Messages

The problem with Bane in live action is that he's not as grounded as villains such as Catwoman, the Riddler, Penguin, etc. but he's not as far fetched as the likes of Clayface, Mr. Freeze, Killer Croc, or Solomon Grundy. For that reason I don't think he fits Schumacher's unrealistic Gotham or Nolan's ultra realistic Gotham. Nolan took the character too seriously, Schumacher wasn't serious enough.

Again if you think Nolan's version is the definitive version and can't be topped, good for you. But personally I think Nolan dialed the character back from what he was supposed to be because he was afraid to put anything in a Batman movie that you wouldn't see in a James Bond film. 

I just shake my head and feel sorry for people who take time out of their lives to manipulate rotten tomato or IMDB scores.

I stated this probably isn't going to make much of a difference, therefore I agree with the thought that this is a waste of time. But I don't know why should this anger me, because as I also stated, they're just being outright honest about their practises to the point people find it shocking/offensive. These people aren't the first and they're not the last to do this. I think Rotten Tomatoes as a website has tarnished film criticism, and that's a view shared by director Brett Ratner and Martin Scorsese. Perhaps this Black Panther story will apply the microscope to the broader issue?



Smithey's rotten review doesn't seem to be indicative of what he actually thought of the movie, but rather what he thought about the hype it was getting. He didn't think it deserved to be the best-reviewed movie on Rotten Tomatoes, and then decided to manipulate the system to take the achievement away from the film. So...not any different to what these DC fans are doing with Black Panther. If you shake your head at these DC fans, shake your head at the likes of Smithey as well.

As much as I want to, what Smithey is doing isn't quite as bad; he's giving a movie a weaker review than he otherwise would have because he feels it's overrated. I admit to doing something similar on the IMDB: if I feel a film is heavily underrated or overrated, I will adjust my vote by one point; so for instance a film I'd normally rate a 7, I might rate a 6 or 8 depending on its perception. There's a big difference between that and voting on a film you haven't seen before with the purpose of manipulating ratings which is what fanboys have been notorious for. Case in point: Dunkirk despite being out for less than a year has more IMDB votes than Citizen Kane which came out in 1941.

oh good the fanboys are still being immature.
The marvel fans aren't the only ones crapping on the DCEU, Snyder haters, Whedon haters, and Nolanites all have a vested interest in the failure of the DCEU.

I just shake my head and feel sorry for people who take time out of their lives to manipulate rotten tomato or IMDB scores.

I want to clarify my last point. I am not saying that Jeep Swenson's Bane was the more accurate portrayal to Hardy's, I was only stating the argument could be made. I definitely think Nolan got the character more accurately than Schumacher did but Nolan's work is not beyond criticism.

That's great that the character's portrayal was well received by the creator but that doesn't mean he was sincere. Bob Kane stated his favourite Batman movie was Batman and Robin, likely because that was the last one made before his death. Lou Ferrigno and Stan Lee spoke highly of the 2003 Hulk film at the time before the 2008 film was deemed the more accurate portrayal of the character. Some creators are just happy seeing their work brought to life and will take any incarnation.

Supergirl sucks and it continues the downplaying of Superman's importance.

Supergirl hands a full strength Superman his ass in battle... because 'girl power'.
Two shows set in the Superman universe...that don't feature Superman.
Superman's JL scenes re-filmed with iffy mouth CGI and a simplistic role.

At a time when interest in the character is peaking (largely due to Snyder's Man of Steel) the powers that be find a way to dampen enthusiasm. The comics are the only thing really keeping my interest. If I was a hardcore Superman fan I'd be pissed. By pushing the character out of the limelight (Krypton, Metropolis) they're basically forcing us to keep rewatching the now 21 year old Lois and Clark series with Dean Cain. We're clinging onto the past (like the 18 year old S:TAS) because new content just isn't being generated. And when it is, he's a guest on Supergirl....where he gets his ass kicked at full power. Sure, there's other new material out there, but largely they're keeping the character frozen in time. Give him a Rocksteady standard video game. Give him something new and something good. Not as a cameo guest appearance, but the star.

I see your point and I would agree with you if the CW/WB had a live Batman show but it seems they are purposely holding back their two biggest characters from getting their own shows. I still remember Fan expo 2012 when I got to see the premier episode of Arrow and the ensuing panel. The question was asked 'why the Green Arrow' and the answer was that they wanted to explore a character who's mythology hasn't been overly touched in live action.

I don't think it's a great show, for me it's watchable but I do think the way it is set up, the dynamics work better for Supergirl instead of Super man. Kara is portrayed as a heavily flawed character stuck in her cousin's shadow who's work and personal life are always a mess. Clark on the other hand is a well established reporter and has a strong relationship with Lois. This is why Supergirl may be the more interesting character.

Nonetheless, Azrael's complaints about the plan is a good point. It makes me laugh how people can nitpick and ridicule Lex's plans in BvS and say it has so many plot holes, but if you question anything like TDK Joker or TDKR Bane's plans, they'll turn around and say "oh but if you have such a negative mindset and all films have plot holes". What utter tools.

Absolutely. This is why I'm happier restricting my posts to this forum where people are more reasonable. You could honestly make a case for just about any bat-villain being altered. As mentioned, none are completely accurate but all contain elements from the comics.

I don't think that's true. Bane and Talia generally seem to have all of their bases covered. Talia has fostered a partnership with Wayne in the clean energy project for years. It's all about a general knowledge of the situation. Bane tampers with Bruce's records to make the board think Bruce has cost them money, to make it seem like Dagget will be able to takeover the company, to get Bruce to turn to Talia for help, so she can use that trust to find out where the fusion reactor is. And Bane threatens Catwoman to lead Batman to him. That's the plan. I think Lex's plan is more convoluted than that. As for Joker, his character flies by the seat of his pants. The only thing he seems to have any plan for is getting caught (which doesn't require much thought) and after Harvey Dent gets burned and that's pretty simple. The only really ridiculous thing about it is the criminals and civilians on separate boats thing.

The Joker is not supposed to be invincible and be able to overpower cops and criminals.

The lack of Venom alone is a departure from Bane's comic counterpart. The fact that he may have done things similar to the comics is irrelevant, Nolan departed from the source material just like the other directors. The fact that you can make the case that Schumacher's vision of Bane is closer to the comics than Nolan's vision should say something.

Dreaming of a Snyder cut is a waste of time. I'd like to see one, but focusing on something that's never going to happen is unhealthy in the long run. Focusing on the version they released in cinemas is healthier because it's a product that actually exists, and it's still something we can find enjoyment in.

Tragically, I've seen some fans on Twitter (and many of them are listed in that testimonials list on the website) have voiced displeasure over the film because they believe WB robbed Snyder from his true vision. Some even go far to suggest they're actually happy that the film failed at the box office.

What bloody idiots. Saying garbage like that only fuels clickbait hacks to spew their drivel, and does the brand no favours, if anything. It's one thing to be disappointed by the film. But suddenly wanting the film and the entire franchise to film that you've been supporting all this time is just cutting your nose to spite your face. Pettiness to the extreme.

It's idiocy like this that makes me have a poor opinion of comics/geek fanbases.

They're not alone, the Nolan fans have been very vocal about cheering for the DCEU to fail because Nolan and Bale aren't involved. I feel sorry for anyone who wastes time and money on a movie they are rooting to fail.

I just don't see the appetite for it. Smallville worked because it was basically a long origin story for superman. Gotham works because Gotham City is still interesting without Batman but Superman just doesn't have the supporting cast Batman does. I doubt many people will care to see Superman's world without his presence. Also benefiting Gotham is the fact that Batman's world takes place pretty much entirely in Gotham city hence why a prequel works; Superman spends time in Krypton, Kansas, and Metropolis so his 'world' is spread out across the galaxy while Bruce Wayne's is centralized.

I like that they are enlarging objects and people this time around, I was hoping to see giant man in the first one and enjoyed him in the second one.

[a feature film revival that serves as a direct sequel to the original and ignores the continuity of all the sequels and remakes that came in between.]

Until something gets *officially* announced, I'll leave this here.

http://www.darkhorizons.com/original-robocop-may-get-a-sequel/

Original "Robocop" May Get A Sequel?

The "Robocop" franchise may be following in the footsteps of the "Halloween" series with a feature film revival that serves as a direct sequel to the original and ignores the continuity of all the sequels and remakes that came in between.

In an interview with Zeitgeist Entertainment Magazine at the Barbados Independent Film Festival, screenwriter Ed Neumeier revealed he's working on a sequel to the 1987 film at MGM right now and went into a few specifics:

    "There's been a bunch of other RoboCop movies and there was recently a remake and I would say this would be kind of going back to the old RoboCop we all love and starting there and going forward. So it's a continuation really of the first movie. In my mind. So it's a little bit more of the old school thing."

The first film never states it's era, it's implied to be the future but no year is ever stated so there's plenty of freedom here.

I'm fine with ignoring Robocop 2. It's a decent action flick but does very little for the story and character. It definitely has the potential to work, Blade Runner proved that, the only difference here is asking people to ignore sequels and a reboot


Could get interesting. Especially if MGM somehow talks Peter Weller (who's more recent work on Dexter, Son's of Anarchy, and the Dark Knight Returns animated movie being awesome) to return for one last go as Murphy. Depending, of course, if this is taking place 30 years following the original Robocop and it's future time setting, or something like only 5-10 years.