Menu

Show posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Show posts Menu

Messages - Dagenspear

#341
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sat,  6 Feb  2016, 03:38Zack Snyder was asked if the reaction for MOS made him address its criticisms for BvS, and he claims that anyone who read the comics would know that he didn't change Superman.

Quote"People are always like 'You changed Superman'.  If you're a comic book fan, you know that I didn't change Superman. If you know the true canon, you know that I didn't change Superman. If you're a fan of the old movies, yeah, I changed him a bit," Snyder said. He went on to clarify that he, as a comic book fan, defaulted to Superman's comic origins and not his on-screen incarnation, aiming to have his Superman "set a tone for the world" and "feel consistent for the DC universe".

"My point is that we don't take liberties [from the character's comic origins]...what we've done is create a place where they can really be the mythological characters as designed in the comic books".

http://www.ew.com/article/2016/02/05/zack-snyder-didnt-change-superman

I believe what he meant was that a lot of the critics have been comparing MOS to the Reeve films as the benchmark of what Superman should be.
I'm going to say this: If Superman in the comics is someone who makes out with Lois in the middle of a war zone surrounded by people covered in ash and rubble that has collapsed on and killed many people, then that's not a Superman you should adapt to screen as a superhero. I just watched the episode of Superman the animated series Apokolips... NOW! Part 2, and when Dan Turpin, a single man is killed by Darkseid, Superman is devastated. He smashes a tank into the ground, yelling out. It's a well done scene.

God bless you! God bless everyone!
#342
Quote from: eledoremassis02 on Sat, 30 Jan  2016, 06:22
I was just thinking about how alot of the promotional art had a cowl with a chin covering. Were there ever prototype suits with it? Do any photos exist? Or was this an early concept that was tossed but kept in the promo art dept for some reason?

The costume is the one from the end of the movie.

God bless you! God bless everyone!
#343
Other comics / Re: Spider-Man
Fri, 29 Jan 2016, 11:59
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sun,  6 Sep  2015, 04:34Yup. But damned if retellings don't always show Uncle Ben saying it to Peter. It's one of those weird assumptions people make about the mythos of any character that eventually becomes ingrained dogma... even though it never existed in the first place.
I think it was retconned in the comics that Ben said that at some point.
QuoteAs to the live action Spider-Man films, the Amazing Fantasy origin is pretty intricate for what it is. I don't think any of the live action origins have really captured it. In AF #15, Peter makes the unprovoked, unmotivated decision to let the thief go. There was no justification to his actions whatsoever. He did it just to be a jerk. It's as simple as that.
There wasn't a justification in the Raimi movies. That's the point. Peter isn't justified in shirking responsibility because someone did something wrong to him. In the audio commentary Sam Raimi refers to it, I think, as "you can really see the hubris building in him. He really thinks he's justified. But he's wrong" or something to that effect. It's interesting because Sam Raimi is pretty hard on Peter. In the Spider-Man 3 commentary he refers to Peter as being in the wrong in his reaction to the Sandman situation, having an ego and how the original idea before Venom came into the equation Peter was intended to be falling to the sin of pride.
QuoteBut in the films, he's always got a halfway excuse for his actions. In the 2002 Raimi film, the organizer stiffed him on his prize money. In the Webb film, the cashier refused to sell him the chocolate milk because he was two cents short. He was out of line but his actions were sympathetic.
They weren't sympathetic in the Raimi movie really. In TASM they weren't really dealt with.

God bless you! God bless everyone!
#344
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Thu, 28 Jan  2016, 09:58
For me, it's either Batman has a strict principle and enforces it or he doesn't. It can't be both, and trying to have it both only makes the entire plot contrived, and Batman's moral dilemma completely meaningless. That's the complete opposite of "deep" and "complex", which are words lots of people use to describe these films.
He does have a principle and he does embrace it, but that doesn't mean he always perfectly executes it. No human is perfect.
QuoteI really do believe his films get away with damning flaws because lots of people people were desperate to embrace how "dark" they are, because expectations got really low following B&R and the backlash surrounding it.
I really like both, so that's not really the case.

God bless you! God bless everyone!
#345
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Wed, 27 Jan  2016, 14:15I don't, because for me, it doesn't tell me anything that I don't know already  - that Batman and other superheroes can never exist in the real world. But what's worse is Nolan is inconsistent in adapting Batman's morals, and Batman doesn't reflect his own actions. Keeps saying he won't kill and that's supposed to be key to the whole Joker dilemma, but then he justifies killing Ra's al Ghul to save Gotham when confronted by Talia. And there's the hypocritical lecture at Catwoman against guns. It just doesn't match. What's the point of having a rule if he's not bothered by breaking them? Thematically, it all comes across as pointless.
He isn't inconsistent. He didn't kill Ra's. It wasn't against guns. It was against killing with guns. Rules aren't about being bothered by breaking them, but about doing the right thing, whether we're bothered or not.
QuoteToo bad he undermined that message by having Blake take the mantle as Batman (or whatever alias he'd go by) in the end.
It wasn't undermined, because the assessment of @Wayne49 is his/her perception, not fact. The idea of being temporary though doesn't mean that someone can't become Batman as well, even if it's just as temporary as before. It's not a contradiction to say that that may be a possibility.

God bless you! God bless everyone!
#346
Quote from: eledoremassis02 on Mon, 25 Jan  2016, 05:02The one things that kills me is this error (1997)

and the lack of the Forever car on the same page with the batmobiles on film
They completely skipped over Batman Forever and replaced George Clooney with Val Kilmer in Batman & Robin.

God bless you! God bless everyone!
#347
Suicide Squad (2016) / Re: Suicide Squad
Mon, 25 Jan 2016, 01:17
Quote from: johnnygobbs on Sun, 24 Jan  2016, 21:03Nolan made a trilogy and he utilised the characters that did feature, well.  He didn't necessarily need to create a universe in which characters like Man-Bat or Clayface, for instance, could exist.
Thank you. That's what I was saying. Those elements don't automatically define the character. There are several different versions and they're all just as viable as the other. Burton, Schumacher, Nolan and TAS.

God bless you! God bless everyone!
#348
Suicide Squad (2016) / Re: Suicide Squad
Sun, 24 Jan 2016, 22:37
Quote from: Catwoman on Sun, 24 Jan  2016, 19:08It's hilarious that you're the one saying it's okay to omit a huge part of Batman, and superheroes in general, by ignoring the fantasy element (therefore limiting the characters and stories to tell) and yet WE'RE the ones with the limited viewpoint.

Nice try, but it's obvious you're a Nolan fanboy with blinders on. I'm done with you.
I like all versions of Batman. And none of them are bad. Please don't try to justify your own lacking of an open mind by accusing me of false claims.

God bless you! God bless everyone!
#349
Suicide Squad (2016) / Re: Suicide Squad
Sun, 24 Jan 2016, 18:35
Quote from: Catwoman on Sun, 24 Jan  2016, 12:27Despite not having superpowers Batman is steeped in fantasy and imagination both as a character and an entity. The Bat universe I mean. And for the filmmaker tasked with doing movies about Batman (a big responsibility) to shed the imagination that makes characters like Killer Croc, Mr. Freeze, and Poison Ivy (among so many others) great amazing and believable characters and lets a person use their imagination (something that is already slowly dying) is wrong. No fanboy is going to ever convince me that Nolan ignoring and in ways harming, see this is where the responsibility part comes in as the anointed "Keeper of the Bat," the fantastic elements of Batman is anything but a travesty and a disgrace to the character, the Batman universe, and the fans.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sun, 24 Jan  2016, 18:24If Nolan couldn't convey all the characters in the Batman universe, there lies an issue in his approach.
That's a limited viewpoint. Any director can develop any style when dealing with the character and the stories that they want. They aren't obligated to do anything and to call the absence of some of those characters a disgrace is an insult to the character of Batman and the rest of his world.

God bless you! God bless everyone!
#350
Suicide Squad (2016) / Re: Suicide Squad
Sun, 24 Jan 2016, 09:24
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sun, 24 Jan  2016, 08:09Rock and roll. Or roll and rock, take your pick.

It's good to have a film universe where Killer Croc actually looks like a crocodile. I shiver to think what Nolan would've given us.
I don't think he wouldn't given it at all. And I don't see what's wrong with that.

God bless you! God bless everyone!