Comics So JMS and Joey Q know they screwed up...

[WOLVERINE25TH]

No, not just comic fans, Keaton & Burton fans as well. Ya know, th' first two movies that began said franchise?

Didn't I say FF was one that took it too far? I found it enjoyable regardless, BTW. That flexibility I was talkin' about.

 

[Gregatron]

No, not just comic fans, Keaton & Burton fans as well. Ya know, th' first two movies that began said franchise?

Didn't I say FF was one that took it too far? I found it enjoyable regardless, BTW. That flexibility I was talkin' about.

But audiences liked it, and it did well financially, despite the fact that it was "The Fantastic Four as seen through Dr. Doom's eyes". I wanted to vomit.

Burton and Keaton aren't ones to talk. The tone of the first Batman film was right, but the details were all wrong. And Burton said he didn't want to "do a movie about a gut with a square jaw and a big chest". Instead, Burton felt that Batman was "crazy". Sigh.

 

[WOLVERINE25TH]

How old are you?

 

[Doc Destruction]

The changes I mentioned as being good, by the way, did not detract from the CONCEPT of the character. His very foundations. May finding out he was Spider-Man did not tear apart the ESSENCE of the character. Not like giant, poison-dripping claws do.

If Spidey had joined the REAL Avengers, that would have been progress in character without changing the fundamentals. He wouldn't HAVE to unmask, stay at the mansion, be there 24/7, etc. because the REAL Avengers weren't like that. Read Spider-Girl to find out what I mean.

 

[Gregatron]

How old are you?

Over 21.

 

[Gregatron]

The changes I mentioned as being good, by the way, did not detract from the CONCEPT of the character. His very foundations. May finding out he was Spider-Man did not tear apart the ESSENCE of the character. Not like giant, poison-dripping claws do.

If Spidey had joined the REAL Avengers, that would have been progress in character without changing the fundamentals. He wouldn't HAVE to unmask, stay at the mansion, be there 24/7, etc. because the REAL Avengers weren't like that. Read Spider-Girl to find out what I mean.

If Spider-Man isn't afraid that May could learn his identity and die from shock, then he might as well reveal himself to the world.

If Spider-Man is an Avenger, then he isn't a misunderstood loner.

 

[Norman Osborn]

If Spider-Man isn't afraid that May could learn his identity and die from shock, then he might as well reveal himself to the world.

Disagree, he'd still have to worry about the danger May and MJ would be in if his identity was known by the masses including arch villains.

If Spider-Man is an Avenger, then he isn't a misunderstood loner.

Agreed....he's poorly written in it and it does (how significantly is up for debate) take away from who he is....

 

[Gregatron]

Disagree, he'd still have to worry about the danger May and MJ would be in if his identity was known by the masses including arch villains.

Why worry? He can just stab the threats, or cast a mystical Spider-Spell on them, or get some Iron Man armor from his boss for Aunt May and Mary Jane to wear.

 

[Norman Osborn]

Why worry? He can just stab them, or cast a mystical Spider-Spell on them, or get some Iron Man armor from his boss for them to wear.

He can't protect them 24/7......his silly new powers do not negate the fact that revealing himself to the world would increase the danger his loved ones find themselves....and that aint Peter Parker

 

[Doc Destruction]

If Spider-Man isn't afraid that May could learn his identity and die from shock, then he might as well reveal himself to the world.

If Spider-Man is an Avenger, then he isn't a misunderstood loner.

I'm sorry, my examples were set in a world with GOOD writers. I should have clarified.

Lots of Avengers were misunderstood loners. Hell, that was Hawkeye's entire character for a long time.

 

[WOLVERINE25TH]

Yeah, so shocked you'd bypass th' core of th' character like that Greg. For shame.

 

[Gregatron]

Yeah, so shocked you'd bypass th' core of th' character like that Greg. For shame.

I guess this place is rubbing off on me. What can I say?

"'Round and 'round and 'round we go..."

 

[Norman Osborn]

I'm sorry, my examples were set in a world with GOOD writers. I should have clarified.

Lots of Avengers were misunderstood loners. Hell, that was Hawkeye's entire character for a long time.

I always thought if you were going to write Spidey as an Avenger you'd have to:

1/ Ensure it wasn't permanent....Spider-man is not a permanent fixture on any team !!

2/ At this point Spider-man should be the most hated freaking Avenger on the team.....he should be a loose cannon....not a neutered puppy

 

[Gregatron]

I always thought if you were going to write Spidey as an Avenger you'd have to:

1/ Ensure it wasn't permanent....Spider-man is not a permanent fixture on any team !!

2/ At this point Spider-man should be the most hated freaking Avenger on the team.....he should be a loose cannon....not a neutered puppy

Yessir, Mr. Iron Man, sir. Boot shine, sir?

 

[Herr Logan]

But audiences liked it, and it did well financially, despite the fact that it was "The Fantastic Four as seen through Dr. Doom's eyes". I wanted to vomit.

Burton and Keaton aren't ones to talk. The tone of the first Batman film was right, but the details were all wrong. And Burton said he didn't want to "do a movie about a gut with a square jaw and a big chest". Instead, Burton felt that Batman was "crazy". Sigh.

'Fantastic Four' was an obscenity. There is no excuse for what they did to Movie!Doom, and anybody who says that character was actually similar to the real deal from the comics is either a liar or extremely ignorant. That's not merely an opinion, that's a God damn fact. You either know what you're talking about, or you don't, and everyone on these boards who sticks up for Movie!Doom comes off like a pathetic sheep that can't to rise above the childish, tribalistic urges that compel them to be "one of the group" and "positive" about whatever comes their way.
That's not directed at you, by the way... that's just what came to mind just now.


Anyway, I feel the need to say that the Batman is "crazy" in some ways. He's not supposed to be "relatable," and anyone who thinks he is is, again, a liar or devoid of any clue.
The Batman is a guy with a square jaw and a big chest, who also could be described by layman as "crazy." An intelligent discussion of his actual psychopathology would probably be inconclusive, but would cover a lot of different terms including obsessive-compulsive personality disorder, schizoid disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, and others.

Burton's Batman films were very well done in a lot of ways, and Keaton did a better job in costume than anyone else so far, with consideration for the fact that they didn't really give him much to do, speaking-wise.
Still, the Batman doesn't kill, and the excuse they gave for having him do so is something to the effect of "These aren't times when you can just tie up crooks and leave them in front of the police station." Yeah? Well, they also aren't times where you can dress up like a monstrous bat creature and terrorize the underworld with an expensive collection of high-tech equipment. There's absolutely not a shred of argument to be made in defense of the Batman killing, much less anything to do with "realism." Tim Burton doesn't deal in realism, ever.
If the Batman kills, then he's practically legally insane, considering how screwed up he is emotionally and the danger he represents. If he draws a line, then he can still be seen as a hero, and that's what he is and has always been, even in the early days.


That's my off-topic mini-rant for the hour.

 

[Gregatron]

'Fantastic Four' was an obscenity. There is no excuse for what they did to Movie!Doom, and anybody who says that character was actually similar to the real deal from the comics is either a liar or extremely ignorant. That's not merely an opinion, that's a God damn fact. You either know what you're talking about, or you don't, and everyone on these boards who sticks up for Movie!Doom comes off like a pathetic sheep that can't to rise above the childish, tribalistic urges that compel them to be "one of the group" and "positive" about whatever comes their way.
That's not directed at you, by the way... that's just what came to mind just now.


Anyway, I feel the need to say that the Batman is "crazy" in some ways. He's not supposed to be "relatable," and anyone who thinks he is is, again, a liar or devoid of any clue.
The Batman is a guy with a square jaw and a big chest, who also could be described by layman as "crazy." An intelligent discussion of his actual psychopathology would probably be inconclusive, but would cover a lot of different terms including obsessive-compulsive personality disorder, schizoid disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, and others.

Burton's Batman films were very well done in a lot of ways, and Keaton did a better job in costume than anyone else so far, with consideration for the fact that they didn't really give him much to do, speaking-wise.
Still, the Batman doesn't kill, and the excuse they gave for having him do so is something to the effect of "These aren't times when you can just tie up crooks and leave them in front of the police station." Yeah? Well, they also aren't times where you can dress up like a monstrous bat creature and terrorize the underworld with an expensive collection of high-tech equipment. There's absolutely not a shred of argument to be made in defense of the Batman killing, much less anything to do with "realism." Tim Burton doesn't deal in realism, ever.
If the Batman kills, then he's practically legally insane, considering how screwed up he is emotionally and the danger he represents. If he draws a line, then he can still be seen as a hero, and that's what he is and has always been, even in the early days.


That's my off-topic mini-rant for the hour.

The Batman may be the sanest person on earth. The notion that he's crazy only comes from aging fans who don't understand the conceits of the genre (Comic characters wear costumes. Batman dresses like a bat. Deal with it.).

 

[WOLVERINE25TH]

Technically, th' only guy he killed was th' black dude in th' bell tower. Basically th' other mentioned deaths were left ambiguous, so one could assume that Johnny Gobbs got terrified an' fell off th' roof. Returns, we never saw th' clown get blown up so once again, you can fill in yer own blanks.

 

[Herr Logan]

The Batman may be the sanest person on earth. The notion that he's crazy only comes from aging fans who don't understand the conceits of the genre (Comic characters wear costumes. Batman dresses like a bat. Deal with it.).

I'm not saying he truly is insane (which to me means psychotic, not eccentric, and I don't believe in the legal definition of insane-- being able to tell "right from wrong"). I'm saying laypeople might call him that because he truly is a disturbed individual, and in general people toss the word "crazy" around a lot in those situations. It's not about the costume, and I have never been against iconic heroes wearing their iconic costumes. It's what he does with his time, how he thinks, how he interacts. It's what's in his head and how he projects it toward other people, not what's in his wardrobe.

I'm not against the "craziness" either, as long as it's contained and presented faithfully. I like the vague but deep psychopathology that surrounds the Batman. That stuff is very interesting for me, and I can still just enjoy the simplistic pleasures of seeing a bad person get scared $hitless by a man in a "crazy" suit.

 

[Herr Logan]

Technically, th' only guy he killed was th' black dude in th' bell tower. Basically th' other mentioned deaths were left ambiguous, so one could assume that Johnny Gobbs got terrified an' fell off th' roof. Returns, we never saw th' clown get blown up so once again, you can fill in yer own blanks.

Oh come on!

What happened to Johnny Gobbs was hearsay and unproven thus far, and we can put the Joker, the Penguin and Catwoman aside for the moment, but the Batman knowingly and willfully attempted to kill the Red Triangle strong man. He strapped a bomb to him and kicked him down a sewer hole, meaning for him to explode. The Batman isn't even supposed to attempt murder, so whether or not the circus guy magically excused himself from the surrounding area in time or not, the Batman is still culpable for a homicide-related crime.

 

[Doc Destruction]

Soooo, how about that Spider-Man?

 

[Herr Logan]

Soooo, how about that Spider-Man?

Way to derail the conversation, Doc!

 

[shinlyle]

Oh come on!

What happened to Johnny Gobbs was hearsay and unproven thus far, and we can put the Joker, the Penguin and Catwoman aside for the moment, but the Batman knowingly and willfully attempted to kill the Red Triangle strong man. He strapped a bomb to him and kicked him down a sewer hole, meaning for him to explode. The Batman isn't even supposed to attempt murder, so whether or not the circus guy magically excused himself from the surrounding area in time or not, the Batman is still culpable for a homicide-related crime.

Thank you.

I can suspend my disbelief somewhat, but watching Batman strap a bomb to a guy's chest, knock him into a pit, and then, not 2 seconds later, the bomb goes off, that's murder. There is no "Fillin' in th' blanks' " about it. He killed that guy. Even if the guy could have gotten the bomb off in the two seconds he was in the air, he couldn't have done wnything with it. He might have been burned to death or died from the concussion as opposed to being blown to bits.

 

[WOLVERINE25TH]

*****, *****, *****, *****, *****. Th' only nitpick we should have about Returns is how in th' hell Penguin got th' blueprints fer th' Batmobile!

 

[Infinity9999x]

'Fantastic Four' was an obscenity. There is no excuse for what they did to Movie!Doom, and anybody who says that character was actually similar to the real deal from the comics is either a liar or extremely ignorant. That's not merely an opinion, that's a God damn fact. You either know what you're talking about, or you don't, and everyone on these boards who sticks up for Movie!Doom comes off like a pathetic sheep that can't to rise above the childish, tribalistic urges that compel them to be "one of the group" and "positive" about whatever comes their way.
That's not directed at you, by the way... that's just what came to mind just now.


Anyway, I feel the need to say that the Batman is "crazy" in some ways. He's not supposed to be "relatable," and anyone who thinks he is is, again, a liar or devoid of any clue.
The Batman is a guy with a square jaw and a big chest, who also could be described by layman as "crazy." An intelligent discussion of his actual psychopathology would probably be inconclusive, but would cover a lot of different terms including obsessive-compulsive personality disorder, schizoid disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, and others.

Burton's Batman films were very well done in a lot of ways, and Keaton did a better job in costume than anyone else so far, with consideration for the fact that they didn't really give him much to do, speaking-wise.
Still, the Batman doesn't kill, and the excuse they gave for having him do so is something to the effect of "These aren't times when you can just tie up crooks and leave them in front of the police station." Yeah? Well, they also aren't times where you can dress up like a monstrous bat creature and terrorize the underworld with an expensive collection of high-tech equipment. There's absolutely not a shred of argument to be made in defense of the Batman killing, much less anything to do with "realism." Tim Burton doesn't deal in realism, ever.
If the Batman kills, then he's practically legally insane, considering how screwed up he is emotionally and the danger he represents. If he draws a line, then he can still be seen as a hero, and that's what he is and has always been, even in the early days.


That's my off-topic mini-rant for the hour.

Ya know one thing Herr, I find myself whenever I go to a movie anymore, I just totally distance myself from the book now. Ever Since I saw white fang as a little kid, and was appaled at how much they changed it from the book, I come to movies expecting the worst, and If I'm lucky leave pleasantly surprised. (like V.)

Now I know we shouldn't have to do that when we go to movies, and that the producers are perfectly capable of making movies much more accurate to their source material, but they never are, and when I go to the movies I go to get away from reality for a little while and enjoy myself.

I still did enjoy fantastic four as a movie, I've never been a big FF buff, but I did know enough to realise how badly they buthered Doom's character, but it's like I said. I went to the movie theater because I wanted to see a movie, forget about real life for a little while and enjoy it, and if the movie does screw it up, I can always go rent out one of the essentials if I want to see the characters at their best.

Thats why I still enjoyed the SM movies, despite the glaring changes to parts of his character, and some of those changes still irk me pretty bad, but I suppose I've just gotten to the point now where I can appreciate the movie for it's good parts and what it is. Besidies its not like a movie will ever be able to match the fantasies we paint in our heads of our characters. I may be sounding a little "corporate sheepish" to you at the moment, but that's just my veiw on the matter.

That said, Spidey better tell some more God Damn F*C*ing jokes this time around.

 

[Herr Logan]

*****, *****, *****, *****, *****. Th' only nitpick we should have about Returns is how in th' hell Penguin got th' blueprints fer th' Batmobile!

Don't tell me what I should or should not "nitpick," boy. The fact that I'm willing to do so in the first place puts me above half the people on these boards, since I can think for myself and others don't want to rock the boat with a little thing called critical thinking. Don't even dream that I'll lower myself to being a frightened whelp who's afraid to be called a "whiner."