Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
If you have an email ending in @hotmail.com, @live.com or @outlook.com (or any other Microsoft-related domain), please consider changing it to another email provider; Microsoft decided to instantly block the server's IP, so emails can't be sent to these addresses.
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
Comments
Iron Man got a vignette scene because Iron Man, fuck yeah
Captain America and Bruce Banner have both changed significantly since their respective movies, too.
although
If anything, I'd say that that would suit Captain America better than Thor...
I don't think Captain America really changed that much from the original so much as his context and time. but I see where you're coming from. Didn't watch Hulk so can't judge on that.
Are you trying to say that there's a spirit more free than the Thor's, son of Odin?!?
but now the cap has loltime issues and "EVERYONE I KNOW IS DEAD" issues.
No, but there is certainly a spirit that is more... self-sufficient.
I know, I know, I'm just joking around.
The thing is, for all of Captain America's resolve, he is aimless. He really needs that vignette so we can see that he's willing to work for SHIELD and that his life has gone to a point where he has nothing out for him besides being Captain America.
The thing about a Thor vignette is that
*he's not on earth, so he can't be recruited by SHIELD.
*Replicating Asgard for the movie probably would have made it gone over-budget, but that's a suposition at best
*It's probably the one introduction we need less, because Thor hasn't changed outside of Thor's ending, where he became a much less arrogant individual and someone who was willing to put down his hammer and talk rather than fight. And even then, as Malk pointed out, his dialogue with Loki is fairly exposition heavy, explaining his origin, his relation with Loki, why he's there, and how he's here, for those who watched Thor.
Still, it'll probably be in the director's cut or something so I'm not terribly bothered by it.
Unless they'd filmed it during the filming of Thor, which would probably have been doable if they'd really felt the need to have it.
I think Thor's lack of introduction worked fine, but then I saw Thor like...three days ago so I hardly needed reminding of who he is.
Unfortunately so. Which makes his character that much more likeable, for me.
You know it must be really embarrassing for DC how much Marvel is crushing them in the movie department, especially considering how they don't have the legal problems Marvel did with so many characters being taken by other studios. All of DC being owned by WB should make making a Justice League movie easy.
For all that, though, I think Nolan's Batman movies remain the best superhero movies out there.
^They're the exception though. The rest of DC's movies recently are pretty lousy. The Nolan-produced Superman reboot may change things for the better, but my hopes aren't too high, this being a Zack Snyder flick.
In any case, I really feel sorry for the creative team that inevitably has to inevitably make the Justice League movie.
What's wrong with Zack Snyder?
I've heard it said that DC and Marvel possess an equal amount of movie talent. Marvel spreads said talent out nicely, though, while DC uses it exclusively on Batman.
^^Have you seen any of his movies?
What I find funny about Superman's costume in the Snyder reboot is it looks exactly like evil Superman's costume in Superman 3. (basically being the same costume except darker and muted)
That said, as much as I love the Nolan movies (and boy howdy do I love them) WB learned the wrong lesson and decided we wanted to see Pathos and agnst from a man who has a magic willpower ring and a sun god.
Honestly once the inevitable Batman reboot comes up and they try their third shake at JL continuity stuff I wouldn't mind a film with the same gothic tone as the nineties cartoon.
I've seen Watchmen.
Yes, and Watchmen was horrible.
The one flaw I see with using Nolan's Batman in a Justice League context is that I can't see that version of Batman melding with a world full of superheroes. Nolan Gotham isn't really a setting where conventional superheroism is consistently plausible, which the Dark Knight pretty much spent the entire movie building up to. Not that everything in the Nolan films is realistic (I mean, a fair bit is just as pseudo-science as the Silver Age comics), but there's a grimness to the tone that would be at odds with Superman, The Flash, ect.
This, I disagree with.
I disagree. While it is super grim, I don't think there'd be anything wrong with setting that as a direct contrast, if the ensuing Superman movie was properly optimistic and not-shit.
That said, I think there are plenty of other problems with a JL film that has nothing to do with tone. (Christian Bale for example)
^Enjoy missing the point of the original work so you can have kung fu fights then.
I'd say Watchmen was very close to the best Watchmen movie that could possibly have been made.
Good? Eh, it's an okay enough action movie (and would even be a pretty good action movie if it would drop the slow-motion), but it does does suffer in comparison to the comic.
Never implied it was better than the comic.
My favorite parts of the movie are not the fights to begin with!
My point is the presence of those spectacle-laden fights undermine the very point of what Watchmen is.
^^Which is why a Watchmen movie never should have been made.
No argument here, but let's face it, someone was going to do it, so I'm glad we got that rather than one of the huge number of worse versions we could have gotten.
I do think the change they made to the ending was even pretty clever, so that's a plus.
^^ If that's how you see it, it's less a matter of Zack Snyder's talent and more of a matter of principle there.
^^Because Hollywood will never try to 'reboot' it, right? If it hadn't been made then the foot wouldn't be in the door.
It's also what lead to fucking 'Before Watchmen'.
^But it was Zak's choice to do that, which tells me that his reading of characters is explicitly juvenile. And the shots of his Superman movie all tell me he's going to try and be dark with the character, tying into his teenage view of how superheroes should be.
Granted it's going to be hard to out-suck Superman Returns...
What talent? The only thing that really stuck in my head about his style was that he hits "pause" a lot.
Before Watchmen had to be made anyway because if they didn't release another Watchmen story, Alan Moore would've gotten the rights back -_-
Zak Snyder seems someone who might be able to do music videos rather than anything requiring an actual narrative.
^Nope. DC was actually planning to give him the rights if he wrote another Watchmen story (or so Alan Moore said) DC owns Watchmen so long as they keep publishing the Graphic Novel.
To be fair, I think there's untapped potential in the music video "genre" but then MTV, you know?
^No arguments there. My point is that he's good at glitz and glam but not much else, which is perfectly valid for a music video, but narrative film requires a more deft hand.
Huh. Guess whoever told me that was wrong. I really should check my sources more >////>
Sounds about right.
Basically DC tricked him that way, since at the time GNs were pretty much unheard of.
Watchmen was a fairly good movie if you've never seen the comic, but the comic is basically unfilmable, so WELP.
And the only Before Watchmen story I'm truly concerned for is JMS's, since we all know what happened the last time he took on a DC character with God-like abilities.