, but perhaps more importantly, I've accepted that Bay's Transformers are THE Transformers to a whole new generation of fans. Just like the Star Wars Prequels, is the Star Wars for the younger generation. (Though with SW, I'm praying somehow, someway, someone brings some of that OT magic back to episodes VII-IX)
    To be honest Michael Bay's Transformers are plain awful and that's hands down the truth. On the other hand the Star Wars prequels aren't bad the way people try to make them out to be. I love both "Star Wars Classic" and the prequel trilogy.

    You can't ask for more awesomeness than we received in the "Dual of the Fates" with Maul, Young Kenobi and Qui Gon Jinn; I still tear up watching that epic battle set to the backdrop of the John William's requiem playing in all it's glory. Although Attack of the Clones didn't flesh out the story as well as it could have as it way bogged down in a sappy romance all can be forgiven thanks to the excellent story fill-in that "The Clone Wars" is over on Cartoon Network. Revenge of the Sith is still tied with The Empire Strikes Back as my favorite Star Wars movie. ROTS took the prequel trilogy to dizzying heights with soaring visuals, killer emotions as Order 66 plays out and heartbreaking tragedy as Anakin falls like a thunderclap from grace, force choking his wife and lashing out in a dazzling lightsaber dual with Jedi Master Kenobi in the dark eye candy of the hellish Mustafar. Oh and who wouldn't be on the edge of their seats again and again as Yoda and Darth Sidious clash in the shadows of Coruscent's Senate Chamber?

    The Star Wars Trilogy did for the dusty but beloved Galaxy Far Far Away what J.J. Abrams Star Trek revival has done for Kirk and Spock and that quite simply is "breathe new life into a stale franchise making it relevant again".

    However, I definitely agree that Christopher Nolan's brooding and depressing Batman trilogy is the worst thing to have ever happened to the Cape Crusader. It's absolutely depressing but it's quite unfair to say that Zack Snyder's Man of Steel is treading in the same waters. The newest trailer has shown that Snyder's vision of The Last Son of Krypton is well placed. The trailer conveys something riveting, epic, soaring, heart clenching and spiritual. I think Snyder's Man of Steel is going to be a "Death and Birth of Superman" experience for both the saga itself and for Superman fans.
    Last edited by RoyalTailor; 12-18-2012 at 07:20 AM.

  7. #712

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RoyalTailor View Post
    However, I definitely agree that Christopher Nolan's brooding and depressing Batman trilogy is the worst thing to have ever happened to the Cape Crusader.
    Yes, there's nothing worse than giving a character a commercially and critically successful movie trilogy, thousands more fans and saving the Batman movie franchise from the horrors of Batman & Robin.

    EDIT: And calling them brooding and depressing is utterly ridiculous and makes me question whether you've ever watched the films. There's certainly no more brooding or depression than there is in the comics or even the Burton movies for that matter, which depicted him as an actual troubled person, he genuinely was a little crazy and frequently was seen just brooding alone in the dark. It worked for the kind of movies they were but calling the Nolan films brooding in comparison to that is ridiculous.

    EDIT II: Wait, I just read the rest of your post and noticed you defend the SW prequels. Never mind.
    Last edited by LoneNecromancer; 12-18-2012 at 08:52 AM.

  8. #713
    Blue Boba ABH-1979's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    California
    Posts
    4,651

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RoyalTailor View Post
    To be honest Michael Bay's Transformers are plain awful and that's hands down the truth.
    No disagreement, here. But at the same time, those movies made tons of money and did create a whole new generation of fans. It will never be MY Transformers, but it's still Transformers.

    Quote Originally Posted by RoyalTailor View Post
    On the other hand the Star Wars prequels aren't bad the way people try to make them out to be. I love both "Star Wars Classic" and the prequel trilogy.
    No, they're pretty bad, but again, that's my opinion.

    Quote Originally Posted by RoyalTailor View Post
    You can't ask for more awesomeness than we received in the "Dual of the Fates" with Maul, Young Kenobi and Qui Gon Jinn; I still tear up watching that epic battle set to the backdrop of the John William's requiem playing in all it's glory. Although Attack of the Clones didn't flesh out the story as well as it could have as it way bogged down in a sappy romance all can be forgiven thanks to the excellent story fill-in that "The Clone Wars" is over on Cartoon Network. Revenge of the Sith is still tied with The Empire Strikes Back as my favorite Star Wars movie. ROTS took the prequel trilogy to dizzying heights with soaring visuals, killer emotions as Order 66 plays out and heartbreaking tragedy as Anakin falls like a thunderclap from grace, force choking his wife and lashing out in a dazzling lightsaber dual with Jedi Master Kenobi in the dark eye candy of the hellish Mustafar. Oh and who wouldn't be on the edge of their seats again and again as Yoda and Darth Sidious clash in the shadows of Coruscent's Senate Chamber?
    Dual of the Fates and Order 66, as well as Palpatine's manipulations, were the best parts of those movies, but that's not enough to make the prequels "good." ROTS has the benefit of being the best of the worst, and that's it. Anakin's so called "fall," was practically non-existent -- they really did a terrible job showing the transition from Anakin to Vader, especially since that should have been the main theme of the trilogy. It's true that there was a lot of CGI eye-candy, but that's pretty much all there was. It was just sugar-loaded frosting with no cake underneath.

    I still don't know how Ian McDiarmid went from the evil Emperor in RotJ (he was straight up Satan), to the cartoon villainy of Sidious in RotS. That must have been the magic of being directed by a Lucas that's surrounded by "yes men."

    Quote Originally Posted by RoyalTailor View Post
    The Star Wars Trilogy did for the dusty but beloved Galaxy Far Far Away what J.J. Abrams Star Trek revival has done for Kirk and Spock and that quite simply is "breathe new life into a stale franchise making it relevant again".
    It's ironic to me; never being a Trek Fan and always being a Star Wars fan, growing up, that I prefer the New Star Trek Movie to the Newer Star Wars movies. That's something I would have never expected to happen.

    Quote Originally Posted by RoyalTailor View Post
    However, I definitely agree that Christopher Nolan's brooding and depressing Batman trilogy is the worst thing to have ever happened to the Cape Crusader. It's absolutely depressing but it's quite unfair to say that Zack Snyder's Man of Steel is treading in the same waters. The newest trailer has shown that Snyder's vision of The Last Son of Krypton is well placed. The trailer conveys something riveting, epic, soaring, heart clenching and spiritual. I think Snyder's Man of Steel is going to be a "Death and Birth of Superman" experience for both the saga itself and for Superman fans.
    Disagreed on Nolan's Batman. While I don't quite get all the admiration for Rises, I still adore TDK, and it's still my favorite Batman movie.

    So, if we're keeping track, we're mostly on the same page regarding Superman and Transformers, but in two different worlds when it comes to Nolan's Batman and the Star Wars Prequels.
    DC: Action Comics - Detective Comics - Batman and... - Batman - Justice League
    Marvel: All-New X-Factor

  9. #714

    Default

    @Namtab, I definitely agree with you regarding Palpatine. There are some definite continuity fragments between Palpatine in the "Classic Star Wars" movies and the Darth Sidious of the prequels. You are also right regarding "Anakin's Fall". Skywalker's fall is far better illustrated in the Expanded Universe materials. Now that I've had a chance to sit back and watch the films again and again on Spike TV over the years I have come to see that the prequels did rush through Anakin's decent into darkness instead of establishing "good" vs his "bad" personalities. Perhaps it is those reasons why a lot of critics are saying they prefer "Star Wars The Clone Wars" over the prequel movies. SWTCW certainly has done a far better job of flushing out the events that Attack of the Clones and ROTS failed to give viewers a better look into.

    If you haven't seen The Clone Wars I definitely encourage you to watch the series Namtab.

  10. #715
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    croatia
    Posts
    145

    Default

    ups wrong thread
    Last edited by nebezial; 12-18-2012 at 10:38 AM.

  11. #716
    Blue Boba ABH-1979's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    California
    Posts
    4,651

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RoyalTailor View Post
    @Namtab, I definitely agree with you regarding Palpatine. There are some definite continuity fragments between Palpatine in the "Classic Star Wars" movies and the Darth Sidious of the prequels. You are also right regarding "Anakin's Fall". Skywalker's fall is far better illustrated in the Expanded Universe materials. Now that I've had a chance to sit back and watch the films again and again on Spike TV over the years I have come to see that the prequels did rush through Anakin's decent into darkness instead of establishing "good" vs his "bad" personalities. Perhaps it is those reasons why a lot of critics are saying they prefer "Star Wars The Clone Wars" over the prequel movies. SWTCW certainly has done a far better job of flushing out the events that Attack of the Clones and ROTS failed to give viewers a better look into.

    If you haven't seen The Clone Wars I definitely encourage you to watch the series Namtab.
    Actually I do watch Clone Wars and I prefer it to the Prequels, so I definitely agree there.
    DC: Action Comics - Detective Comics - Batman and... - Batman - Justice League
    Marvel: All-New X-Factor

  12. #717
    Elder Member Mat001's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    11,997

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tiberious View Post
    I don't think that's fair. We spend years collecting books at $3-$4 a pop. We buy toys and statues and shirts. We watch cartoons and shows. When a film gets maid, we get excited. Here's our hero that we love, that we spend tons of hours and money on. When that film adapts our hero into something that we don't enjoy, its a hard pill to swallow. Don't like an issue of a comic? There will be a new one next month. Don't like a film? It will get relaunched in a decade or so.

    Ex: I'm not a fan of Nolan's Batman. I've had to wait through three movies spanning a decade. Who knows how long it will be till they relaunch the title and if so, if they will alter the film back into a Batman I like. So even though I dish out my paycheck every month for a book and merchandise, I can't enjoy the films. Its hard not to complain when this is one of a few chances in your lifetime to see your hero on the big screen.
    It's more than fair. The fact is that all comic book characters, just like all other fictional characters, get adapted. And in that adaptation, there are some alterations. That's one of the things that's gotten lost over the last twenty years. Sometimes the alteration is horrible like "Steel" and sometimes it is good, like "The Dark Knight" and "The Avengers". These adaptations have to be sold to an audience that looks down upon comics and that means making changes as they go along, so that the larger audience can swallow this crap. In this case, it's examining why Superman exists and should reflect the world around us. When the Donner film came out, the timeline was 1948 through 1978. During which we had a 1950's slice of Americana in the Smallville sequences. A time that realistic did have turmoil, but was glossed over television and film in favor of shining optimism and hope. The sequence, which was early 1960's Smallville, was after the Communist scare that dominated much of the early 50's. There was still Communist issues, but it wasn't a bit different by the 60's.

    Anyway, there was a stronger sense of hope and positive optimism. This film is taking place in the 1990's and early 2000's range, during the Smallville years. And as such the world is a different place, thus Jonathan has been written to reflect that. Just as the "Smallville" Jonathan was different from the "Lois & Clark" version. That's one of the things that adaptations do. The core concept of Jonathan remains true. What's changed is the world around him.

    Quote Originally Posted by RoyalTailor
    However, I definitely agree that Christopher Nolan's brooding and depressing Batman trilogy is the worst thing to have ever happened to the Cape Crusader
    You got the wrong message about Batman if you thought all three films were depressing. The second film is the only one to really be that way. The third film alone was about hope which was evident in Bruce's recovery and ascension, as well as the whole finale when we learn that Bruce survived and passed the mantle of the Bat on to Blake. A city like Gotham has been for years portrayed as a city that will be swallowed up by it's evil, unless there is a Batman to keep that from happening. Even though it's still a futile effort short of nuking the whole city, to end crime. Metropolis, on the other hand, is the city of tomorrow and as such, the hope that Superman inspires brings out the best in its citizens.

    Quote Originally Posted by Namtab
    I still don't know how Ian McDiarmid went from the evil Emperor in RotJ (he was straight up Satan), to the cartoon villainy of Sidious in RotS. That must have been the magic of being directed by a Lucas that's surrounded by "yes men."
    It actually makes sense because Sidious just won over the Jedi. So he would gloat and boast about what he's accomplished. By ROTJ, he's trying to hold it all together. And he does laugh manically in ROTJ as he did in ROTS.

  13. #718

    Default

    I am curious. Was it not stated that a new Man of Steel movie trailer would be released with the premiere of the Hobbit? Or maybe, if I am wrong, was the trailer that was recently released the one that was supposed to be released with the Hobbit?

  14. #719
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    221B Baker Street
    Posts
    18,005

    Default

    I haven't seen Hobbit yet, but I think that was the plan. Is the MoS trailer not there?

  15. #720
    Senior Member misslane38's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    4,509

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Holmes View Post
    I haven't seen Hobbit yet, but I think that was the plan. Is the MoS trailer not there?
    I saw The Hobbit this weekend, and the trailer wasn't part of the previews. It seems some people saw it while others didn't.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •