Search options (Page 51 of 57)

I'm still not sure why it has to be so black and white.  The Marvel way or the DC way.  I think there can be middle ground on all this stuff.  DC could take bits and pieces of Marvel's strategy without admitting that Marvel is better than them.  Just because Feige isn't doing a good job doesn't mean that it's a bad idea or that it would harm DC in any way.

Of course, if that person is ever Zack Snyder....a group of voices would be way better.  Let's at least have non Justice League movies be fun

Well this is why I'd want to get someone in charge now.  Suicide Squad is done.  Wonder Woman is almost done.  So with Flash and Aquaman possibly needing new directors, get someone in there now who can be in charge during filming of Justice League and preproduction of the other movies. 

I mean, hiring someone to oversee this stuff isn't exactly a sign of surrender, is it?  And there'd be a million people who'd love to do it, and a thousand who'd be great at it.  This is a monumental thing they're attempting, and if DC wants to make bigger, smarter, stronger, films I'd think they'd need a Feige WAY more than Marvel does.

I think the fight itself was fine - I didn't want a Godzilla type fight.  I'm just talking about the "growing" scene.  In the fight, you usually couldn't see Ray's face.  In the growing scene, his face was front and center, and it looked like one of those movies like Polar Express.  I was watching on a smaller non-HD TV, and it still looked horrible.  I was just wondering why they decided to use CG there.

Oh, absolutely.  And, again, half the fun of parallel universes on TV (be it Sliders, Flash, Fringe, etc) is having different versions of characters played by the same actor.  Seeing a meek and geeky Grant Gustin is fun because we know Barry as being fun and confident.  Same with the other actors.  There's less of a point to having Caitlin be Killer Frost if it's just another actress named Caitlin Snow playing her.

And if ireactions is right about the Snyderverse and the Arrowverse being in different multiverses, then it makes that whole point moot and the Arrowverse would function like Sliders where doubles are identical for whatever reason.

I just picture dialogue like this happening.

BARRY (weary from a fight with Zoom) - Who the Hell was that?

HARRISON WELLS (played by Robert Floyd) - That was Zoom.

CISCO - Whoa.  Who are you, pal?  How did you get passed our security?

HARRISON - I designed it.  I'm Harrison Wells.

BARRY - That's impossible.

HARRISON - I'm Harrison Wells from a parallel Earth.  The same Earth that Zoom is from.

CISCO - But you look nothing like Harrison Wells.

HARRISON - I'm from an entirely parallel Earth based on an infinite number of parallel choices.  You think I'd look exactly like your Harrison Wells?

CISCO (embarrassed and sad) - Yeah.  Kinda.  I guess.

HARRISON - You know how many sperm -

CAITLIN (cutting HARRISON off) - Alright. We're all smart enough to know how that works.  Let's just move on.

Hmmm.  Well the only thing I can think of is that we still don't know enough about the character.  How was she able to use Laurel's device when it was coded to Laurel's vocal cords?  I was thinking it'd be some sort of clone at first.  Was that ever answered?

And I agree with both of you - the writers messed up and then boxed themselves into a corner.  And I guess they sided with continuity over consistency.  Which is disappointing - I want to believe that these guys have a plan, and this works against that.

I'd have to read the exact quote to understand - the mystery was probably just so they didn't know she was playing a fake Black Canary to preserve the Laurel death.

But something no show has ever done before?  I can't even imagine what that would be.

That's a really good question.  Did the Supergirl episode take place in that brief part where Barry asks "how long was I gone?" the week before?  That's the time he wore that device he was wearing in the Supergirl episode. 

I always go on the assumption that Flash and Arrow are always at the exact same time they are.  Occasionally, they might be happening at the same time each week, but I assume Laurel died a couple/few weeks ago on Flash.  If Laurel isn't dead on Flash, then it's even more irresponsible not to call Oliver.

I haven't watched last night's Arrow yet so I can't comment on whatever you wrote there

Oh come on, we've been on this board for almost two decades (holy crap, that's true).  We've had to have agreed on more than just this

Exactly.  The problem is that I don't think people are sophisticated enough, as a whole, to differentiate the two.  It's why parents brought their kids to BvS and then had to chase them out of the theater as they ran away crying.  There's an expectation gap about what DC is doing and what people expect them to be doing.  It's a Superman movie....it's gotta be for kids.

What's always confused me is the idea that it has to be one or the other.  I've said many times that BvS isn't fun - you might've seen what I just wrote and ask why BvS has to be fun - fun is the question I ask of Marvel films.  But I think the Dark Knight, a fairly dark film that takes itself very seriously, has true moments of fun and levity.  There are a few moments between Bruce and Alfred that make you laugh.  There's a couple of legitimately funny moments from the Joker.  And more than that, the opening sequence with the bank robbery is fun.  The sequence in Hong Kong is fun. 

And that's why I've been saying that one "fun" sequence with Superman probably changes the entire dynamic of that movie.

Well, I look at it this way.

You take a movie like Dumb and Dumber.  My mom likes to say she hates that movie because "it's dumb."  My response is, and always will be, "it's in the title twice.  What did you expect?"  There's an expectation going in that you're going to watch a movie that is actively going for the lowest common denominator.  And you base your idea on it accordingly.  There are literally thousands of movies that are better made, better acted, and better done than Dumb and Dumber.  But pretty much none of that matters because it's judged on one thing - is it funny?  And it either is or isn't.

To me, it's the same with Marvel films.  Honestly, it doesn't really matter to me if the action on screen makes perfect sense.  If the characters are interacting in a meaningful way.  Or if anything that is happening on the screen truly matters.  It mattered a bit in Iron Man I, but as soon as Steve Rogers is wearing his ridiculous costume and fighting Loki in some sort of World War II parallel in Germany and Iron Man flies in blasting AC/DC, my brain basically shuts off.  "You're watching a movie for children," it says.  "I'm going to take a nap."

And to me, that's fine. 

DC wants to take itself more seriously.  Well, sort of.  I watched Superman Returns and Green Lantern in the exact same way I watched a Marvel movie.  I see Superman in his bright costume picking up a plane, and I cheer.  I see Ryan Reynolds in a cartoon suit fighting a cartoon pig monster, and my brain tells me I'm watching a cartoon.  Literally nothing matters.

Christopher Nolan upped the stakes.  His movie made you honestly believe that a man would wear a bat costume and run around punching a clown.  That sentence is supposed to make no sense, but it does because Nolan made us care about it.  That's why Heath Ledger won an academy award for it.  He transcended comic book movie and made a really good movie that features comic book characters.

Snyder doubled down on that.  Tried to bring Superman into the real world.  What would it be like if this man with all these powers was real.  And it's realistic.  It has weight to it.  It's trying to be a real movie.  And my brain never tells me it's going away.  I watch with my brain activated.  And so when I see a building collapse, my brain is there to tell me, "HOLY SHIT, THAT BUILDING IS FULL OF PEOPLE THAT ARE ALL GOING TO DIE."  I get 9/11 flashbacks because 9/11 is a real thing, and the aliens from Avengers are fake.  Those buildings are empty because people don't die in cartoons.

So if you want to compare character development between Marvel and DC, I ask you to compare Dumb and Dumber and A Few Good Men in a way that's meaningful.  You can't do it.  Lloyd Christmas isn't real.  Lieutenant Daniel Kaffee is real.

People freak out about the deaths in Man of Steel because that movie made us care.  Avengers doesn't really want us to care.  What's funny is that people like to compare the Battle of New York to the Battle of Metropolis.  But there was another movie that came out in 2013 that people never talk about.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJ9VMaNRF4s

How many people die in that scene?  The Vengeance flies into what's clearly shown is a busy city in broad daylight.  It *completely* demolishes a half dozen skyscrapers.  Maybe more.  Every single person it shows is killed - no doubt.  Every person in those buildings is probably dead.  I'd say more people die in that scene than Avengers and Man of Steel combined. 

But no one cares.  Because Star Trek Into Darkness made it very clear from the beginning that it's a dumb movie that you don't have to care about.

In movies like Dumb and Dumber, you either think it's funny or not.  That's all that matters.  It's why Dumb and Dumber is a classic and Dumb and Dumber To is a disaster.  Same qualifications - one is good, one is bad.  Marvel movies and Star Trek movies and Independence Day movies and Ninja Turtle movies and Transformers movies usually only have one question - did you have any fun?  Avengers yes, Star Trek Into Darkness sorta, Independence Day yes, Transformers 2 and 3 no.

But when you make a Man of Steel, when you make a Dark Knight, when you make a Batman v Superman, you're ditching the bright and colorful costumes and the one-liners and the gadgets and the goofiness.  You have emotional weight.  Bruce Wayne actually has to work out to win a fight.  When buildings collapse, there's a guy in that building praying that he'll go to heaven.  A guy loses his legs and loses his hope and suicide bombs a room full of people. 

And there's even proof of this - people hate Iron Man 3.  It's a movie that features very little Iron Man and chooses to focus on Tony Stark.  He isn't laughing or joking around.  He's suffering from panic attacks.  His friend ends up in the hospital.  The villains are scary and powerful, and Tony is constantly in danger.

Iron Man 3 is clearly a better movie than Captain America: The First Avenger.  It's a better movie than Avengers.  But people don't like it as much (Rotten Tomatoes has higher ratings for both those movies).  I think it's because people try to compare it to other MCU films, and it doesn't gel.  They're too different.  One wants you to care about Tony Stark the character isn't of Tony Stark the one-liner machine.  Your brain stays on too long and asks too many questions.  You realize the Mandarin bait-and-switch is stupid even though it's a median-stupid thing in the MCU.  He's just as ridiculous as Mickey Rourke's character in Iron Man 2.  You realize it's reckless for Tony to give out his home address to a terrorist in IM3 but never thought it was ridiculous for Tony to race in a Grand Prix or throw a nuclear missile into space.

Because Avengers is dumb.  Iron Man 2 is dumb.  But Iron Man 3 tries to be smart.  "Is it fun?" no longer is the only question to ask.  There are more questions to ask, more thinking to be done, more things the movie has to accomplish.

And one of the better movies in a franchise becomes one of the lesser liked movies in a franchise.  Because it dared to cross that line that takes you from a movie to a film.  When you make a movie, we'll forgive a lot.  Just let us feel like you deserve our $10.  But films?  Films make us think.  Films make us believe and question and wonder.  Films win awards.  We hold films to a bigger and better standard.  And that's why I don't care when the USS Vengeance crashes into San Francisco.  Or when a giant dragon ship crashes into a building in New York.  Those are movies.  Movies are supposed to be fun, and they're supposed to be dumb.

And for the record, the whole plot of the comic Civil War is that it's a disagreement that gets crazy out of control and a series of overreactions. 

The explosion at the school -> the government wants control.
Cap disagrees -> SHIELD tries to arrest him -> Cap goes underground
Cold war starts -> Both sides start building armies
Trap is set -> One side goes too far
One side starts losing people -> Supervillains are recruited to replace them

It isn't until they have this big battle amidst civilians that Cap realizes how far things have gone.  That a simple disagreement turned into a full-fledged battle.  That both sides wanted to protect innocent people, and that their disagreement put innocent people directly in danger.

So the joking might be the character's ways of telling themselves that they're not really fighting.  And it isn't until someone (either civilians or one of the heroes) gets hurt that they realize that they've *all* gone too far.  And it's at that point that someone needs to be the bigger person and surrender so the insanity stops.

Okay, but I really don't see the difference between these fights and Superman's side of Batman vs Superman.  I'll acknowledge that Batman was trying to kill Superman, but Superman wasn't trying to kill Batman.  And if Superman had done to, say, Perry White, what he'd done to Batman, Perry would've died.  "Lethal force" to Pepper Potts is different than "lethal force" to Iron Man.

I mean this isn't even the first time these guys have fought under similar circumstances.  In Avengers, Cap and Iron Man fought Thor.  In Age of Ultron, Iron Man fought Hulk.  In both cases, there was a misunderstanding of some sort, and one side was fighting with huge force with no intention of killing the other.

Now it's true that whenever these guys fight, there's a chance that an accident could happen.  Someone could fire an explosive at Tony (which would simply disable him) but accidentally kill Black Widow.  It's possible.  And we do see a disabled/unconscious/maybe dead War Machine outside the airport.  So it's possible that something like that happens.

Now if this is just Civil War vs. BvS, I see them as very different movies.  BvS is going to have way more emotional weight to it because emotional weight isn't Marvel's style.  They're always going to play off an emotional moment with a joke, and the movie is going to end on a happy/hopeful note no matter what.  A Marvel movie is never going to win an Academy Award.  But it's going to be fun, it's going to get positive press and positive reviews, and it's going to make a lot of money.  Probably more than BvS just because of repeated viewings and because it's kid-friendly.

And Spider-Man always jokes when he's fighting, no matter how serious it is.

I don't doubt that.  I think he is a good director.  I actually liked each one of his films, which is hard to say for any director.  I'd have to see the Legend of the Guardians movie to see how he handles lighter material, but I don't think that's gonna happen

Per Box Office Mojo

Batman v Superman
3/25-3/27 - $166,007,347
4/1-4/3 - $51,335,254 (-69%)
4/8-4/10 - $23,363,079 (-54%)
4/15-4/17 - $9,028,356 (-61%)

Jungle Book
4/15-4/17 - $103,261,464
4/22-4/24 - $61,538,821 (-44%)

Deadpool
2/12-2/14 - $132,434,639
2/19-2/21 - $56,470,167 (-57%)
2/26-2/28 - $31,115,195 (-44%)
3/4-3/6 - $16,725,929 (-46%)

I don't think the actual numbers are the problem.  It's the drop off, implying that people didn't go back.  Everyone went and saw it week 1, and that was it.  By week three, it wasn't in first.  Last weekend, it was 6th.  It was dethroned by a comedy - The Boss - and has yet to beat it.

Being a success is one thing.  I think everyone thinks it was a success.  But it hasn't really "found an audience" - people saw Daredevil multiple times.  People are seeing Jungle Book multiple times.  And in both cases, people are telling their friends to go see it, and they are.  That isn't happening with BvS.  Everyone went and saw it, and the people that waited didn't go.

Now did the press hurt it before those people could go see it?  Maybe.  But if the media tells me that a movie is terrible but my buddies tell me that it's great, I'll see it.  That's why I watched 10 Cloverfield Lane.  So the media might affect the first week, but the first week was fine.  It's the second week, which I think is a based more on word of mouth, that is the problem.

I'm pretty sure he's said something about that, but I can't remember what and I wasn't able to find it in a 2-minute search on Twitter.  I don't even remember if it was defending the characters or explaining that they're invincible for whatever reason.  I also haven't seen it so I can't speak my own opinion.

What's funny, at least to me, is that I don't think he ever really thought it was a negative thing.  Just that she's a fanfic character.  He didn't think she wasn't awesome, and I'm not even sure he's disputing that there are valid reasons for why she could be awesome.  Just that she's a fanfic character who's great at everything and everyone loves her.  And that it made her a boring character.  He's said several times that he liked the movie....he just didn't love it.  He was much more critical of BvS than he was of TFA.

I've watched pretty much this whole thing unfold, and I know that he didn't mean it as a sexist term (whether or not he's actually a sexist I cannot say).  He claims it's just a misunderstanding on what "Mary Sue" actually means and any already-sexist connotations that are connected to it.

I mean I guess we'll see how much actual force they use.  If Tony and Cap are fighting, Cap could punch Tony in the face as hard as he can without hurting Tony too bad.  And Tony could fire a repulsor ray at him without hurting him too bad.

Superman fought Zod for a while without killing him.  He never intended on killing him - it's why being "forced" to kill him was so upsetting.  Same with Clark and Batman - "if I wanted it, you'd be dead already."  In both instances, Clark was fighting because there was no other choice.  The only difference, in this fight, is that they're both in that mindset.  They both want to disable the other, but neither is going to just let that happen.

Ralph Nader only got 685,128 votes (0.71% of the popular vote) in 1996.  In 2000, he got 2,882,955 votes (2.74%), including 97,488 in Florida.  The state that decided the election by 537 votes.

And if you didn't think Nader had an impact on 2000, Hillary's people are already calling Bernie the next Nader.  So if Stein can get the same jump that Nader got and steal away any of the Bernie people....it's going to be a problem for her.

Definition of war:

Definition of civil:

So a courteous and polite state of armed conflict.  Sounds like it applies   Your problem seems to be with the use of "civil war" in the 1860s - a war most people call "The War Between the States....because there was nothing civil about it."

Well, you can fight someone you don't necessarily want to hurt or kill.  In the comic, and I assume in the movie, they only fight each other in terms of trying to capture Captain America.  So Captain America fights to escape, and Iron Man fights to capture.  No one is really using lethal force - it's all about trying to disable the other team.

Imagine if your buddy was about to drunkenly drive home, and you were trying to stop him from getting behind the wheel.  You'd use physical force if you had to, even though you'd be potentially inflicting harm with the intention of keeping him from greater harm.  That's basically what Cap and Tony (and their respective teams) are doing. 

The reason why Tony is so surprised, I assume, is that Tony never expected Cap's team to take it that far.  There's a part in the comic where someone does use lethal force, and it's a huge deal.  At the heart of both sides, it's a disagreement that's escalated beyond the ability to talk it out.  Both make their cases, and both sides are too entrenched to be swayed.  So they fight.

You know, it's funny, I've never really been one to be bothered by people in movie theaters.  What's interesting is the new phenomenon of theaters where you can eat.  Informant, I know you're familiar with Studio Movie Grill and/or Alamo Drafthouse - but I know there are others across the country.  One of my friends refuses to go because there's way too much going on.  Whether it's people clacking silverware or asking for a refill or simply the server who goes around picking up plates, dropping off new ones, or handing out the bills.  When you go to Studio Movie grill, you're guaranteed at least one distraction when the server drops off the bill, and that *always* happens during act 3.

And while, yes, that's a distraction, it's never really bothered me.  I chose to see movies like Dark Knight Rises and Interstellar in more traditional theaters so there were zero distractions, but I've seen plenty of films at Studio Movie Grill and haven't been turned off by the experience.  In fact, I've always thought it was sorta efficient.  I go see movies around dinnertime anyway, those places have pretty good food, and it's nice to kill two birds with one stone.

I imagine you hate those places, Info?

And, yes, please come back and be your old self.  I've clearly broken ireactions as well. :-/

Ha, no!  Plus....a Marvel movie is coming out soon!  We need you to rip it to shreds

See, I don't know if they will.  There's a huge difference between the people that supported Hillary (older establishment Democrats) and the people who are supporting Bernie (younger independents).  The Hillary people knew that if they just got in line for Obama, she'd get the nomination in 2016.  They also supported the party more than just one candidate, and a lot of them were lifelong Democrats who would've voted for the blue candidate regardless.

A lot of Bernie supporters don't care about the Democratic party.  They're supporting a candidate, not a party.  And a lot of them see Hillary as the enemy.  I do agree that a lot of Bernie's people will probably support Hillary if Bernie endorses her, but a lot of them have already come out and said that they'd vote 3rd party even if Bernie tells them too.  There's even a great number of them that will write-in Bernie regardless of whether he runs.  They're young and they don't have any faith in the system.  Their candidate isn't going to get his turn if he doesn't win this election.  And they'd see it as Hillary forcing Bernie to endorse her moreso than anything.

If the Democratic party is able to rally in November, it'll be rallying against Trump....not for Hillary.  For all the stuff she says about being a uniter, she's almost as hated as Trump nationally.

Well, I can't really disagree with any of that.  Honestly, I don't know much about Kara as a character in the comics.  So "girl Superman" is basically what I was expecting going in. 

You've pointed out a ton of issues, and to me, they're all valid.  Maybe it's like Marvel stuff.  I have enough fun watching that I'm willing to forgive laziness.  I don't know.

Well, I don't mean "unanswered questions" as much as "poorly answered questions" - if you waited six years to find out that the Island was special because of some sort of mystical light/water that must be protected....that's probably a waste of time.

However, I was so invested in the characters at that point that it didn't matter to me anymore.  There could've been an army of clowns on stationary bikes in that cave, and I wouldn't have thought any less of it.

Well, if it's anything like BvS, it'll be the KnightFall storyline, the Kingdom Come storyline, the Flashpoint storyline, the formation of the Teen Titans, and a lot more of Dark Knight returns all in one

In all seriousness, they've said it will be lighter in tone.  Hopefully it's actually one villain and not some sort of obscure alien/robot invasion like Avengers.  What I'd like is for the first part of the movie to establish these guys and their powers.  I want to see what each of these guys can do.  Have a scene where they come together but get defeated because they can't work together.  Then team them up properly to take whoever down.

Maybe Mongul first?  And save Darkseid for the second movie?

Well it was a huge movie.  Made a ton of money.  But had zero cultural impact.  I'd want to see the first sequel succeed before I committed to FOUR.

Yeah, possibly, but word of mouth usually corrects that.  If casual people loved BvS, they would've told their friends and they would've seen it.  I don't buy that critics have that much power.  I listen to my friends more than I listen to critics.

They can fix a lot of this with Justice League.  I just don't know if I trust Snyder to fix it.  The script can be lighter than BvS, but I don't know if Snyder is the guy to film it.  And even if he is, I wonder if he's already burned through most of his goodwill.

At this point, all the candidates are really bad.  What's funny is that I used to complain about candidates like John Kerry or Al Gore or even Mitt Romney or John McCain.  I think all of them would be much better than any of these people.

One reason why I think Bernie might be the best case scenario is because he's too old to run for a second term.  If Trump loses, he's done.  If Hillary loses, she's done.  Both of them would've gotten too close, and it'd just be over.  Cruz would be done.  Jeb and Rubio were basically embarrassed to the point where they can't seriously run again.  Same with most of the Democrats that ran.  A Bernie presidency means that a 2020 election would basically be an entirely new field. 

Which, after decades of Bushes and Clintons, would be so very refreshing.

If it's Trump vs. Clinton, I'll vote 3rd party.  I live in a red state so my vote won't matter anyway.

I've tried being extra nice to old people to try and make up for my apparent internet hatred of them

True.  But I think we can agree that there's a difference between your typical politician and the laundry list of scandals that the Clintons have left in their wake.  If anyone can give me a reason to vote for her that doesn't involve "well, everyone else is also awful, and I think she's less awful", I promise to reconsider.