The Daily Planet - Superman News and Speculation Thread (🚨SPOILERS🚨)

Burton's had more respect for the novel, right down to the Oompah-Loompah's songs being straight from the book. Ok, Depp's Wonka, both the performance and the backstory, were the worst part, but the set design, the tone, the direction, it all felt like Dahl.
Opinions are like…belly buttons. Everyone has one.
And here is mine:

Burton’s Charlie and the Chocolate Factory is the best version because it is the most faithful to the source material. (I’m a huge Dahl fan.)

The Boris Karloff Grinch is the best. But Cumberbatch is a close second. It’s not faithful, but I appreciate what they did with it, I thought it brilliant to explore Grinch’s mental health. It tried something different while coming away with a more hopeful and brighter take on the character.

Snyder’s Superman didn’t try something new. It was an example of a storyteller being embarrassed of the character he was writing so he changed his core, rather than embracing or celebrating it.
 
This is an argument of a 2nd grader. Like if two kids are given a math test. One answers the questions correctly and the other drew flames on a turd, you'd give more credit to the second one for being "more interesting". No, it's just a flaming turd.

And this is the reply of a jerk. How hard is it to be respectful?

The poor guy was expressing his preference, not presenting an argument. I’d expect you, as a lawyer, to be able to distinguish logic from opinion, but you seem far too self-absorbed in being “right.”

Using your logic, Paul Wonka's movie took more risk. Automatically a more interesting "failure".

But it didn't fail of course. It's bloody awesome and for my money, the best Wonka film.

Let me introduce you to your opinion here.
 
And this is the reply of a jerk. How hard is it to be respectful?

The poor guy was expressing his preference, not presenting an argument. I’d expect you, as a lawyer, to be able to distinguish logic from opinion, but you seem far too self-absorbed in being “right.”
What is disrespectful about the reply?

"The poor guy".

Who said I was a lawyer?

Let me introduce you to your opinion here.
Are you okay?
 
I didn't insinuate Killers of the Flower Moon was a failure; I meant it's an example of doing a risky movie. By all accounts, it did as well as it could have possibly done and the general public, outside the usual suspects, did seem to like it. That's rare, unfortunately.
Read the post again. That is not what I said.
 
If you can’t see what is disrespectful about comparing someone’s cognition to a second grader, then you need to do some serious self-reflection.
I said the argument was that of a second grader.

You decided to call me a jerk. Why?

I confused you with another poster.
So why did you bring it up at all?

I’m perfectly fine.
Then what is that quote? What about the original post suggested I do not understand opinion? Do you think stating one's own opinion invalidates another's?
 
I said the argument was that of a second grader.

You decided to call me a jerk. Why?
I’ve already explained why.

So why did you bring it up at all? To make this somehow personal?
A logical argument takes facts and draws conclusions using those facts. A lawyer knows this. I thought for a moment you were a lawyer. Your objection seemed odd to me from that standpoint, because HBarnill didn’t present a logical argument.

All he (or she) did was express a preference for risky movies over safe movies. That’s a preference, not an argument. There’s nothing you can object to at a logical level. Yet you basically called HBarnill stupid for expressing a preference that you don’t align with.

Dance around it, deny it, act oblivious. Do whatever you want. But that’s what you did, and that’s what was disrespectful.

Then what is that quote? What about the original post suggested I do not understand opinion? Do you think stating one's own opinion invalidates another's?
Explained above.

You called him stupid for his opinion and then shared your own, as if yours was somehow more logical when it was just as emotional as his.
 
Last edited:
I’ve already explained why.
No you haven't.
A logical argument takes facts and draws conclusions using those facts. A lawyer knows this. I thought for a moment you were a lawyer. Your objection seemed odd to me from that standpoint, because HBarnill didn’t present a logical argument.

All he (or she) did was express a preference for risky movies over safe movies. That’s a preference, not an argument. There’s nothing you can object to at a logical level. Yet you basically called HBarnill stupid for expressing a preference that you don’t align with.

Dance around it, deny it, act oblivious. Do whatever you want. But that’s what you did, and that’s what was disrespectful.
I was not arguing preference. I was arguing logic. It's clear you haven't actually read the argument. Because a lot of the basis of the poster's logic, was based on facts that were incorrect.

If the post was simply, I prefer risk, fine. But that's not what was argued. What was argued was, what is and is not safe. And in that, they were making statements of fact.

Like saying Wonka was "safe" because it was crowd pleaser and successful, while insulting a performance in the film for being something they disliked but clearly not based in what came before. Then arguing that Gunn would be making a "safe" Superman movie by making something like Donner, while not acknowledge that Donner's movie made quite a few changes itself. Then arguing that for the quality of Burton's Wonka, by saying it's more like the book. Which is ironically, an argument for "safeness" in this regard.

It's a cooked up mess of logic, that continually contradicts itself, because it's an argument aimed to simply insult Gunn's Superman. Which I'm more then fine with doing. But that is never where these things stop. Because it's not simply stating a preference. It's trying to prove your preference correct. Which is why there are so many posts.

This poster has done this before in regards to Brosnahan. Where he tried to argue that he was behind her until he found out she was a "nepobaby". Where he lost all respect for her. He did this while praising other nepobabies while using them as a stick to beat her with. Beyond that irony, posts were brought up to show that was not in fact that case.

This is not simple preference.

Explained above.

You called him stupid for his opinion and then shared your own, as if yours was somehow more logical when it was just as emotional as his.
This is not true. At all.
 
So back on topic for Superman, how would you want Brainiac’s skin to look? Natural like skin with green paint or more mechanic and robotic? Assuming he’s in the film
 
So back on topic for Superman, how would you want Brainiac’s skin to look? Natural like skin with green paint or more mechanic and robotic? Assuming he’s in the film

At this point, I'm willing to bet all of @flickchick85 Henry Cavill-Superman posters and collectibles that Brainiac isn't in this film.
 
Depp's Wonka performance is an all timer of awfulness. A lot of Depp's roles from that era are... uhhh... really, really ****ing atrocious lol.
He knew people just wanted Jack Sparrow or something quirky. :o
 
So back on topic for Superman, how would you want Brainiac’s skin to look? Natural like skin with green paint or more mechanic and robotic? Assuming he’s in the film
giphy.gif
 
To answer @Silvermoth 's hypothetical, I will always prefer an organic Brainiac. The Coluans are a race of humanoid people. They should not be machines, imo. Cybernetic (and genetic) augmentations are fine and expected, but I still want there to be real flesh and bone under there.
 
Having earnest and wholesome moments in your film about crude and petty misfits is a very different beast from writing an earnest and wholesome main protagonist.
That's not how I see GOTG honestly. I don't think it's just "earnest and wholesome moments"; I think the themes explored by GOTG are fundamentally wholesome and earnest... even if dark at times.

That being said I agree with the idea that writing Superman (the character) is a whole different beast. Just completely different from all GOTG characters.
 
At this point, I'm willing to bet all of @flickchick85 Henry Cavill-Superman posters and collectibles that Brainiac isn't in this film.
Which I’m perfectly fine with, I’m glad that this movie seems to be starting with lower stakes, specially since MoS did an alien invasion.
 
Brainiac should not be a generic “alien invasion” storyline. He’s much more interesting than that.
Hey I already pitched my alien parasitic AI that goes all Titane by possessing Lex and LexCorp and tries to seduce Superman to join his menagerie of planetary codecs.
 
Are we certain the filming in Atlanta is finished and the team have moved on to Ohio? Wasn't there supposed to be a beach/lake scene to be filmed in GA? I thought for certain we would get something along the lines of pictures from that. Is all we get from the Kent farm is the one from JG? Impressive security if so.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"