The SuperHeroHype Forums  

Go Back   The SuperHeroHype Forums > General Movies > Misc. Comics Films

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 12-31-2012, 06:34 PM   #26
bbf2
Side-Kick
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: CA
Posts: 1,136
Default Re: An In-Depth Ranking of Every Marvel/DC Movie Superhero

Excellent tier, cont.

9. Dr. Manhattan/Jon Osterman (Billy Crudup, Watchmen, 2009)



As I said in some of my earlier Watchmen entries, there have been several essays written on the character of Dr. Manhattan and his philosophies, importance and social themes from the comics, and as the movie more or less adapts them faithfully, I’m not going to discuss the larger themes brought to the table by the character here and only will only discuss how he was portrayed when adapted to the silver screen.

And, as aforementioned, the answer is pretty much perfectly. Dr. Manhattan is a very unusual character in the comics, who perceives time differently than anyone else, experiencing it all at once instead of bit by bit like the other characters do. Obviously these themes and his time dichotomy can’t quite be as adapted and felt by the reader the same way in the comics as they are on film, but the filmmakers do a fantastic job with it through the use of carefully placed flashbacks. Dr. Manhattan’s origin story is more or less portrayed onscreen word per word and scene by scene. Crudup absolutely nails the character’s growing sense of robotic detachment from humanity while still letting us know that this character, despite his powers, is still human and not quite a God and we do see some of his underlying humanity. Although much of the lines he has to say are quite mechanical, Crudup lets us feel sympathy for this very unusual, robotic, and detached character. And yet, at the same time, we still can find the character and the implications of his powers quite terrifying, and we are made uncomfortable by the possibilities of a character with powers like this who can be swayed to either protect the world, ignore it, or destroy it and yet is also human enough to be swayed by something as human as his girlfriend leaving him. A very difficult character to pull off, but is pulled off extremely well and is just as compelling in the movie as he is in the comics.

One other choice the movie should get credit for is not being afraid to show his genitalia like the comics did. It was a risky movie as it opened up a lot of “LOL blue dong” jokes from less mature viewers, but it’s an important aspect of the character, as it displays that as Manhattan becomes more detached from humanity, he shows less concern for human customs. There is no practical reason for him to ever wear clothing, he only does so because it is a custom and formality of human culture, and the moments where he isn’t wearing them display his growing lack of concern for such things. I’m sure you could argue that you could arrange the shots so that his genitalia is always obstructed and we don’t actually see it, but that would severely hamstring the blocking and angles of the scenes and could easily come off as ridiculous, and would remind people of the scene in Austin Powers where the genitalia are always being covered up by ridiculous objects.

The character is also quite visually impressive and the special effects are flawless, and some of the visual displays of his power are impressive. The scene where a giant Manhattan lumbers through Vietnam, effortlessly vaporizing Vietnamese soldiers without showing any concern, is genuinely terrifying. The scene at the end when he comes back as a giant and tells Adrian that he’s no more concern to him than the world’s smartest ant is to a human is also pulled off extremely well onscreen, displaying this character’s grandiose and power.

I’m sure most people agree with me about Crudup’s performance and the other aspects I described above…but yes, I do realize I haven’t brought up the giant elephant in the room. Or, to be more precise, the giant squid in the room.

And to be honest…I kind of liked the ending of the movie. As much as Watchmen is a classic work of literature, the fact that Adrian has convinced the countries of the world that an alien invasion is happening because of his genetic mutations could be seen as a bit hokey on screen. And, really, thematically, not much has changed – Adrian has convinced the world to unite behind a threat that destroyed New York which he based on harnessing Dr. Manhattan’s powers. Convincing them that Dr. Manhattan is the culprit behind them instead of an alien invasion makes a great deal of sense – Dr. Manhattan is something that the world has already seen and accepted and has felt some degree of unease about. The movie also earns this unease through a slight change in the comics – when Jon freaks out on the talk show thanks to the cancer accusations in the comic book, it is made quite clear that all the people around him that he makes vanish were teleported to the roof, while in the movie it’s unclear if he teleported them or vaporized them in a moment of anguish. It’s also interesting how Adrian’s plan with the talk show extend beyond just taking Manhattan out of the picture for a little while and fit into a larger scheme.

There are a few major complaints about the change in the ending, which I’ll address here. The first is that, at the end of both the book and movie, Dr. Manhattan decides to explore the universe to explore if there is any other life – as the movie has him be the big source of world-unifying danger, if he is gone they have nothing to be concerned about so the world peace will be short lived when they realized Manhattan is no longer around. My response to that is, Adrian has clearly harnessed the power of Manhattan to some extent, and so I assumed that Adrian will be the one to continue to attack places and make it seem like Manhattan was the culprit, the same way in the comics that he presumably would have continued the alien threat through his mutations. The second complaint is that the USSR and other countries wouldn’t have bought into him as a unifying factor as Osterman was an American citizen and would have blamed America for him…but I think the fact that he apparently nuked New York would have served as an adequate enough notice that he was the global threat to be united against and not someone on America’s side that America was responsible for anymore. There may be some suspicion and unease about the fact that Osterman was an American, but I think the self-preserving fear of not having their cities befall a similar fate to New York would be the foremost concern of the USSR and other countries. The third complaint is that if the genetic mutations are not addressed that it makes Bubastis completely pointless and we have no idea why Adrian has a big purple cat or why he cares about it. I don’t have an answer for that one, but that aspect doesn’t affect Manhattan as a character.

Furthermore, I was extremely pleasantly surprised that even after knowing everything that was going to happen up until that point, the movie was able to surprise book readers with a variation on the ending in a way that still made sense thematically.

And the ending also made Manhattan and his story arc much more integral to the story as a whole. There is a bit of fear and unease about Manhattan throughout the entire story amongst the other characters and the general public, obviously playing upon the fears that would be natural if a character with tremendous powers like Superman was real. We’re happy he’s on our side, but the lingering knowledge that he could decide to conquer or destroy at any moment would give anyone some degree of unease. This is touched upon and is kind of important in the comic, but in the movie, it becomes one of the most critical and important themes, as the ending now plays upon and relies on it.

Thus, Dr. Manhattan is actually more important in the movie than he is in the comics, so it becomes even more critical for the film to make us sympathize with him but also understand his growing detachment, as well as feel unease about him at times and genuine terror at others. Balancing all of those elements is a tough job, but I thought the movie and Crudup knocked it out of the park.

8. Captain America/Steve Rogers (Captain America: The First Avenger, 2011; The Avengers, 2012)



Similar to Thor, Captain America is another property that people were incredibly suspicious of. This was a character and movie concept that could easily turn out incredibly hokey or cheesy, and also seemed like a risk given the fact that overseas gross has become absolutely critical for movie studios.

With Thor, we were given some relief when Branagh was announced as the director. We didn’t get that with Captain America, as Joe Johnston (despite making the Rocketeer and other films that seemed like a fit) has a much shakier track record, what with Jurassic Park III and whatnot.

The biggest misgivings about the film, however, came about when Chris Evans was cast as the lead. This seemed like an odd choice at the time, as most people were thinking of the guy from Not Another Teen Movie and Johnny Storm and (since most people haven’t seen Sunshine) hadn’t really seen him in a serious role. There were definitely fears that he would bring an unfitting cockiness to the character.

Luckily, our fears were completely assuaged when seeing the film, and Chris Evans really gets his chance to shine.

One thing I will note is that I liked the Captain America movie a great deal (mostly because of Evans) but not as much as some of the other Marvel movies. In all fairness it’s the only one I saw on DVD and didn’t see in theaters so maybe I wasn’t getting the full experience. Some of the pacing of the film seemed a bit uneven and Red Skull didn’t really do it for me. My biggest complaint with the film (which seems minor, but it really took me out of a lot of it) is the fact that so many futuristic weapons and vehicles - it just seemed a little ridiculous that everyone was shooting lasers instead of guns by the end. Furthermore it makes it so Captain America’s eventual revival in the present day won’t be quite as jarring towards him, as he’s already used to being around futuristic and high level technology. I still thought it was really good and enjoyed it, but it did have a few issues for me. Overall, I think I enjoyed the Thor movie more, although that was largely because the Asgardian world was so cool.

Despite that, between Cap and Thor as characters, there’s no doubt which one was better. None of the problems I had with the film had much of anything to do with the character himself or Evan’s portrayal, which were both excellent.

To start off the film, obviously the character can only work if the audience connects with pre-serum Rogers. Obviously the movie accomplishes this in spades, as we see and connect with Steve and the movie makes him extremely likable. It would have been easy to make Skinny Steve some sort of outcast or timid nerd of some type, but the movie avoids this, and Steve actually has a certain confidence and belief in himself and isn’t timid despite his small stature (put most on display when he takes down the flagpole that the other troops were trying to climb up and wins the free ride back smugly. A great little moment showing us the character’s ingenuity.)

When he transforms into the strong Captain America that we are more familiar with, he never loses his likability and charisma. The romantic relationship is pretty good and his friendship with Bucky seems natural despite not much screen time between the two.

This character doesn’t have too much of a character arc in the film in so far in that he doesn’t have any character flaws that become corrected or anything. His arc is more of a coming of age, developing into a hero story, but the time period between him getting the serum and becoming a hero is pretty short. One of the hardest things to pull off about the character is the fact that he really doesn’t have many character flaws and is more noble than the people around him, which could have easily led to a situation where we saw him as a Mary Sue or lost interest in him. Evans makes the character so extremely likable, however, that we never have those feelings at all.

In the Avengers, the character is still given a chance to shine. There isn’t too much time to show the serious aspects of him adapting to the modern world, but that plot point is used to great comedic effect (“I got that one! I got that reference.”) without diminishing our respect for the character. Even though he doesn’t have special powers or a suit, the movie does him a ton of justice in showing why he is a major and critical asset. He is able to hold his own physically, but more importantly, it demonstrates his value by showing us his leadership skills and ability to make tactical decisions. The scene where he makes determinations of what each member of the team should be doing and where they should be during the invasion (and everyone, including the arrogant Stark and Thor, know to shut up and listen to him) does a ton of justice towards the character. While watching I thought it was a perfect way to demonstrate the character's leadership and it was exactly the type of scene I’ve always wanted to see Cyclops have in one of the X-Men movies.

And throughout that movie as well, the character is totally sold by Chris Evans’ performance, creating an extremely likable character that is also relatable despite the fact that he has no real character flaws, which is no easy task.


Last edited by bbf2; 01-01-2013 at 12:08 AM.
bbf2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-2013, 10:40 AM   #27
The Joker
Clown Prince of Crime
 
The Joker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Jollity Farm
Posts: 37,150
Default Re: An In-Depth Ranking of Every Marvel/DC Movie Superhero

Wow, I'm surprised Kevin Conroy's Batman is not higher.

__________________
"Sometimes I remember it one way. Sometimes another. If I'm going to have a past, I prefer it to be multiple choice!"

- The Joker
The Joker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-2013, 02:46 PM   #28
bbf2
Side-Kick
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: CA
Posts: 1,136
Default Re: An In-Depth Ranking of Every Marvel/DC Movie Superhero

I love Phantasm as much as anyone but remember that these rankings are based on the theatrical movies alone, the animated series as a whole doesn't count. I'm judging it as if it was a 75 minute feature that you see out of context without knowing the rest of the series.

So in this instance the animated Batman only had to carry 75 minutes of a relatively simple plot (extremely well done and executed, top notch in terms of animation, but still was forced to be relatively simple if you're comparing it to the Nolan stuff because kids needed to understand and enjoy it as well), while the characters ahead for the most part had to carry multiple hours.

Had I factored in the countless hours of excellent work that Conroy and the various producers did developing their version of Batman through the various TV shows it would obviously be a different story.

bbf2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-2013, 03:14 PM   #29
747
Fanboy rivalry? Yawn.
 
747's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Sweden
Posts: 4,029
Default Re: An In-Depth Ranking of Every Marvel/DC Movie Superhero

This is a great read! Though I admit I almost stopped reading when I saw Christopher Reeve at place 40, imagine my relief when it was just a little name joke.

747 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-2013, 05:49 PM   #30
Edguy
Banned User
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Norway
Posts: 477
Default Re: An In-Depth Ranking of Every Marvel/DC Movie Superhero

1: "Deadpool"

Edguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-2013, 06:22 PM   #31
Human Torch
I Yam What I Yam
 
Human Torch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 7,578
Default Re: An In-Depth Ranking of Every Marvel/DC Movie Superhero

I very much agree with your review of TIH.As a Hulk fan,it was basically everything I wanted in a Hulk film.I'm not sure why so many people think the Avengers was "The first time the Hulk was done right!" either.

Human Torch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-2013, 11:31 PM   #32
bbf2
Side-Kick
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: CA
Posts: 1,136
Default Re: An In-Depth Ranking of Every Marvel/DC Movie Superhero

The Elite Tier

7. Professor X/Charles Xavier (X:Men, 2000, X2, 2003, X-Men: The Last Stand, 2006, X-Men Origins: Wolverine, 2009)



There are very few characters on this list (even the highly ranked ones, even if they’re great in other ways) that made me say “Wow, I’m watching the comic book character come to life on screen.”

Out of those few characters, Professor X is the only one who gave me that feeling without the use of a mask.

(You might be asking “Hey, what about Christopher Reeve?” but I saw those movies as a kid well before I ever picked up a comic book so he didn’t get the chance.)

When it was announced that the X-Men were getting a movie, Patrick Stewart was the number one choice in a lot of fan’s minds for the role (myself included). When it was announced that Stewart had been signed, fans were thrilled, knowing he would carry the proper amount of weight and dignity to the character.

And we were all, of course, proven right. Even though he’s probably second in terms of total screen time to Logan, Professor X is the most important character in the X-Men films overall, and if he wasn’t pulled off so excellently the films wouldn’t have worked anywhere close to as well. This was the first superhero team film, and adapting the concept to film was a bit risky as it could be seen as silly. Having an actor with the weight and presence of Stewart be our main conduit into this world did wonders for establishing the world’s legitimacy.

Stewart does a fantastic job in the films (yes, even the third) and helps bring the proper weight and sophistication to the role while still showing some elements of humor. He’s far from a typical one-dimensional “mentor character guy,” and we see elements of his struggles and human side. This is especially put on display in Dark Cerebro, where we see his mental image of himself still has legs, and he takes a moment to admire that fact.

We also like him and feel his pain as he struggles to try to keep up his morals and his view that mutants and humans can co-exist even in the face of evidence that might suggest Magneto’s view might have more weight and the humans are truly against them. When Stryker uses Xavier’s own compassionate nature against him in X2 (by manipulating him by making him think a little girl is lost and trying to find her friends) we feel sick.

In particular, the relationship between himself and McKellan’s Magneto was handled exceptionally. The idea of a relationship in which the parties are both worst enemies (for ideological reasons) as well as being best friends is an incredibly difficult relationship to pull off. In the comics you have decades to establish the nuances of such a relationship, but the movies are tasked with portraying it in a very small amount of time. The scripts do a good job including dialogue and scenes that showcase it, but those scenes would have fallen flat if the chemistry between Stewart and McKellan wasn’t so great and one of the biggest highlights of the films (and certainly the highlight of the first one). The way they’re able to express their points to each other civilly, you can definitely see the fondness they have for each other, how you can really see how much they enjoy each other’s company but are also pained by the fact that they aren’t able to fully appreciate it because of the ideological differences. Really great stuff, and Stewart deserves a ton of credit for having that get through.

A couple critical notes (from X3 of course), however. The first is that he has very little reaction to Scott’s death. This is pretty bad, but even though I was angered by it, for some reason I can’t quite seem to fault the character and portrayal too much for that one. It seemed almost like the producers threw in a “Oh yeah, and no one cares about Scott” as an F U to Marsden and Singer for leaving, and the character of Xavier happened to be caught in the tornado and nothing could be done about it, and it mostly angered me in terms of the portrayal of Cyclops. The second is that some of his decisions regarding Jean Grey were questionable. I don’t necessarily have too much of a problem with the idea of him suppressing young Jean’s powers – it’s certainly morally questionable, but the fact that the character makes morally questionable decisions isn’t a downside of the portrayal, and might actually add to the character’s depth. The comic version of Xavier certainly has made quite a few morally questionable decisions of his own. My issue is more along the lines of the fact that once Xavier eventually realized that his suppressing her powers has created a destructive second personality in her, he doesn’t really do anything about it and just kind of hopes it doesn’t manifest. You would think that, at least, he would recognize the potential for disaster and keep Jean Grey at the school at all times and not be one of the people involved in all of their missions because of the risk, so my issue isn’t with the fact that he seemingly made a morally questionable decision, but the fact that after he discovered the alternate personality that he made a series of dumb ones. The movie probably would have been served better if Xavier never was able to realize that his suppressing of her powers resulted in this alternate personality and was taken aback by it when it manifested in X3, rather than having known about it the whole time and kind of shrugging it off.

That being said, despite those notes, the character of Xavier is one of the characters who still comes out strong overall in X3. A lot of this is due to the fact that Stewart still completely sells the character, and when he dies, we actually feel bad and have a feeling of loss and that the movie earned it to some degree (unlike we did with Scott’s death).

All in all, the combination of an extremely distinguished actor and two (out of three) great scripts that allow him to shine provide us with one of the best portrayals of a comic book hero onscreen.



Alright, fair warning. A lot of people are going to hate me for this next entry. Not for being too high, but for being too low. I honestly debated putting it into the top five just because my personal opinions seemed to be different than the general public’s and I knew a lot of people wouldn’t agree with me in keeping this character out of the top five, but I realized I wasn’t being true to myself. So just hear me out and let me explain my reasoning.





6. Batman/Bruce Wayne (Michael Keaton, Batman, 1989; Batman Returns, 1992)



I have this character in the top tier, the same tier as the number one character, but I have a funny feeling I’m going to have to spend more of my review explaining why I didn’t have him even higher than I am singing this character’s praises.

Several of you are probably angry that this character is below Bale’s portrayal or some of the others in the top five. Now, here is my reasoning. Most of the arguments I’ve seen in the debate “Keaton vs Bale – who portrayed Batman better?” seem to revolve around the job that the actor did with what they were given, which one made for a better Batman and/or Bruce Wayne visually.

But for this list, I’m not just discussing the job the actor did or how they appear visually– it’s also a list that considers “what they were given” to great degree. And unless the actor completely botches it, that’s actually a more important element. And I thought the material Bale was given and the roles his character had in the films were better than the elements Keaton’s Batman had to work with. Keaton himself as an actor knocked the material he was given out of the park, no question, my issues are solely with the role that he was given by the scripts.

The 1989 Batman movie is a great movie, to be sure. But I feel it’s necessary to include a personal note as to why I didn’t enjoy it quite as much as a lot of people older than me did. I was only three years old when it came out, so obviously I didn’t see it in theaters or anything. I didn’t watch it until much later – in fact, I saw Batman Forever in theaters as a kid before I saw either of the Keaton films. So when I first saw the Keaton films sometime in either 1998 or 1999, my eye towards them was a lot more critical than someone who was seeing a representation of Batman on film for the first time. I completely understand why this film and movie could be exhilarating to a Batman fan seeing it in the theater – although I did enjoy Adam West’s version, I can understand the West detractors’ point regarding the fact that a serious Batman should be enjoyed as well and West’s version hindered the potential for seeing it, and why they would be exhilarated seeing this take on a serious and dark Batman character and movie. Also, the cultural impact of the movie can’t be denied.

Still, the fact remains…in the two Batman films Keaton starred in, neither of them really had much of an arc for Batman or much for him to do besides react to the villains.

The first film, by far, focused more on the Joker than Batman. Which wouldn’t necessarily be a problem if Batman himself was given more of a character as well. I certainly don’t have an issue with starting a comic book movie film en media res without giving the character’s origins, but I do think that if you’re skipping the origins the character still should be given some sort of arc or character development. The character’s arc/character development in the first film were basically a romance plot with Kim Basinger and that’s it. He does eventually learn that the Joker was the one who killed his parents, but he doesn’t find this out until the very end. This seemed totally unnecessary. If Bruce knew that the Joker was the one who killed his parents the entire time, a lot could have been done with that to help give Batman an arc of some sort.

Also, I do have to mention the fact that in both Keaton films the character murders people willy-nilly with no regard. I’m not exactly the biggest comic book purist if what’s onscreen works well also (heck, I recently defended the changes the “Watchmen” movie made to the ending) but this still rung hollow for me, as Batman’s decision not to kill people was a critical aspect of the character. If the films gave a believable explanation for him to change his mind that would be one thing, but it just seems to me like he is able to freely kill in these movies because it makes the plot progression and action scenes easier.

The biggest problem is the fact that neither of the two films seemed to focus on Batman as a character, and he doesn’t really get any sense of an arc. The first movie had some thematic elements that meant that Batman is the best character to fit into it, but in Batman Returns, his role could literally have been given to any other superhero and the script wouldn’t have to be changed all that much. How can I rate the character too highly when neither of his films were really about him?

As I said earlier, most of the “Keaton vs Bale” debates are about their acting abilities, and rarely have to do with the role they were given, and most of the Keaton defenders rely on the “acting/visual” side of the equation. However, there is one and only one argument I’ve heard that defends Keaton’s Batman in regards to his role in the films as opposed to the visual portrayal or acting – the argument that in the Keaton films, Batman is “meant” to be mysterious and so the focus is off of him on purpose. I can appreciate this to some degree, but from a film perspective still have several issues with it. I don’t think Batman is particularly mysterious in the first film for a few different reasons. First of all, we spend plenty of time with him as Bruce Wayne, showing us the man behind the mask and his every day interactions as he tries to woo Vicki Vale. Of course, Keaton also does a fantastic acting job as Bruce Wayne, but the character isn’t given all that much to do, and showing so much of him in his civilian persona hurts the “this character is a mystery” motif. We simply don’t understand a lot of his motivations or character – why does he mess around with Vicki Vale and say that he isn’t Bruce Wayne only to reveal to her that he’s Bruce Wayne later? Furthermore, when we deal with Batman as a full fledged superhero, “mystery” doesn’t seem to be much of what drives him. Batman Begins dealt with Batman as an unstoppable creature of the night that terrified villains who for large moments of the film we only saw glimpses of, and in a lot of scenes we barely saw him except when he escaped out of the shadows momentarily to take down villains. In the 1989 Batman, most of the shots of Batman have him completely open in the light and displaying him. If the “this character is a mystery” aspect of the character were played up more, it would probably result in the character taking down people silently in the darkness, but instead, he accomplishes his business in full view of the camera without hiding in shadows or any mystery, such as when he slowly climbs the stairs in the final battle.

That being said, the first Batman movie was still an incredibly entertaining film, and Keaton’s visual portrayal and acting performance completely sell it. The second movie…I wasn’t a big fan of. For the most part, I think, my opinions of superhero films line up with the general public, but Batman Returns is by far the greatest exception, I think. People seem to love this movie, but I really disliked it. A part of this is because I’m not a huge fan of Burton and the morbid worlds he creates, and don’t think they necessarily have a place in a Batman film. I know the atmosphere and surroundings are unusual and interesting and are the biggest sources of praise for the movie, but I think the plot is incredibly uneven, and once again Batman isn’t given enough to do. The film seems to be centered around a morbid original character Burton created that happens to be given the name “The Penguin.” In any case, the chemistry between Batman and Catwoman is pulled off quite well onscreen and is the highlight of the film, but I still feel that Batman isn’t quite given enough to do and you could argue that his role in the film could have been fulfilled by any other costumed hero. (And, if you changed around some elements of the Catwoman relationship, could even have been filled by a cop or something).

In any case, I hope I’ve got enough negatives out of the way for you to at least understand why this character isn’t higher. The fact that I still have him in the top tier and sixth overall is a huge testament to how perfectly Keaton’s acting was with what he was given. He has a tremendous screen presence and makes us feel like we’re watching Batman onscreen. It’s a tremendous shame Keaton was never given a film script able to truly showcase off his acting abilities (like, for example, the script for Batman Begins) and the character was never really given a chance to shine on his own without just reacting to the villains. Still, there is absolutely no denying that with what he was given, Keaton’s portrayal is iconic and tremendous, and the visuals contribute to a great degree to give us one of the most iconic movie performances of all time.


Last edited by bbf2; 01-01-2013 at 11:46 PM.
bbf2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-2013, 11:50 PM   #33
TheGuy
Side-Kick
 
TheGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 673
Default Re: An In-Depth Ranking of Every Marvel/DC Movie Superhero

I'm guessing RDJ will be your #1 pick.

TheGuy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-2013, 04:02 AM   #34
747
Fanboy rivalry? Yawn.
 
747's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Sweden
Posts: 4,029
Default Re: An In-Depth Ranking of Every Marvel/DC Movie Superhero

My personal top five in order would be:

1. Christopher Reeve's Clark Kent/Superman
2. Christian Bale's Bruce Wayne/Batman
3. Robert Downey Jr.'s Tony Stark/Iron Man
4. Patrick Stewart's Xavier/Professor X
5. Hugh Jackman's Logan/Wolverine

747 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-2013, 05:19 AM   #35
kedrell
ThatsAlotOfNuts!!
 
kedrell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Southern California
Posts: 17,080
Default Re: An In-Depth Ranking of Every Marvel/DC Movie Superhero

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheGuy View Post
I'm guessing RDJ will be your #1 pick.
He'd be mine with Chris Reeve right behind.

__________________
You know, it occurs to me that Captain America is basically the superhero equivalent of Mary Poppins. Practically perfect in every way and all that stuff.
kedrell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-03-2013, 01:14 AM   #36
bbf2
Side-Kick
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: CA
Posts: 1,136
Default Re: An In-Depth Ranking of Every Marvel/DC Movie Superhero

5. Wolverine/Logan/James Howlett (Hugh Jackman, X:Men, 2000, X2, 2003; X-Men: The Last Stand, 2006; X-Men Origins: Wolverine, 2009; X-Men: First Class, 2011)



While we were all thrilled with Stewart’s casting as Professor X in the upcoming X-Men movie, the casting of Wolverine caused us to raise our eyebrows a little bit.

When Dougray Scott was forced to drop out and some guy called Hugh Jackman was called to step into the role, we were all a bit confused. Logan was a short, rough and tumble animalistic guy, and this guy was tall and seemed sophisticated. He didn’t even have any acting credit that we could give him, no one had heard of the guy, and looking into him he was mostly known for musicals. Just seemed like a bizarre choice overall.

When we finally saw him on screen – well, he was still tall, so that was different. Other than that? Jackman turned in a fantastic portrayal of everything we liked about the comics Wolverine and absolutely killed it, establishing Jackman as a Hollywood star and Wolverine as an incredibly popular character not just with comic fans or fans of the TV show but the public in general.

Everything we know and like about the comic book Logan is portrayed onscreen. He’s a bit of a loner, but learns to work with a team. He can be feral, but is insanely protective of his friends and has a noble quality to him.

Jackman does a fantastic job showing us all the aspects of this character. One of the best aspects of him is the fact that he has a clearly definable and palpable relationship with each of the other characters (except Storm, which as I said in her ranking, the blame is pretty much entirely attributed to that character and Berry since he has chemistry with literally everyone else.) With Rogue, we clearly sense that he’s developing a paternal relationship with her and wants to protect her. With Scott, we see that they are in some terms fierce rivals (as hilariously evidenced by his one-claw salute when Scott demands to know if the Wolverine he sees in front of him is the genuine article or Mystique) but have respect for each other, the chemistry with Jean is genuine, with Beast we see a friendly back and forth between opposites, and with Professor X we see an initially somewhat hostile and dismissive relationship (“What do they call you, Wheels?”) develop into a respectful and paternal one. Even with someone like Nightcrawler, who Logan hilariously dismisses as some weird dude who happens to be here that he should ignore, the relationship seems earned. The movies also aren’t afraid of slowing down a bit and showing us the slower character moments, either, as evidenced by the Coke freezing scene with Bobby that pretty clearly tells us that the relationship between the two (without spelling it out too much) is “I know you intend to date my surrogate daughter, but I’m okay with it since you seem like a genuinely good guy.”

I suppose the biggest complaint about this character is that, in films that should be more ensemble pieces, he gets far too much focus and attention. There is definitely a lot of truth to this, especially in regards to the Cyclops character being shafted. But, honestly, can you really blame the producers when they knew they had such a good character and performance going, that they knew for a fact was going to connect with the audience? If this character wasn’t such a delight onscreen, I would have more of a problem with it, but since I enjoyed seeing him so much, my argument is more along the lines of “Don’t take screentime away from Jackman’s awesome portrayal of Wolverine to develop other characters – take screen time away from Berry’s lackluster Storm” (especially in X3). On another note, it’s pretty funny and fitting in some way that the biggest complaint about the movie character (that he takes up too much screen time and prominence) is also the biggest complaint about the comics character, who seems to be in pretty much every superhero team at the same time while also having his own book lines.

Regarding the previous point, I did like how the first two movies also kind of realized that it had a large amount of focus on Logan and actually poked fun at that aspect to some degree. In the first movie, Xavier and Logan think that Magneto is hunting Wolverine for some reason, but when Magneto shows up to confront Logan and Rogue, we see that he actually wanted Rogue and dismisses Logan as arrogant for thinking he was after him. And then in X2, Magneto mentions that Jean could go through someone’s memories to find Stryker’s base, and then when Logan thinks he’s talking about him he dismissively replies with “You always think it’s about you, isn’t it?” and reveals he’s actually talking about Nightcrawler.

And to that point, there’s been a lot of praise for Logan’s interactions and relationships with the other X-Men protagonist characters in this film, but I’m going to take a moment to praise what I actually thought was one of his best portrayed interactions in the film: his interactions with Magneto. As discussed in the previous paragraph, Magneto just sneers at Logan’s arrogance and sense of self importance. And he has every right to. Logan is always the confidant badass – after all, he can’t really be hurt or killed, so he lives thinking he has nothing to fear. With Magneto in the mix? He has EVERYTHING to fear. As Wolverine’s bones are coated with metal, he’s nothing but a toy to Magneto, who never takes him seriously. You can sense that Logan really has true fear and apprehension when around Magneto – after all, (as we saw in the comics in X-Men vol. 2 #25) Magneto probably has the power to rip Wolverine’s very skeleton out of his body if he so desires. Jackman does a fantastic job portraying the fact that Logan’s self-assurance, “bad ass”-ness and confidence is taken off the table when he’s dealing with Magneto. Having the main villain inspire such terror in the character and being so completely dismissive of him gives us quite a lot of humanization. It’s not just his powers or abilities that Magneto dismisses, it’s Logan as a person as well, as evidenced by the line (regarding the fact that Stryker was the one to give Wolverine his adamantium skeleton, being one of the only people able to manipulate the substance) “The Professor trusted you were smart enough to discover this on your own. He gives you more credit than I do.” Given the fact that he’s an indestructible “bad boy,” Wolverine has a great deal of Mary Sue potential, so having the main villain constantly cut him down so utterly and completely, on all levels is a fantastic way of counteracting that and making us sympathize with him.

Another complaint about the character is the fact he, well, appeared in X3. Regarding the character in particular, people complain that he loses a lot of the “feral loner” traits that define Wolverine and becomes too much of a straightforward action hero type guy. Now, while I do have a myriad of complaints about X3, which you’ve read in some of my earlier entries, this portrayal of Wolverine actually wasn’t one of them. I actually felt that having him become a slightly more straightforward hero worked quite well with his arc in the previous two movies, and it was earned. After two movies, he had more than enough experience to cooperate and work as a leader of a team in dangerous situations. And since this particular mission involved rescuing Jean, the woman he loved, there was really no reason for Logan to hem and haw about his heroism. I don’t particularly think that Logan’s straightforward heroism in the movie was a crutch, and think it was a decision by the filmmakers. They certainly didn’t forget about Logan’s previous feral loner nature – after all, Beast’s first lines to him are “Wolverine, I hear you’re quite an animal.” And then, throughout the course of the rest of the film, Logan proves to Beast and others that he’s gained enough experience and maturity to shed that label, and is capable of suppressing his feral nature to become a genuine hero. And it’s not like the comics Wolverine is incapable of shedding this label for the greater good or anything – heck, he’s currently the head of the school for mutants in the current comics.

Now, X-Men Origins: Wolverine…yeah, that movie is a problem. It’s a quite bad movie with terrible editing and pacing. That being said, Jackman’s acting is still quite good and we still like the character, and his relationship with Liev Shreiber’s Victor is quite good and the best part of the film bar none. His memory loss being attributed to some sort of stupid adamantium bullet being in his brain and not Weapon X brainwashing – yeah, that part sucks and I have no defense for it.

As dumb as that moment was, the fact that X-Men First Class completely ignores many aspects of X3 and Wolverine: Origins makes me slightly more inclined to ignore those movies as well when considering the portrayals in them. And, as I previously mentioned in my Spider-Man rankings…think about it, what happened when Jackman’s Wolverine showed up in First Class? The audience cheered and laughed. No one cared that X3 and “Origins” were disappointing. We love Wolverine! We thought about Jackman’s fantastic portrayals in the first two films. A character-defining and actor-defining role that is well deserving of a spot in the top five.

4. Rorshach /Walter Kovacs (Jackie Earl Haley, Watchmen, 2009)



Now, considering that this character is in the top four, you would probably expect a lot in in-depth analysis on him.

But in all honesty – I can’t quite do it. As I said in earlier Watchmen entries, I’m not really here to analyze the deeper issues behind the character except when necessary, because at some point, I’m just analyzing the comics character. And this character is basically the comic book character portrayed onscreen almost exactly. If that’s what you want, I recommend the book “Watchmen and Philosphy (http://www.amazon.com/Watchmen-Philo.../dp/0470396857) which explores each of the character’s philosophies in great detail.

I can’t really analyze the differences between the film character and the comics character – because, really, there are almost none.

My job here is to analyze how the character was portrayed on the silver screen. And my answer to that question is, more than any other character – perfectly. I can’t really analyze this character too much – because the character we see on screen is the same character we saw in the comics, almost word per world and scene by scene.

I suppose I should describe the (very few) changes the character makes from the comics.

The first is that his mask is never really explained. I can understand why this would take up a bit too much time, but I found it a bit odd as the fact that Rorshach’s mask changes images is pretty much the only “supernatural” or unexplainable thing that happens in the movie. Also, I thought that Kovacs’s rationale for using the mask was pretty telling – he uses this particular mask because “the black and white never mix,” explaining a lot about the character, and I wish that had made it onto the film.

Another note is the fact that the character’s origin changed. Now, while I say “origin,” I mean of the character as we currently see him. At the point of his “origin,” Kovacs was already a masked vigilante named Rorshach who fought crime – but really, this scene turned him from a more mild-mannered Rorshach into the one we know from the series. In the comics, Rorshach leaves a child molester and murderer to die in a fire, giving him a hacksaw and saying that its more chance than he afforded the little girl he murdered. The movie Rorshach, however, brutally murders the man and says that dogs must be put down, considering the man no better than the dogs he fed the girl’s remains too. I can completely see how this brutality would affect him much more than leaving a man to die in a burning building, so I bought it.

That being said, despite the horrors Rorshach commits, we still feel a great deal of sympathy for him and understand his world view to some degree, and actually really like him. He is arguably the most important character in the Watchmen narrative, and pulling him off to the sense that we both genuinely like him as well as raise questions about his philosophies is a critical principle of that.

All in all, this character is a masked vigilante with a somewhat terrifyingly black and white view of the world who commits several atrocities – and yet, when he is vaporized by Dr. Manhattan, almost all of us feel quite sad about it, even those of us who knew it was coming. A perfect portrayal of a great superhero, that Haley knocks out of the park.

bbf2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-03-2013, 01:42 AM   #37
JP
Smelly
 
JP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: NYC
Posts: 53,062
Default Re: An In-Depth Ranking of Every Marvel/DC Movie Superhero

I'm excited to see your top picks.

RDJ, Bale, and Reeve are what I assume is left.

JP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-03-2013, 02:06 AM   #38
TheGuy
Side-Kick
 
TheGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 673
Default Re: An In-Depth Ranking of Every Marvel/DC Movie Superhero

6. Jackman
5. Haley
4. Keaton
3. Bale
2. Reeve
1. Downey

TheGuy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-03-2013, 02:54 AM   #39
Hawkingbird
I want to be Kate Bishop
 
Hawkingbird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: With the Hawkeyes
Posts: 5,733
Default Re: An In-Depth Ranking of Every Marvel/DC Movie Superhero

Downey should certainly be no.1.

__________________
"Turkey sucks and you suck, and who made you boss?"
Hawkingbird is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-03-2013, 03:06 PM   #40
Edguy
Banned User
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Norway
Posts: 477
Default Re: An In-Depth Ranking of Every Marvel/DC Movie Superhero

Bale did an amazing Bruce Wayne, but far from a perfect Batman. That was due to the script, though, and it fit with the movies. Still hope to see the smart detective side in the rebooted version, thou!

Edguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-03-2013, 06:12 PM   #41
AnneFan
Hathaway #1
 
AnneFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 13,861
Default Re: An In-Depth Ranking of Every Marvel/DC Movie Superhero

Just found this thread and I'm really enjoying reading the explanations and rankings. Very well done. Looking forward to the last few.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Joker View Post
Glad to see Anne Hathaway's Catwoman ranked in with the greats. She is by far my favorite character in TDKR, and generally the best thing about it, IMO. I'd have ranked her in the top 20, but you give her such a glowing account that it's good.
Indeed. There's no doubt she's the single best thing about the movie where I have zero quibbles. Without her things would've been a lot more drab. She was great in the costume and kicked ass - but I like how we get a good chunk of scenes of Anne as Selina - maid, at he airport, at the ball, at home, etc. That's the real side, just as she's listed as Selina Kyle and not Catwoman. She's a human being looking for a fresh start and the alter ego is part of that. Top stuff.

__________________
I dreamed a dream and "it came true."
- Anne Hathaway, actress in a supporting role winner 2013 Oscars.

Rio 2 - Song One - Interstellar - The Intern - The Lifeboat - Get Happy - Alice 2
AnneFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-03-2013, 07:17 PM   #42
Figs
Banned User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Washington
Posts: 26,626
Default Re: An In-Depth Ranking of Every Marvel/DC Movie Superhero

I really love this thread and have to say that I agree with everything you said about Berry as Storm bbf2! Including her being the reason Marsden probably got the shaft.

Figs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-03-2013, 11:07 PM   #43
747
Fanboy rivalry? Yawn.
 
747's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Sweden
Posts: 4,029
Default Re: An In-Depth Ranking of Every Marvel/DC Movie Superhero

RDJ's Stark/Iron Man and Reeve's Clark/Superman must be the film versions of superhero characters that has inspired and bled over the most to other versions and in other media, in different ways (from characterization to look and in Reeve's case also homages/dedications).

747 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2013, 12:02 AM   #44
TheGuy
Side-Kick
 
TheGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 673
Default Re: An In-Depth Ranking of Every Marvel/DC Movie Superhero

Quote:
Originally Posted by AnneFan View Post
Just found this thread and I'm really enjoying reading the explanations and rankings. Very well done. Looking forward to the last few.

Indeed. There's no doubt she's the single best thing about the movie where I have zero quibbles. Without her things would've been a lot more drab. She was great in the costume and kicked ass - but I like how we get a good chunk of scenes of Anne as Selina - maid, at he airport, at the ball, at home, etc. That's the real side, just as she's listed as Selina Kyle and not Catwoman. She's a human being looking for a fresh start and the alter ego is part of that. Top stuff.
I'd say Bane.

TheGuy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2013, 12:41 AM   #45
bbf2
Side-Kick
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: CA
Posts: 1,136
Default Re: An In-Depth Ranking of Every Marvel/DC Movie Superhero

3. Batman/Bruce Wayne (Christian Bale, Batman Begins, 2005; The Dark Knight, 2008; The Dark Knight Rises, 2012)



Let’s get the elephant out of the room first. The voice.

“OMGTHROATCANCERWHEREISRACHEL.” Yeah, yeah, yeah.

In both the Dark Knight as well as Dark Knight Rises, Bale uses “the Batman voice” even when talking to people who know his secret identity (Rachel, Selina, Lucius) and even when talking to himself (“So that’s what that feels like”) to speak.

So yeah, some people think of that as a flaw of the movies. But you know what? I actually don’t consider that a flaw. When Batman is by himself, Bruce is in character as Batman, so I totally buy that he would be committed to the role and wouldn’t sell it out even in the moments where he thought he was by himself. And I don’t think the voice sounds bad. So let’s get that out of the way.

Also, there were a huge number of flaws with “The Dark Knight Rises” that I’m sure you’re thinking about right now, and it was overall a disappointing movie. Being as that one concluded the trilogy and is the freshest in your head right now, that’s probably coloring your judgment of the character a bit right now.

But please, let’s not let that cloud our judgment too much, and let’s remember how incredible and brilliant Batman Begins and the Dark Knight are.

Christian Bale’s Batman was portrayed very, very well in the Dark Knight. But more specifically, his portrayal in Batman Begins is what puts him all the way up at number three on this list, a movie in which this character was portrayed fantastically.

I had a huge smile on my face while watching Batman Begins. It really is the first serious live action film that’s really, truly, mostly about Batman. As much as I enjoyed what Keaton did with his portrayal, the focus of the first movie was clearly the Joker, who got more screen time than him. In Returns, I’m not sure how the screen time breaks down exactly, but it definitely felt like the Penguin was the A-plot and the Batman stuff was the B-plot. In Begins, there’s no ambiguity. This story is about Batman.

The thing I kept thinking to myself throughout this film is “My god, I can’t believe how perfectly this movie is getting me to realistically believe that a billionaire would dress up like a bat and fight crime.”

His journey throughout the film was great, and filled with lots of nice touches. I especially like how he infiltrated criminal gangs by stealing from Wayne Enterprises – he’s able to get ingrained into the criminals without actually stealing from anyone but himself.

I also liked the use of his technologies and weapons, with most of them already existing and being developed by teams and by Lucius. It would have been too much to have Batman both be such an excellent proactive fighter as well as a guy with enough time on his hands and expertise to create all of his own weapons.

The rationale for why he chooses to dress like a bat is also handled extremely well. The talk of “I want to dress up like a bat because I want to frighten criminals, and bats frighten me” is nothing new, but its handled exquisitely. Having him fall into the bat pit as a child was one thing, but it was also great that his being scared of bats is what caused him to convince his parents to leave the theater, thus resulting in them getting killed, so his fear of bats gets an extra layer and causes him to think of his parents’ deaths.

The talk of how he want an alter ego because he wants to be a symbol is also great, and really sold us on why this billionaire would try to further his goals by dressing up and fighting crime instead of throwing money around to appropriate places. In a lot of interpretations, Joe Chill killing his parents causes him to fight a war on criminals in general, because a criminal was responsible for his parents’ deaths. This Bruce Wayne, however, takes the analysis a little deeper – he realizes that Joe Chill isn’t just “some criminal,” but a man driven to be what he is and created by a corrupt Gotham system. Instead of just waging war on criminals, Batman wants to help purify the corrupt Gotham environment that allowed someone like Joe Chill to be created.

Importantly, the ability to make me believe he had skills at his disposal to do it was excellent. Having him train with the League of Shadows was a great touch, and we saw him pull off and develop his ability to “work with the shadows” and basically act like a ninja, so when we saw it pulled off later it felt earned. His ability to work with the night and darkness really sells what sets Batman apart from just “guy who can fight well.”

And then when we finally see Batman in action during that first fight scene with the criminals, it’s quite a sight to see. Even though we’ve spent the entire time with this character, we know everything about the circumstances that led Batman to exist, when we first see him, there’s still at least viscerally a sense of mystery and terror around him. The thugs have no idea where he is, where he’s been hiding, or how he’s been doing this. Batman was the night – he was hidden in the darkness, and the criminals were all terrified of him.

And like I said, even though we know pretty much everything about Bruce Wayne as a person, Batman can still be legitimately frightening. I know everyone’s complaining about the deep voice now, but I don’t remember hearing any complaints about it in the scene where he is dangling Flass, and when Flass says “he swears to God,” we then hear a frightening “SWEAR TO ME!

Towards the end of the movie, there’s been a lot of debate about whether he “killed” Ra’s Al Ghul by refusing to save him. Some people think that it was justified, that it’s a necessity as Batman is learning from his mistakes, as saving Ra’s earlier is what allowed the current destruction around them to take place. Others feel that it’s a violation of his code as it’s basically the same thing as killing him. Whichever interpretation you want to go with is totally valid. The only thing I’ll say about it is that this debate is obviously intentional – you’re meant to ask that question and debate it. Whichever way you feel, it is absolutely not a flaw of the character himself and is a good way of bringing up a philosophical question.

In any case, words can’t really express how thrilled I was that I got to see this version of Batman onscreen in Batman Begins. Of course, he does appear in two other movies.

In the Dark Knight, he isn’t given quite as much focus or screen time as in Begins. However, I felt that this was totally and completely justified. As much as I complained about the Keaton films not focusing enough on Batman, I was totally cool with him taking a backseat at parts in Dark Knight because I felt the character and Nolan had absolutely earned it through Batman Begins.

And it’s not even like Batman is given the shaft too badly – sure, there are times when it feels like the story is focusing more on the Joker or Harvey Dent, but Bruce Wayne/Batman overall gets more screen time than either (unlike in 1989 Batman where the Joker gets more screen time than him). And he does get an arc and plenty of stuff to do – he has to come to grips with the fact that, although he’s helped clean up Gotham to some degree, without him the Joker would never have come into play, since Batman was the one who escalated things to the degree where the Joker was necessary. He also has to deal with the fact that Joker doesn’t fit in to his existing philosophy – he just wants to watch “the world burn.” And we see his optimism at the fact that Dent might be cleaning up the streets to the degree that Batman might no longer be necessary, and he might be able to retire and live a normal life with Rachel, only for him to see that all fall apart.

On a bit of a side note, I really like his relationship with Harvey Dent. They’re both men who, despite being in a love triangle (although Harvey doesn’t really realize it), have tons of respect for each other. Bruce isn’t jealous of the fact that Dent is dating Rachel, he is a bit jealous but mostly doesn’t really care, as he’s more excited about the possibilities that Dent brings for Gotham. I also thought it was pretty interesting how Bruce absolutely loved the fact that Dent was cleaning up the streets largely in part because it meant that he might be able to hang up the cowl and spend time with Rachel – never mind the fact that Rachel is currently dating Dent! He never really thinks of Dent as a threat and just assumes he can steal Rachel back as soon as he tells her he’s not going to be Batman anymore based on something she previously told him. I usually hate love triangles in movies, but this one was great, since our protagonist doesn’t view the other guy as a threat romantically at all, and instead, very ironically actually thinks of him as actually being the necessary conduit that will allow him to eventually end up with his love interest. It also added some depth and flaws to the character – as we saw with Rachel’s note, Bruce was being far too arrogant here, as she did not intend to run off with him after all.

I guess one of the complaints with this character is that his relationship with Rachel (both the Holmes and Gyllenhaal versions) doesn’t have a huge amount of chemistry. Not sure why that is. Holmes I understand since she's usually regarded as a subpar actor, but Gyllenhaal is usually a pretty good actor so I'm not entirely sure why it fell kind of flat. I don’t necessarily think it’s Bale’s or this character’s fault, though, as his chemistry with Hathaway in Rises is great. But in any case, despite all that, I don’t really mind too much, especially since the Dark Knight had the cajones to do something pretty much unprecedented in superhero movies – they actually killed off the female love interest. Very rare, and it really raised the stakes in a great way and was a great plot point that challenges our hero and what he was planning on and thinking. (Jean Grey and Elektra don’t count since they were superheroes/villains in their own right. And in 2 out of their combined 3 “deaths” it was obvious they were coming back).

It’s interesting to note the parallels in the scene between Bruce and Alfred after Rachel gets killed to the scene in Batman Begins between Alfred and young Bruce after the Waynes are killed. The first few lines of dialogue are exactly the same. Alfred enters the room and says “I thought I’d prepare a little supper,” gets nothing but silence from Bruce, then says “very well,” and after a pause Bruce says that it’s all his fault. In Begins, Alfred responds by saying it’s not Bruce’s fault, but in Dark Knight, he can’t quite say that (because his becoming Batman is what caused the escalation that led to the Joker being created) so instead what he says is that Bruce has inspired good, and that something like this was inevitable. An interesting parallel that I didn’t pick up on until several rewatches.

Batman himself gets some nice moments to shine. One moment I thought was great was when he was dangling Maroni over the balcony, and when Maroni mocks him for not being a high enough fall to kill him, he replies “I’m counting on it” and drops him. Probably his most badass moment in the film. Overall, I think my favorite scene with Batman in it is when he goes to the Joker’s interrogation room. Obviously the audience is fixated on what the Joker is saying and doing at that point in time, but the movie also does a great job showing us what Batman is feeling as well. He starts to listen intently to him, and you can see Batman almost start to be a little hypnotized, he starts to think maybe Joker has something resembling a point…and then he realizes what’s happening, and slam’s Joker’s head on the table and starts harassing him. Great stuff.

Despite his good moments, however, and the fact that he has the most screen time, there are times when we sort of take Batman himself for granted throughout the film. This is largely because of the greatness of Ledger’s portrayal, the huge thematic emphasis on Dent, and the fact that we’re already familiar with Bale’s Batman from the past film so we’re more focused on the new elements.

That being said, for me personally, the fact that I was sort of taking Batman himself for granted a little bit throughout the film made his ending sacrifice much more powerful. When Batman offered to take the fall for the killings, what went through my head at the time was “Oh yeah, I’ve been so caught up in all this Joker and Two-Face and other stuff, I haven’t been fully appreciating the fact that there’s a guy heroically risking his life every day to help make the world better.” I really thought it was a fantastic ending, perfectly earned with what we saw his thoughts on Dent earlier, and you really feel bad for him and the weight of this sacrifice.

(By the way, regarding the “Did he kill Harvey?” debate – like I said with Ra’s, whether you think Batman broke his code or not doesn't matter, because in my opinion it is intended to raise debate and I don’t consider it a flaw of the film or character at all).

So, obviously we all love Batman Begins and the Dark Knight, but there is the matter of that third film to be addressed.

Now, obviously, there are major flaws, plot holes, and unexplained things. I won’t get into them all here, but one of the ones that really bugged me (regarding the character of Batman in particular) was how he magically got back to Gotham after he escaped the prison in the Middle East despite not having any resources. Would it have been too much to show a quick shot of Bruce sneaking onto a plane by grabbing the wheels and crawling into it, or something? A lot of uneven editing and pacing also drag the film down.

There were plenty of positives about this character in the third film, however. Bale himself still does a good job acting. His chemistry with Hathaway was great, much better than with either Rachel. I thought the scene in the doctor’s office was pretty funny, and his scenes with Alfred and some of the other supporting characters were good as well.

Now, regarding the ending. I know some people didn’t like it because of the idea that he’s “giving up” being Batman, but I dunno, I liked it. It kind of made sense to me. We’ve already established in Dark Knight that he’s willing to give up being Batman for his personal happiness if Gotham’s deep corruption and crime problems are fixed (since we saw him consider if when he thought Dent would be able to create peace in TDK). I mean, sure, there will always be petty crime to some degree in every city, but in Begins we established that he was specifically setting out to become a symbol and the main thing he wanted to fix was Gotham’s ridiculous corruption and crime problems. After Dent’s death, the Dent Act more or less fixed this and Gotham became a more purified city with an ethical police force and no mob scene that we could see. That’s why Batman was in retirement for 8 years, only coming back to deal with the threat of Bane and the League of Shadows – with the Dent Act, he wasn’t needed. Now that the League of Shadows threat has been dealt with, it’s natural to assume that Gotham will more or less go back to the purified way it was before Bane got there. I mean, sure, Dent was exposed as a guy who went crazy and killed people, but that particular fact being exposed isn’t going to suddenly create a large mafia scene or suddenly cause the now-ethical police force to suddenly become corrupt. After eight years of being extremely effective and cleaning up the city, the Dent Act isn’t going to be repealed just because its namesake turned out to have gone crazy after his life was ruined – all it means is that it will probably be re-named.

And to that point, the city hasn’t lost the fact that it had a moral crusader who bravely died defending the city and trying to protect it – it’s simply replaced the identity of their icon. Instead of rallying around the sacrifices of Harvey Dent, the city can now rally around the sacrifices of Batman – as shown by him getting a statue. Batman was always intended by Bruce to become a symbol, so I don’t think him giving up crime fighting to live a happy life is necessarily cheating – because he realized that Batman at this point could have more effective and longer lasting power as a fallen hero than he would have as a guy who beats up petty thugs in a city with a low crime rate. So I actually thought it made a lot of sense.

And then…alright, I’m burying the lead. I LOVE the fact that this is the first Batman we’ve seen to actually have a full, complete arc. Even Justice League’s Batman Beyond wrap-up episode “Epilogue” still had Bruce actively working to help Terry be Batman. I love the fact that Batman was able to ride off into the sunset and live a happy life. I know some people think it’s a cheat and that the character is only satisfying if he can never be happy, but I don’t care. I love the fact that we saw a Batman who was able to actually live a happy life…and I especially love the fact that he was able to go off and life a happy life with Selina Kyle. I even liked the fact that they actually showed him and Selina together at the end instead of cutting at Alfred’s smile, which I think is an opinion I’m probably completely alone in. I liked the absolute visual confirmation and the chance to get a glimpse of Bruce and Selina in their new lives. It was extremely cathartic for me.

Even if you disagree with me on that last point, I think the strength of Batman Begins and Dark Knight are more than enough to justify this character a spot in the top three.


Last edited by bbf2; 01-07-2013 at 12:57 AM.
bbf2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2013, 12:41 AM   #46
bbf2
Side-Kick
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: CA
Posts: 1,136
Default Re: An In-Depth Ranking of Every Marvel/DC Movie Superhero

2. Iron Man/Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr., Iron Man, 2008; The Incredible Hulk, 2008; Iron Man 2, 2010; The Avengers, 2012)



Iron Man was a character that non-comic book fans had probably heard of, but was definitely not in the upper echelon of public consciousness and the general public likely didn’t know all that much about him. Because of that fact, it was unknown whether an Iron Man solo movie would be all that financially successful compared to films with more well-known and established characters. For that reason, when the film was being kicked around in various studios throughout the 90’s and early aughts, the thinking was that an Iron Man movie would need to star an absolute A-list Hollywood draw to ensure people would see it, with Tom Cruise being the most commonly talked about name after Cruise expressed interest.

For that reason, when the movie was finally in development and Robert Downey Jr. was cast, it could have been seen as a bit of a risk. He was certainly recognizable, but after his stint in prison he was mostly starring in independent movies and was definitely not a huge box office draw. That being said, I don’t really remember too many people talking about the riskiness of this casting, and instead most of the talk was about how great a casting choice it was and how Downey was a great pick for the character and would most likely nail it.

And then when we saw the movie…well, to say that he “nailed it” would be an understatement. He didn’t just “nail it”- he created one of the most enjoyable, likable and memorable characters in all of film from the last decade.

It’s hard to quantify exactly what makes Downey’s Tony Stark such a joy to watch on screen. He is dripping with charisma, with the capacity of being absolutely hilarious but also able to be serious when the time calls for it. And throughout it all, he’s somehow very relatable and likable.

Regarding that last point – him being relatable and likable – think about how many obstacles are in the way of that. Everything about the character, on paper, is the opposite of relatable and likable. He’s a billionaire, born with a silver spoon in his mouth, and is also extremely arrogant. His company develops weapons – not exactly the most noble of professions. The very first time we see him he’s bragging about how many models he’s slept with.

And yet, Downey is just such a joy to watch on screen, we can’t help but love him. He’s even able to have chemistry onscreen when he’s talking to his mute robots.Even right from the get go, when he’s talking about the models and displaying his newest weapon, his charisma makes us connect with him immediately. He is probably responsible for more laughs than any other character on this list, and the intentional humor and jokes in his films are really great. Probably my favorite moment is when he is testing out his jets for the first time, but he’s over calibrated them and is suddenly slammed into the wall (followed by the robots spraying their fire extinguishers). An absolutely brilliant and hilarious bit of physical comedy.

That being said, the character is still respectable enough that the slower and serious moments still make sense. When Tony is captured in Afghanistan, the movie shifts tones from being a mostly fun and humorous story into one that is treated much more seriously…and then he starts kicking ass in his prototype Iron Man armor and its awesome, and then he gets back to the States and its back to a lot of humor. This could potentially be a jarring tone shift, but the film handles it perfectly and we feel that it’s earned, and Downey’s performance is able to sell the humorous parts as well as the serious parts extremely well.

And even though the character is involved in so many humorous moments, we still think of him as very real and don’t lose respect for him, and perhaps more importantly, can still think of him as a badass. The moment in the first movie where he confronts three terrorists and they take children as hostages – only for Stark to use his pinpoint technology to fire at the terrorists’ heads and kill them without harming the children is awesome and elicited cheers from the theater.

One of the best selling points of the character, however, is his relationship with the female love interest. Downey’s chemistry with Gwyneth Paltrow, playing Pepper Potts, is fantastic, and for my money the best relationship portrayed onscreen between a hero and his love interest of any character on this list. In all fairness, most films don’t have a slightly older hero and thus aren’t able to cast an older and more mature Oscar-winning actress as the love interest, but regardless, the fact that his chemistry with the female lead is so incredible is a huge plus for the character. The decision to make her someone he has known for years as opposed to someone he has recently met and fallen for is a fantastic decision, but would have fallen flat if Downey and Paltrow didn’t have such fantastic chemistry. The two of them really sell the fact that they’ve known each other for years and have a deep friendship and respect for each other with enough of a romantic edge to make it immensely satisfying when they finally get together. There is a lot of genuine comedy in their scenes together and the jokes and quips they make towards each other are quite funny, but there’s still a very real and deep warmth to it that we can feel onscreen.

With all that being said, yeah, Iron Man 2 was pretty disappointing given the highs of the first movie (not a bad movie, to be sure, but definitely a letdown.) But Downey’s performance was still great despite some of the weird plot shenanigans he had to get himself into – and, ironically, the fact that we loved Stark’s character so much actually detracted from a lot of what the movie was trying to do to some degree. I’m pretty sure the movie wanted us to like James Rhodes, Black Widow, and Nick Fury, but we really didn’t like them at all in this movie because of the fact that we liked Tony so much (despite the questionable decisions he made throughout the course of the film) and were put off by the fact that these three characters behaved in such a superior and condescending manner to him. This is especially the case with Black Widow, who acts as a perfect Mary Sue-type character that we roll our eyes at her onscreen, and we get pissed off at Fury when he talks about how great Black Widow is and how she’s a much better agent than Stark would be blah blah blah. I mean, sure, looking at what Stark does in the film (getting drunk while in his armor, etc) they have a point, but RDJ is so great that we don’t really care. They act like the stuffy parents/teachers in an 80’s teen movie like Ferris Bueller or Fast Times at Ridgemont High – they may have a point, but we like the rambunctious protagonist and not them so we don’t care. The difference is, those movies didn’t try to get us to like or side with the stuffy “authority figures” while Iron Man 2 did, causing it to fall mostly flat. So yeah, even though Iron Man 2 was a letdown, I’m more or less willing to give the character himself a pass for it, since RDJ was still fantastic and it’s mostly the fault of the other characters and uneven plot elements that caused it to fall flat.

And really, as the Avengers movie started to approach, no one really cared or thought about Iron Man 2 at all and were excited at the prospect of seeing Tony Stark interact with these other superheroes.

During all the hype about the Avengers, one of the prospects we were excited about seeing was seeing all the different characters and their powers onscreen with their suits on, using their powers either against each other or with each other. But there were a lot of people (myself included) who while still being excited by seeing that, but were actually MORE excited by the prospects of seeing the characters interact with each other without their suits on, at the potential for banter and personal interactions.

Now, think back to the moments before you say the Avengers and think about which “character interactions” you were looking forward to seeing onscreen specifically. Were you excited to see Captain America interact with Bruce Banner? Were you excited to see Black Widow interact with Thor?

No, you weren’t. You wanted to see Tony Stark interact with Captain America, you wanted to see Tony Stark interact with Thor, and with all the others. You wanted to see what kind of quips he could come up with about them and their costumes, wanted to see him conflict with the more straight-laced characters and cut people down to size.

And when the movie came, it was fully realized. Stark’s interaction with a lot of the other characters is quite hilarious at times and very fitting. My favorite is his relationship with Bruce Banner. First off, the fact that everyone is walking on eggshells around Banner, and then Tony just makes a mockery of it by jokingly attempting to provoke him by poking him with sharp objects is hilarious…and even better, Banner thinks so too. A perfect little character moment. The fact that the two of them instantly become friends is also great. It makes perfect sense that these two scientific minds would click together, and RDJ and Ruffalo have great chemistry and we immediately buy that these guys would be apprehensive about everyone else on the ship and be relieved that they found one person they could be buddies with. Stark stands up for Banner when others confront him, and eventually this relationship pays off in the end as the Hulk is the one to save Stark’s life when he’s freefalling at the end.

His interaction with Thor is mostly limited, but all of us were waiting for him to mock the ridiculousness of Thor and Loki’s outfits and situation, and “What is this, Shakespeare in the park? Doth mother know you hath stolen her drapes?” didn’t disappoint. From a powers perspective, the moment where Thor attacks him with electricity and Tony discovers that this causes the suit to power up to 400% was pretty cool. (Pretty sure the science behind it doesn’t check out, but who cares?) We don’t see him interact much with Hawkeye, but he does get to call him “Legolas,” which I enjoyed. His interplay with Loki is also very funy, while at the same time his comments about how Loki is outmatched by complimenting the rest of the team also serves as a point of us learning that Stark has learned to greatly respect the other members of the team despite his conflicts with them earlier.

It would be very easy to have Iron Man be the comic relief in this movie, having him doing nothing but making wisecracks the whole time, have him basically be Chandler Bing with a super suit. But throughout it all we never think that, and he’s still arguably the main character in the piece (or at least, the first-billed and the one with the most screen time). There aren’t quite as many non-comedic pieces for the character, but he still pulls them off well. This is evidenced by his relationship with Captain America. Naturally, with Rogers’s strict code of ethics, he’s going to clash with the more freelance Stark and think he’s selfish and only out for himself. Their interplay on the ship reflects that, and as Rogers starts to insult Stark, RDJ does a great job showing Stark initially joking and letting his remarks roll off him and then slowly start to get legitimately pissed off by them as Rogers questions his heroism, and then delivers biting and serious insults back. And then in the end this relationship also gets some deal of closure, as Stark reveals he thinks that Rogers “lives up to the legend” and then proves Cap’s earlier comment (“You wouldn’t be the one to throw yourself on a grenade”) wrong by being the one to seemingly sacrifice himself by going through the portal to deposit the nuclear bomb in the enemy base.

One other point to mention is the fact that the movies continuously impress us visually with the various ways Stark is able to suit up or down, introducing new elements to this process with each movie. Iron Man 2 has the great suitcase scene, while the Avengers introduces us to both the awesome scene as the suit comes off him as he walks into Stark tower and then the scene in the end as he suits up in mid-air after being tossed out of the building. Throughout the three films the character’s other visual effects besides suiting up or down are also really great and believable and impressive onscreen.

All in all, Robert Downey Jr.’s portrayal of Iron Man has transformed the character from a second-tier comic book hero into a character that is beloved the world over, and is well worth the number two spot on this list.

----

Normally in a list like this one would post the number one entry at the same time at the same time as #2 and maybe #3 because the suspense is gone, but I wanted to get these up as they took me a while to write and I hadn't made an update in some time. And come on, the suspense was already gone as soon as you started reading as to who #1 would be. I'll have my analysis of the quintessential superhero portrayal on film up sometime a bit later.

bbf2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2013, 11:55 PM   #47
The Sarge
Greatest DP ever
 
The Sarge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 432
Default Re: An In-Depth Ranking of Every Marvel/DC Movie Superhero

Good stuff man. I really enjoy reading these!

The Sarge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-08-2013, 02:52 PM   #48
Airwings
Waves of air
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Scandinavia
Posts: 3,445
Default Re: An In-Depth Ranking of Every Marvel/DC Movie Superhero

Ian Mckellen and Michael Fassbender can't both be no 1, can they? :/

Airwings is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-08-2013, 03:59 PM   #49
The Joker
Clown Prince of Crime
 
The Joker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Jollity Farm
Posts: 37,150
Default Re: An In-Depth Ranking of Every Marvel/DC Movie Superhero

This is a ranking of superheros. So Magneto won't be on the list.

__________________
"Sometimes I remember it one way. Sometimes another. If I'm going to have a past, I prefer it to be multiple choice!"

- The Joker
The Joker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-08-2013, 07:21 PM   #50
bbf2
Side-Kick
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: CA
Posts: 1,136
Default Re: An In-Depth Ranking of Every Marvel/DC Movie Superhero

1. Superman/Clark Kent (Christopher Reeve, Superman, 1978; Superman II, 1980; Superman III, 1983; Superman IV: The Quest for Peace)



Two of the four movies he appears in are awful. He constantly and randomly gets new powers out of nowhere that hadn’t been established previously, (Saran-wrap S? Memory erasing kiss? Telekenesis? Ringing a doorbell from far away?) leaving the audience baffled. The end of the first movie had him traveling back through time. His archenemy is treated as comic relief and not taken seriously.

Still…was there any doubt who number one was?

Christopher Reeve’s portrayal of Superman is the most iconic superhero movie performance of all time, bar none. It’s also the best. And that’s saying nothing of it being one of the most iconic performances in the history of film, of any genre.

If you sit back and think about it, Superman is a hard character to get right…and an especially hard character to make sympathetic and likable. He’s an alien, he’s nigh-invulnerable, and his human “alter ego” is actually a disguise. He’s supposed to be the ultimate standard that humanity looks up to, and he’s the paragon of truth, justice, and the American way. It would be very easy to treat him as some sort of Christ figure (which we saw in Superman Returns) instead of a real, sympathetic character.

And yet, Christopher Reeve’s Superman is very, very sympathetic, likeable, and relatable. And in figurative terms, very human…while still being spectacular and larger than life.

How do they pull this off? Well, there are a lot of ways. We see his wants, his desires, and his flaws. We get a glimpse of the honest life he lived growing up, and felt sympathy for him when his adopted father dies. We see his more down-to-earth and human moments.

But all of that would be for nothing if not for Christopher Reeve’s acting. Even if the script didn’t include those humanizing moments, Reeve makes sure we feel for him regardless.
The movies were saddled with one of the most ridiculous premises in all of fiction – that Superman can wear glasses and this makes it so that no one recognizes him as Clark Kent. In the films, while it’s still pretty dumb that no one recognizes his face, Reeve absolutely sells the different personalities perfectly. As Superman, he’s the perfect example of justice – he’s stoic, heroic, and has a commanding presence. Clark Kent is the perfect every man – he’s clumsy and weak, but has a huge amount of charisma and is incredibly likable. It really can’t be emphasized enough how fantastic Reeve is able to pull off both completely opposite roles – creating one of the most commanding and one of the most likable characters in all of film at the same time.

The best example of this acting comes in Superman II, where he transforms before our very eyes without even changing into the Superman costume. After Clark falls into the fire and isn’t harmed, he can’t deny Lois’s suspicions that he’s Superman anymore. Resigned, he takes off his glasses and admits it. It’s pretty incredible how Reeve is able to distinctively transform from one character into a polar opposite one just by removing his glasses and changing his posture and tone of voice.

Some people see Clark Kent the way he was described in the speech from Kill Bill – that he’s Superman’s parody of the human race, which he finds himself superior to, and whenever he wakes up in the morning, he thinks of himself as Superman, not Clark Kent. I think there’s a lot of truth to this regarding this portrayal, but I’m not entirely sure it’s all that simple. Personally, it seems to me that whenever he’s Clark Kent, he’s not just putting on some sort of performance – in those moments, he really IS Clark. He’s not necessarily bumping into things on purpose himself, he just runs into them because he’s currently a bumbling guy. I think this is partially demonstrated by the scene I described earlier where he trips and falls into the fire – he’s trying to keep his identity concealed from Lois and doesn’t want to confirm her suspicions, so falling into the fire is definitely not a deliberate choice he made. If all the clumsiness was entirely an act and he purposefully sees and chooses when to bump into things or trip or whatnot, he wouldn’t have fallen into the fire. (And it’s not because he secretly wanted to show Lois, having gone to great lengths to avoid showing her his powers earlier.) He just tripped because, well, right now he’s Clark Kent, and he’s a clumsy guy. I’m also not 100% sold that he always refers to himself as Superman, either, especially when in the Clark Kent guise. I mean, he was born and raised with the name Clark Kent, and didn’t get the moniker Superman until he was already an adult.

In any case, the first movie is an all time classic (time travel weirdness aside), but I enjoy Superman II even more. Part of this is because the portrayal of General Zod, (providing Superman with three enemies who are equal to his power level that are legitimately intimidating) is a much better choice for a villain than the “Gene Hackman and his wacky henchman” comedy hour. But I also like the arc that Superman gets as a character. Like I said earlier, we still can relate to him because we see that he isn’t infallible and he does have flaws and makes bad decisions at times.

The most obvious case of this, of course, is when he decides to give up his powers to try to live a normal life. On paper, this is an incredibility selfish decision, to no longer protect people so he can settle down, but even though the audience knows that this is a selfish and bad move we still can’t help but feel sorry for him and see where he was coming for him, and we don’t lose sympathy for him. We see him contemplating the misery of the fact that, as Superman, he’ll never be able to have a truly happy life, and his chemistry with Lois is good enough that we can feel why he would succumb to such a decision. And then when he gets beat up by the guy hitting on Lois later on, we see in Reeve’s face that he knows he’s made a bad decision and didn’t fully understand the consequences, and he eventually learns from his mistake.

Regarding Superman II, one thing I really like is how at the end, Superman uses his wit and ingenuity to defeat the villain rather than just his brawn or actual powers. The moment where he crushes Zod’s hand and we realize that he reversed the power draining technology is fantastically satisfying.

On another note, in both of the first two movies the special effects still hold up today for the most part, and are incredible for the time they were built. Donner’s intention was to make the audience believe that a man could fly, and he most certainly did.

I only want to briefly touch on the last two films, and only relating to the character himself. Obviously, everyone knows that they’re total crap. In Superman III, the idea of creating an evil Superman was a potentially great idea, as it could have dealt with his latent feelings of superiority over the rest of the humans, and we could see the real terror that could happen if he turned bad. Instead, we never really get a glimpse of what could possibly fuel the evil Superman’s intentions, or really what the real Superman was thinking underneath it all while he was under the influence of the fake Kryptonite. And all he really does is stupid acts of vandalism that are played for laughs – straightening the Leaning Tower of Pisa, hardy har har. Superman 4, as you know, is probably even worse, but I don’t even want to begin to describe the philosophical problems inherit in that film. Superman decides to get rid of all nuclear weapons…everyone is okay with it and hands them over…and then at the end of the film Superman decides he shouldn’t interfere with such things but we don’t even really understand what caused him to change his mind. That should tell you all you need to know. Oh, and the visual effects take a complete nosedive, we can see strings when people are flying now and tons of green screens.

Still, what do you think about when you think about Christopher Reeve’s Superman? You don’t think of the Richard Pryor lack-of-comedy hour or bad green screen fights with Nuclear Man. Those movies have been forgotten, buried. I had a lot of problems with Superman Returns, but one thing I’ll give it a huge amount of credit for is deciding to completely ignore the later two films. They chose to ignore them, and so have I, and so should everyone.

No, when people think of Christopher Reeve’s Superman, they think of the majestic scenes, the ability to have a commanding presence even when wearing a colorful costume, they think of the charm, the chemistry he had, the likability, the seamless ability to shift between the majestic Superman and the likable, bumbling Clark Kent on a whim and make us believe that they are different people. It’s the greatest comic book superhero portrayal of all time, and it’s number one on this list.


In any case, that wraps up my rankings for good. I hope you guys enjoyed reading it. Obviously no one else is going to go through and rank all of them, but I would be very interested in seeing other people’s lists of what their top and bottom fives (or even tens) would be. Thanks for reading!


Last edited by bbf2; 01-08-2013 at 07:43 PM.
bbf2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:01 PM.

monitoring_string = "dee460792f24517621e3ca080805de7e"
Contact Us - Mobile - SuperHeroHype - ComingSoon.net - Shock Till You Drop - Lost Password - Clear Cookies - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Top - AdChoices


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SuperHeroHype.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.