I swear I can't escape this suckhole! So on to more open mocking -
Hello there Spidey!
some of these answers may be rushed - I am still short on time until tomorrow.
I'm sure you're never at a loss for excuses as to your poorly presented views.
I already mentioned that if you have Thor defeat Loki in the Thor movie it would be stupid to use Loki as the main villain within the Avengers movie because it diminishes him.
If you have already proved that Thor > Loki,
then Thor + rest of the Avengers >> Loki.
Either way, using Loki in the Avengers movie is a bad idea. Ergo we are debating.
Here's a Thor-sized challenge for you. SHOW ME where I said Thor should beat Loki!
Seemingly there are a lot of things beyond your ability to comprehend.
Such as how you can fit all the things you pull out of your ass up there at one time!
Actually given its a niche product within a niche its selling well.
Yet another comment made by you that basically says nothing.
But then again, if you didn't make personal comments you're posts would be rather anaemic of actual content, wouldn't they.
And if you actually presented any (recognized) substantiation for any of your views, perhaps your posts WOULDN'T be so deficient of substance!
Well sometimes that happens when you debate with people who don't have actual points to make.
Let me see if I've got this straight: Sometimes you fail to discern inferred sarcasm if someone 'doesn't have an actual point to make'? What kind of nonsense is that? Nevermind, forgot for a sec who I was talking to! AND if my posts are 'anaemic of content', if I don't make 'actual points', what the hell have you been responding to? You contradict yourself at every turn!
Okay, so can we just clarify you are changing your earlier appeal to authority (in this case Walt Simonson) to support your position?
If I'm myopic, you're totally blind. I never appealed to Simonson's authority to support my position. Show me where I did. I used him as an example to prove your inferrence that lack of knowledge of Thor was grounds for not having the right to say what would be good in a Thor film didn't really matter because even if someone who IS an authority on Thor (such as Simonson) agreed with what I said, you'd say THEY didn't know what they were talking about! I KNOW Simonson is an authority on Thor. That means having knowledge of Thor and the facts about him. That has nothing to do with his OPINION about the upcoming Thor movie. You twist things so in your mind to be able to believe that you are right when you're in fact so far from it!
No, I meant you were speaking nonsense. Therefore if you accused me of it - then I was speaking your language.
Speaking of nonsense, you never did clarify your little 'most powerful threat' contradiction. I guess you've made so many of them, it's kinda hard to keep up!
Even when you were in the discussion you had nothing to back your argument up.
I backed up everything unless it was my opinion in which case I said it was my opinion. Show me where I made a claim that wasn't opinion that I didn't provide some reference. I've given examples left and right as anyone WITH eyesight can plainly see. YOU are the one throwing out vague references - "Six comics = 120 minute script" or "Yeah, I just talked to Walt Simonson and he said HE wouldn't put Asgard in the first film" or just "That would be a bad idea (as if it's fact)" - without any substantiation.
George Lucas has, on many occasions specifically noted that the Empire Strikes Back was "Act 2" of the larger story (the Star Wars trilogy).
I wouldn't necessarily describe the ending of Empire as a 'cliffhangar'. But by that stage it was pretty clear it was Act 2 of three.
Just another example of you trying to weasel out of a corner you've boxed yourself into: You say that 3-year cliffhangers are useless in movies, then I point out ESB, and you say you don't necessarily see it as a cliffhanger??? Definition of cliffhanger from answers.com:
"A
cliffhanger or
cliffhanger ending is
a plot device in which a movie, novel, or other work of fiction contains an ending often leaving the main characters in a precarious or difficult situation. This type of ending is used to ensure that, if a next installment is made, audiences will return to find out how the cliffhanger is resolved." Hmm, yes, nothing like what happened to Han Solo at the end of Empire, right? You need help beyond even the powers of Odin!
There is a difference between anticipation and dependency. What you were initially suggesting seemed like dependency.
You know, in lightof your interest in playing D&D type games and nowthis comment, I seriously question how in touch with reality you really are.
No what I am saying is that those movies worked as self contained pieces. They resolved the stories they were telling. What you were suggesting seemed to require a second movie to resolve the initial story.
Ok, fantasyboy, Empire ended with Han encased in carbonite being taken to Jabba by Boba Fett and Luke reeling from Darth Vader telling him that he is his father. Then there's the question left by Yoda's reply to Obi wan's claim that Luke is their last hope, "No, there is another." Yup, everything tied up in a neat little package. There was certainly no reason for another film to resolve all that. (hope you didn't miss the sarcasm since that often escapes your attention) I don't see how you could even watch this movie as it completely contradicts what you believe, but then contradiction is what you're all about.
Chalk up another personal attack by the man with nothing else to add.
Everything you have said indicates the only format your mind can conceive of are stories that are each begun and resolved within a single movie. According to you, each story has to follow a single specific format that is the same for ALL movies. I call that paint-by-the-numbers, cookie-cutter writing, i.e. repeating what's been done over and over. If you see that as a personal attack, that's not my problem
Correct. But each of these movies must work independantly unless its as part of a larger story, whereupon you should really follow the three act format, spread over three movies.
What you are suggesting is to spread the larger story over two movies, and then you trump that by suggesting we put the second part in a totally different franchise!
YES, and tell me why it wouldn't work with some other reply than, "it's illogical" or "it can't be done that way".
Given your writing credentials I'd really love to see your synopsis of each act to see how you intend to make that work.
You already saw my Cap idea. All Iron Man really needs to do is esablish Stark's link to SHIELD thru Fury (which they seem to be doing with Sam Jackson being in IM). Thor could be an epic LOTR type movie that takes place in Asgard with a huge battle at the end between the armies of Asgard and Loki with his army made up of some giant creatures (trolls, ogres, etc). At the end Loki could escape and Odin could say, "I fear we'll have to deal with your brother again, but for now Asgard is safe!" The Avengers could begin with Odin telling Thor he must go to earth as loki is there, plotting some diabolical scheme. Just as Cap is discovered frozen, the Hulk goes on a rampage, seemingly against his character as a hero as established in the Incredible Hulk movie (from what I've read). Fury, putting 2 and 2 together with the discovery of Cap and the presence of Iron man, concocts the idea of a team of superpowered heroes to go an stop the Hulk. Ant man, SHIELD's top resident scientist, would be included. Meanwhile, Loki sensing Thor closing in on him, sics the Hulk on him. The fight is soon joined by the others. Finally Thor realizes that Loki is behind all of it and he goes off and captures his brother, thus ending the conflict ala comic Avengers #1.
Marvel 2-in-1 #17 and Marvel Team up #47 just to name one crossover. MArvel was constantly doing that! Why? Because it caused people to buy issues in a series they might not normally read. But please continue to live in denial.
Thats because its not whats best for the Thor franchise.
Says you. I sure wish I could be there to watch your head explode if this is in fact the route they take!
t:
Actually it sounds okay, although I might be worried about two things. Firstly, part of Captain America's USP is that he is a man out of time. None of that will be touched upon in your movie and is such an ensemble piece like the Avengers (where there will be so much going on) the best place to introduce it.
Secondly, I would be concerned about setting the war movie tone for the Captain America franchise, because after you do a "Saving Private Ryan" its seemingly all downhill from there, or at least it would be difficult to capture that sort of epic backdrop that a World War provides in the modern era without an alien invasion (as with the Ultimates) or giantish invasion (as with Ultimates 2)...and yes I know Ultimates 2 features Loki as the villain but at that point Loki had not already been defeated by Thor. Not that both the above ideas are ensemble pieces too.
I'm sort of in agreement that Captain America will work better as a period piece, but I really think that it will diminish future installments.
But then again I am not sure if Captain America could sustain a trilogy of movies in his own right (but then again I am only about as familiar with Cap as your are with Thor).
A) Cap WASN'T about a man out of time in his first Simon-Kirby incarnation. He was a WW2 American super soldier fighting Hitler! He only became a man out of time when he was revived in Avengers #3.
B) That would be like saying, well after Star Wars they may as well not make anymore fantasy space adventures or after LOTR they shouldn't make anymore sword and sorcery fantasy films!
I'll go on record as saying that unless they place Thor in Asgard (which will appeal to the LOTR crowd) Thor will be the weakest of the bunch, and will stand the least chance of sustaining a trilogy. The only thing that could make Cap a contender for that honor is the current feelings toward America by the world at large, another reason to make the first Cap movie a WW2 piece, a time when America was viewed more positively by the world. I also thing Spielberg should direct the first Cap film!
You can't have your cake and eat it. Either you neuter Thor (by having him lose) or you neuter Loki (by having him lose).
I've explained my position on this point for the last time.
Well, then I hope you're Welsh as the other two options are more miserable than the English. Well, at least the Irish can keep a bit of good humor about them in the midst of their troubles so that improves your odds just as long as you're not scotish.
They had/have the same opportunities to voice their opinions as I did.
Another one right over your head. I was refering to you having the audacity to call anyone else 'blinkered'.
...and its a ridiculous assertion because...?
...it usually takes me less than 15 minutes to read one. The fact that I have to explain this says a lot!
At the time we were discussing how the movie should be based on the comic origins - I stated that it didn't necessarily need to be based on the very first issue (in Thor's case this would mean using the Stonemen - which would be stupid) because the length of a movie (in comic book format) is about six issues.
Another contradiction: Hmmm, now let me see, where did they show Thor's origin? Oh yes, THE VERY FIRST ISSUE!
If you knew about it, then you shouldn't have questioned the comment when I made it in the first place. You caused this whole side-debate which was nothing more than a nitpick.
What I knew about was 1 page of a movie script roughly = 1 minute of screen time. This whole '1 comic book page = 1 minute of screen time' notion of yours is ludicrous. And this coming from someone who isn't even an advocate of using 'whole comics' to translate to film anyway! You're whack!
It was in one of the recent (a few months ago I think) articles on Newsarama. Might have been by JMS or CB Cebulski or some other luminary.
Well, I was just talking to Stan Lee the other day and he said Thor was a girl! Hey, if you can do it, so can I!
Obviously a scene in motion takes longer to play out than looking at a single frame on a page.
So dialogue takes longer to speak onscreen than it does to read from a comic? A punch takes longer on the screen than it takes to look at in a comic book panel?! The narrative in a comic wouldn't count for elapsed screentime??! More idiotic statements!
Of course, and based on your comments it was the only logical interpretation at that time.
So instead of asking for clarification you just decided to go ahead and ASSume? Real intellegent, einstein!
Secondly, none of the above makes you right.
Yes, it does. You contended that I didn't know that 1 page of a movie script = 1 minute of screen time. You were wrong, I was right.
Thor is written as less intelligently within the Avengers to make the other heroes look better and seem relevant.
So he could be written the same way for the movie and the Avengers conflict with the Hulk would be perfectly acceptable to you!
It was only insinuated after
...after? ...after...what? You must've had a brain fart. When you made the insinuation is irrelevant.
There may be some big words on there - I can see how that would be challenging for you.
Show me where I said anything was a challenge other than in trying to stay awake (again you missed the sarcasm in relation to the snore-inducing writing on your webpage). This is just too easy!
No, you challenged me on several points such as a lack of imagination, ability to construct/understand a story as well as certain issues I raised about parallels between comics and movie scripts and I replied with those details. I didn't use those details to make my arguments.
You don't use ANYTHING to make your arguments. You pull some vague reference about a recent magazine article to back up your claim about the relationship between comic pages and movie screentime and expect anyone to accept that as fact? All you give is your opinion and expect it to be accepted as law. Don't hold your breath.
You may as well, thats about all you have left.
Yes, because I've already made my points more than once with references to back them up (unless they were my opinion which no more or less valid than yours) to back them up and you still keep coming back with unsubstantiated babble about stuff that doesn't necessarily even relate to my comments! What YOU have left is a list of challenges which you have yet failed to answer such as you saying all that's important is the Avengers facing a challenge that is 'seemingly' too great for them to overcome and then asking about the Hulk, "Did he win?"
...and if they make Captain America a woman, Hulk an alien and Iron Man a robot it could be amazing too! Just think of the possibilities!!!
...you making a statement that remotely borders on intellegent. No, sorry, beyond the realm of possibility!!!
However, its not about what might be merely good, its about whats best!
So, if the first movie is the best, then according to your logic it can only be downhill from there, right? As I said, you can always do better, go further, so 'best' is rendered meaningless.
If I was English I might even care.
Well since England rules Great Britain, I'd think you'd care a little.
Not content with openly (trying to) insult me, you also insult everyone at the Superman forums.
t:
Wow, you're so pitiful! Now you're trying to garner support for your sad case by twisting my words to pit me against EVERYONE at the Superman forums? A) how do you turn 'someone' into 'everyone at the superman forums'? and B) are you insinuating that EVERYONE at the superman forums debated with you for 8 months about SR? I am succeeding at insulting you and it is almost too easy when all I have to do redirect you back to your own shame-inducing (if you had any shame) comments!
t:
Then they could team up to fight a common foe.
) Instead of using the Hulk as the climax we instead 'borrow' the Ultimates storyline to a small degree and have a Giant/Troll invasion of Earth it might work better since my movie doesn't feature Loki at the climax even though hes the main villain...you'd have to read it to understand. So there is an element of the unresolved about Loki, even though Thor defeated his first plan to conquer the Earth.
