I Am Doom....discuss me [merged-2]

[Docker2.0]

DC Comics BEST Hero meets Marvel Comics BEST Villian:

They met? Wow! Doom is smooth. What comic was this?

 

[Captain Walrus]

Why would you suggest such a thing? Do you automatically decide that you should take on a project your yourself that would cost millions of dollars when you notice something isn't being done satisfactorily?

I guess I have to start using [sarcasm] tags.

Ah, you don't have that problem, right? Obviously you must be employed by the companies involved in this movie and therefore directly benefit from them doing things the way they are, right? Otherwise, you couldn't possibly have a valid reason for throwing the same hollow, false, cliche, disrespectful excuses at me. Only peurile sheep believe that crap, and I can at least respect that an employee at Marvel Films has a duty to sell it, but I can't respect anyone who doesn't directly gain from buying into such nonsense.

What the f**k are you babbling about? You obviously have no grasp on reality. If you really want me to, I will explain capitalism to you and its effect on the movie industry.

Thank you, child, for proving once again you're not in any possible way a threat to my arguments.

No one can threaten the arguements made by an illogical fanboy. At least, not in the mind of the fanboy.

 

[Herr Logan]

Goodness me, I've been labeled a "fanboy" on a site made for comic book superhero movies! How will I ever live down the shame?

Good work, plebeian, you're starting off like dozens of other newbies I've seen appear in recent months: spew a bunch of completely unoriginal and conformist tripe at people who expect better. I guess we can't all live down to the expectations of focus groups and greedy CEOs. Don't I feel awfully sad to be excluded from their perfect little demographics. Please, ask me again what I'm babbling about so I can be sure you can't comprehend what's in front of you, instead of simply making an educated guess.

 

[Captain Walrus]

Goodness me, I've been labeled a "fanboy" on a site made for comic book superhero movies! How will I ever live down the shame?

Correction: I labeled you an illogical fanboy.

Good work, plebeian, you're starting off like dozens of other newbies I've seen appear in recent months: spew a bunch of completely unoriginal and conformist tripe at people who expect better. I guess we can't all live down to the expectations of focus groups and greedy CEOs. Don't I feel awfully sad to be excluded from their perfect little demographics.

Oooooh 'plebeian', such a large vocabulary. Hmm, it sounds like you hate CEOs, is that why the change in Doom irritates you beyond comprehension? Please! No! NOT A NEWBIE...just like everyone else was at some point. And besides, I've visited this site many times before. It was this arguement that "Since Doom has been changed, the movie will blow" that made me join and respond.

Please, ask me again what I'm babbling about so I can be sure you can't comprehend what's in front of you, instead of simply making an educated guess.

See, I like to give people a chance to clarify, unlike when you make an "educated guess" and completely misinterpret a post.


Now, let me simplify everything:
1) Doom's changes are not perfect and no one has to like them.
2) Doom's changes, however, do not necessarily change the core of his character.
3) A comic movie production involves reaching out to broad audiences, not just the comic fans.
4) This is not a comic on film, it is a comic adaptation.
5) The movie may blow, but I like to think they can pull it off. Like how the X-Men movies were very good.

 

[Herr Logan]

1) True.
2) False.
3) I'm supposed to do what exactly with this "information"? This is not only recycled, brainwashed, PR-distributed bull$hit, it's completely irrelevent to this thread.
4) Try using your brain, not the copy/paste function of your computer. See above.
5) Irrelevant.

 

[The Navigator]

To Cap'n Walrus:
You're calling the guy with 4,367 more posts than you a newbie? That's an interesting way of doing math.

And what do you mean, they don't change the core of his character? He goes from ruler of a small but nuclear-capable country that still goes by the monarchy system to a CEO. Like Norman Osborn, except Willem Dafoe was cool in that movie.
And a comic adaptation IS a comic on film...maybe not holding up the pages to the camera and flipping through them, but certainly faithfulness to the source material would have been appreciated. (For example: Spider-Man. Very faithful to the source with some "modernizing" changes: breaks box ofice records within its opening week and re-introduces the world to the coolness of Spidey. Catwoman: bastardizes everything about the central character and scores the sum total of $17 million in its opening weekend, and adds another notch on the list of WB's blunders.)
And before you answer, making Doom a CEO isn't a "modernizing" change. A modernizing change is taking a radioactive spider and altering it to a genetically engineered spider to better suit the times. Since we now know radioactive spiders won't do much more than give you radiation poisoning, "genetically engineered" fits the bill. Doom functioned as a monarch IN MODERN TIMES. He was a great character because he operated in a throwback environment while operating with technology and science (and magic) ahead of his time. Making him a CEO actually downgrades him, and therefore isn't "modernizing" at all.
Just so ya know.

 

[The Navigator]

They met? Wow! Doom is smooth. What comic was this?

He says something a WEE bit different in the actual book...but yeah, Doom pretty much blackmails Supes.

 

[Herr Logan]

To Cap'n Walrus:
You're calling the guy with 4,367 more posts than you a newbie? That's an interesting way of doing math.

And what do you mean, they don't change the core of his character? He goes from ruler of a small but nuclear-capable country that still goes by the monarchy system to a CEO. Like Norman Osborn, except Willem Dafoe was cool in that movie.
And a comic adaptation IS a comic on film...maybe not holding up the pages to the camera and flipping through them, but certainly faithfulness to the source material would have been appreciated. (For example: Spider-Man. Very faithful to the source with some "modernizing" changes: breaks box ofice records within its opening week and re-introduces the world to the coolness of Spidey. Catwoman: bastardizes everything about the central character and scores the sum total of $17 million in its opening weekend, and adds another notch on the list of WB's blunders.)
And before you answer, making Doom a CEO isn't a "modernizing" change. A modernizing change is taking a radioactive spider and altering it to a genetically engineered spider to better suit the times. Since we now know radioactive spiders won't do much more than give you radiation poisoning, "genetically engineered" fits the bill. Doom functioned as a monarch IN MODERN TIMES. He was a great character because he operated in a throwback environment while operating with technology and science (and magic) ahead of his time. Making him a CEO actually downgrades him, and therefore isn't "modernizing" at all.
Just so ya know.

I feel that "Spider-Man" was a drastic artistic failure when it came to translating the character-- not cosmetically, but writing-wise. Also, I don't think for one second that a genetically altered spider passing on its traits though a bite is any more believable than a radioactive spider. The best thing would have been a genetically engineered spider that got irradiated.

You mentioned Norman Osborn. I'd like to use him as a partial example of a change that could either be considered positive or neutral. Norman Osborn was the president or co-president of his chemical company in the comics. After he got rid of his partner, Mendell Stromm, Osborn took a performance enhancing formula that made him smarter and stronger, and he used mechanical ingenuity and chemical aptitude to fight Spider-Man. The big difference here is that Norman Osborn is an actual scientist and is making these items for the military, which I believe adds an acceptable amount of realism and relevance and does not betray the original character. Instead of a guy who ran only the business end of things getting smarter and using chemistry to make himself formidable, he started out as a scientist. His status isn't changed drastically by this change. I can't see how it might matter to the "general audience" whether or not Osborn was just the businessman or a scientist businessman, but it doesn't hurt anything and it may-- subjectively speaking-- enhance it. Keep in mind, I'm not saying the whole character of the Green Goblin was done well in the movie, but I feel this aspect was.

 

[The Navigator]

I feel that "Spider-Man" was a drastic artistic failure when it came to translating the character-- not cosmetically, but writing-wise. Also, I don't think for one second that a genetically altered spider passing on its traits though a bite is any more believable than a radioactive spider. The best thing would have been a genetically engineered spider that got irradiated.

You mentioned Norman Osborn. I'd like to use him as a partial example of a change that could either be considered positive or neutral. Norman Osborn was the president or co-president of his chemical company in the comics. After he got rid of his partner, Mendell Stromm, Osborn took a performance enhancing formula that made him smarter and stronger, and he used mechanical ingenuity and chemical aptitude to fight Spider-Man. The big difference here is that Norman Osborn is an actual scientist and is making these items for the military, which I believe adds an acceptable amount of realism and relevance and does not betray the original character. Instead of a guy who ran only the business end of things getting smarter and using chemistry to make himself formidable, he started out as a scientist. His status isn't changed drastically by this change. I can't see how it might matter to the "general audience" whether or not Osborn was just the businessman or a scientist businessman, but it doesn't hurt anything and it may-- subjectively speaking-- enhance it. Keep in mind, I'm not saying the whole character of the Green Goblin was done well in the movie, but I feel this aspect was.

I wasn't going for believability here (since the entire premise is unbelievable), but more which sounds the most pseudo-scientific (and therefore vague)? Radiation is out. Genetic alteration was in. BING! Change made. But a GOOD change, IMO.

Agree with you about Osborn, though. And surely we both agree on CAtwoman, for God's sake...

 

[Herr Logan]

Oh, I didn't see "Catwoman," but I think I can rest assured it was the paragon to which all disrespectful, talentless, pretentious, unworthy filmmakers aspire.

 

[Sardaukar]

Spidey 1 only had one big flaw, and the Green Goblin armor was it.

 

[Herr Logan]

It would take me too long to refute that statement properly, so let's just assume I'm right.

 

[The Navigator]

You're not one of those "man-spider" people, are you?

 

[Herr Logan]

No, I'm not. Mr Parker (one of the two with which I'm familiar) approached me about joining them and I said "no." I've done plenty of lengthy analyses of the entire movie, whereas those idiots just harp on the same singular flaw over and over again for years. I'm absoluely opposed to the organic web-shooters, but that's just one failure on a much larger pile. I know what I'm talking about and have researched the character. Anyone who doesn't take the time to actually take an inventory of Spider-Man's essential elements and honestly examine which did and did not make it into the movie isn't fit to debate this with me, and that includes people who've got nothing more to say than "he's got organic web-shooters, so he's a Man-Spider" for two years straight. Like I said, it would take a hell of a lot of time to earnestly and accurately cover all the flaws of the movie, and I'm not going to waste my time going all-out unless I know I'm only dealing with someone who's receptive to it and doesn't subscribe to plebeian mentalties the likes of which Captain Walrus and his ilk display.

 

[The Navigator]

No, I'm not. Mr Parker (one of the two with which I'm familiar) approached me about joining them and I said "no." I've done plenty of lengthy analyses of the entire movie, whereas those idiots just harp on the same singular flaw over and over again for years. I'm absoluely opposed to the organic web-shooters, but that's just one failure on a much larger pile. I know what I'm talking about and have researched the character. Anyone who doesn't take the time to actually take an inventory of Spider-Man's essential elements and honestly examine which did and did not make it into the movie isn't fit to debate this with me, and that includes people who've got nothing more to say than "he's got organic web-shooters, so he's a Man-Spider" for two years straight. Like I said, it would take a hell of a lot of time to earnestly and accurately cover all the flaws of the movie, and I'm not going to waste my time going all-out unless I know I'm only dealing with someone who's receptive to it and doesn't subscribe to plebeian mentalties the likes of which Captain Walrus and his ilk display.

Well, thank you. Nice to know you operate on more cerebral terms then those guys. WE can,a t least, agree to disagree about the movie civilly without having a whole bunch of "No, YOU'RE a moron!!!" posts. Hats off to you, Logan.

 

[Herr Logan]

Well, thank you. Nice to know you operate on more cerebral terms then those guys. WE can,a t least, agree to disagree about the movie civilly without having a whole bunch of "No, YOU'RE a moron!!!" posts. Hats off to you, Logan.

Got your hat! *runs away giggling*

No one accuses me of being civil! No one!!

 

[The Navigator]

BAH!

I'll just whip it out of your hand whenever I feel like it, so no harm done.

 

[Herr Logan]

Bah! I hate wasted labors!

 

[The Navigator]

Bah! I hate wasted labors!

Hehehe...Oncea gain, Herr Logan, we see there is nothing you can possess which I cannot take away.

 

[Herr Logan]

You can't take the last word!

 

[The Navigator]

Pfft. Sure I can.

 

[Herr Logan]

This was posted in a different thread regarding Doom. I don't know if it was posted here, but this is a pretty good overview of who and what Dr. Doom is and should be in a movie: A glimpse behind the iron mask of Doom.

 

[TheSaintofKillers]

This was posted in a different thread regarding Doom. I don't know if it was posted here, but this is a pretty good overview of who and what Dr. Doom is and should be in a movie: A glimpse behind the iron mask of Doom.

Wow, greatest thing I read this whole week. Heck, greatest doom thesis I've ever read.

And btw, I agree with most of this guy's points!

 

[Darko]

DC Comics BEST Hero meets Marvel Comics BEST Villian:

Touche. What was the orginal line??

 

[Herr Logan]

Wow, greatest thing I read this whole week. Heck, greatest doom thesis I've ever read.

And btw, I agree with most of this guy's points!

Yeah, me too. It realy puts it into perspective, just how much freedom truly matters to us, regardless of the rhetoric we hear and spew every day. Our government fails us in almost every way that is important, yet we are free (supposedly, and for God knows how much longer) to speak out against them, but Dr. Doom delivers the goods and does not allow dissention. I think it's at least the kind of trade people should consider. One of my biggest [rational] fear is violent crime fear my loved ones will be victimized or I will be victimized and no longer be able to protect those I love. If we lived in Doom's society, I'd have much less to fear in terms of crime. As long as there was good education, health care, protection and I could play video games, hell, why not accept a dictator that doesn't claim he's a leader of freedom over one that puts on a disguise?