Well....Shawn Levy is Directing the Flash

[Saint]

See Wikipedia.org. They list at least 9 alternate versions of the character.

I am aware of what Wiki lists. I addressed that.

Although not all of them are cannon, neither were the films. If you are going to consider the FF (2005) Dr. Doom as an alternate version, then you will have to consider those as well.

I do not consider him an alternate version, because the filmmakers were not adapting an alternate version, they were adapting the original. This means he is a poorly adapted version of the original.

This is something I have spoken of at length elsewhere when faced with this silly "There are other versions in the comics, too!" argument, so I will try to keep it short this time. Comics are not film: comics come out on a monthly basis, and characters can appear in all sorts of different books everything month. That means that if someone wants Ultimate Dr. Doom one month, they can go pick up UFF. If they want real Doom the next month, they can go pick up he MU FF. If they want something completely off the wall, they can go buy a 1602 trade or whatever. That said, if you ask any fan (and fans are the only people that matter, because non-fans won't know and won't care which version is adapted) which version of Doom they want on screen, they will tell you they want the original. The reason for this is because comic book films come out too rarely to risk messing around. We don't want to see "Alternate Doom," we don't want to see "Tim Story's Doom," because if we don't see him now, it's at least three years before we get another chance--and we may never get another chance.

That is why we champion accuracy. We want to see the real deal while we still have the chance. This means nothing to non-fans, who could care less which version is used because they know nothing about the material, but to us it is important because these are the characters we enjoy. We enjoy Batman, not Joel Schumacher's Batman-In-Name-Only. That means when an adaptation is announced, we want to see the characters we know brought to screen, not Tim Story's or Shawn Levy's bastardized versions. We simply do not have the time to waste on versions we are not invested in.

This ties back to my original point about The Flash. Unlike Batman, Superman, or Spider-Man, The Flash only has one chance to be what I want. The Flash does not have the built-in fanbase of those other heroes, so when this film fails (and like Batman & Robin, Steel and Catwoman before it, it will fail) there will be no reboot. WB will give up, and no longer consider The Flash as financially viable. So yeah, forgive me if I think this is a load of s*it. I simply cannot shrug off this disgusting turn of events, because it's a death sentence for The Flash in cinema. It means I will likely never see the character from the comics brought properly to film. Hell, even if by some miracle this is financially successful, that's even worse: that means WB will use the fluffy kid film formula again, and more Flash films will be produced using that model. Either way, the film the Flash fans want will never happen.

You'll understand if the satisfaction of Joe Blow who has never read a Flash comic comes as little comfort to me.

 

[dnno1]

I am aware of what Wiki lists. I addressed that.


I do not consider him an alternate version, because the filmmakers were not adapting an alternate version, they were adapting the original. This means he is a poorly adapted version of the original.

This is something I have spoken of at length elsewhere when faced with this silly "There are other versions in the comics, too!" argument, so I will try to keep it short this time. Comics are not film: comics come out on a monthly basis, and characters can appear in all sorts of different books everything month. That means that if someone wants Ultimate Dr. Doom one month, they can go pick up UFF. If they want real Doom the next month, they can go pick up he MU FF. If they want something completely off the wall, they can go buy a 1602 trade or whatever. That said, if you ask any fan (and fans are the only people that matter, because non-fans won't know and won't care which version is adapted) which version of Doom they want on screen, they will tell you they want the original. The reason for this is because comic book films come out too rarely to risk messing around. We don't want to see "Alternate Doom," we don't want to see "Tim Story's Doom," because if we don't see him now, it's at least three years before we get another chance--and we may never get another chance.

That is why we champion accuracy. We want to see the real deal while we still have the chance. This means nothing to non-fans, who could care less which version is used because they know nothing about the material, but to us it is important because these are the characters we enjoy. We enjoy Batman, not Joel Schumacher's Batman-In-Name-Only. That means when an adaptation is announced, we want to see the characters we know brought to screen, not Tim Story's or Shawn Levy's bastardized versions. We simply do not have the time to waste on versions we are not invested in.

This ties back to my original point about The Flash. Unlike Batman, Superman, or Spider-Man, The Flash only has one chance to be what I want. The Flash does not have the built-in fanbase of those other heroes, so when this film fails (and like Batman & Robin, Steel and Catwoman before it, it will fail) there will be no reboot. WB will give up, and no longer consider The Flash as financially viable. So yeah, forgive me if I think this is a load of s*it. I simply cannot shrug off this disgusting turn of events, because it's a death sentence for The Flash in cinema. It means I will likely never see the character from the comics brought properly to film. Hell, even if by some miracle this is financially successful, that's even worse: that means WB will use the fluffy kid film formula again, and more Flash films will be produced using that model. Either way, the film the Flash fans want will never happen.

You'll understand if the satisfaction of Joe Blow who has never read a Flash comic comes as little comfort to me.

You realize that if you didn't see the film the WB wouldn't miss you $6.41 don't you?

 

[Saint]

Like I said before, it's too late for that. The sequel is almost in the can and ready for shipping. Your opinion is hardly going to change that.

Please access the skillset identified as "reading comprehension" (hint: it's in your brain) and re-read my comment:

I have not been posting to change anything, I have been posting to argue my point to those present.

Do you understand? This is s discussion forum, so I am here to discuss. I am not here to change anything. I discuss the matter because human beings generally enjoy talking about their interests with other like-minded people. Please do not waste my time by saying "Then this whole discussion is pointless," because that is true of this thread, and this entire forum. The only point is to discuss, so that is what I am doing. If you think that is not sufficient, perhaps a forum is not the type of place you should be visiting.

 

[Saint]

You realize that if you didn't see the film the WB wouldn't miss you $6.41 don't you?

What does that have to do with anything? How many times do I have to tell you I don't care about WB? I care about The Flash. Whether I see the film or not, the problem will not be solved: I will still be lacking a decent Flash film.

 

[thedarks0ldier]

If anything good comes from Ghost Rider, I guess it will be that non-family films are profitable.

 

[dnno1]

What does that have to do with anything? How many times do I have to tell you I don't care about WB? I care about The Flash. Whether I see the film or not, the problem will not be solved: I will still be lacking a decent Flash film.

Then it really seems like you are wasting your time. Your arguments realy appear to look like you want things your way, but that's not going to happen. I think you are shouting out in vain here.

 

[Odin's Fury]

Then it really seems like you are wasting your time. Your arguments realy appear to look like you want things your way, but that's not going to happen. I think you are shouting out in vain here.

I agree, you just seem to be arguing for the sake of arguing.

And I think it's interesting how you consider these boards as a place to "discuss" but instead of discussion, it seems it's your way or the highway. Instead of a discussion, you TELL everyone that the film will suck, and that Shawn Levy sucks, rathere than state your opinion and let others have theres.

There doesn't seem to be much discussion going on.

 

[Odin's Fury]

This is something I have spoken of at length elsewhere when faced with this silly "There are other versions in the comics, too!" argument, so I will try to keep it short this time. Comics are not film: comics come out on a monthly basis, and characters can appear in all sorts of different books everything month. That means that if someone wants Ultimate Dr. Doom one month, they can go pick up UFF. If they want real Doom the next month, they can go pick up he MU FF. If they want something completely off the wall, they can go buy a 1602 trade or whatever. That said, if you ask any fan (and fans are the only people that matter, because non-fans won't know and won't care which version is adapted) which version of Doom they want on screen, they will tell you they want the original. The reason for this is because comic book films come out too rarely to risk messing around. We don't want to see "Alternate Doom," we don't want to see "Tim Story's Doom," because if we don't see him now, it's at least three years before we get another chance--and we may never get another chance.

So what exactly is "the original"? Really, that to me means you expect the director/writer/producer to pick up the first issue featuring the character, and completely base it on that.

BTW: that would mean batman would carry a gun and have purple gloves, superman would have weird roman boots and not be able to fly (and fight Nazis), and spiderman would have weird "webwings" and a spider-light in his belt.

Comic books characters have always been a fluid thing, and subject to the whim of the creator. I would rather the film be based on what is determined to be the BEST version. Sometimes this is the original, but not always. Or maybe a modified original. For instance, I agree with the Dr.Doom thing. I wanted a burnt guy in a mask. And no electrical powers. But what about Batman Begins? Almost none of that story was "original".

 

[jaguarr]

If anything good comes from Ghost Rider, I guess it will be that non-family films are profitable.

Errrr....Ghost Rider was about as family friendly as you could possibly make that character, to be honest.

jag

 

[Odin's Fury]

Errrr....Ghost Rider was about as family friendly as you could possibly make that character, to be honest.

jag

But hey, he's right that its a hard sell. Yeah, Nicholas Cage makes it lighter/funnier/whatever. But still, you have to get people to go see a movie about a guy who looks like a FLAMING SKELETON. Not easy to do. I know for a fact that hardly anyone wants to sell the toys because its a figure with a flaming skull.

And besides I think the Flash is a family friendly character. I loved the Mark Waid written arc on Flash, and if you pick up some of those issues, its not very dark at all. Does it have its moments? Yes, of course. But it's not Watchmen or DKR.

 

[terry78]

The Flash is basically DC's Spider-Man...well, Wally West is anyway. He has his issues and share of danger, but he's not going to ever despair and moan about being the Flash, he embraces it.

 

[jaguarr]

But hey, he's right that its a hard sell. Yeah, Nicholas Cage makes it lighter/funnier/whatever. But still, you have to get people to go see a movie about a guy who looks like a FLAMING SKELETON. Not easy to do. I know for a fact that hardly anyone wants to sell the toys because its a figure with a flaming skull.

And besides I think the Flash is a family friendly character. I loved the Mark Waid written arc on Flash, and if you pick up some of those issues, its not very dark at all. Does it have its moments? Yes, of course. But it's not Watchmen or DKR.

Oh, I don't disagree that the whole "he's a demon with a flaming skull for a head, but hey...he's a good guy!" thing is a tough sell to the average audience. I just think it's a poor example of a film that's not family friendly but still hugely successful because the material of that film was obviously dumbed down for the teenybopper crowd (which is part of why I didn't care for it as much as I would have hoped; the lack of depth in the story and character development).

Still, you are correct, The Flash is definitely more family friendly fare than a character like Ghost Rider. No disagreement there. If we had something with the flavor of The Incredibles or even Sky High where The Flash is concerned, I wouldn't mind as those were both smartly written films with a lot of cohesive plot points, great character development, a great sense of humor and a nice feeling of being somewhat epic in their scope. They created wonderful universes for these characters to interact in and there was something meaningful in the who's and why's of the way things developed. If The Flash can have something like that, I wouldn't mind at all. I just don't think Levy's the guy that can do it. At all. He's demonstrated a talent for banality and that's about it.

jag

 

[Odin's Fury]

Oh, I don't disagree that the whole "he's a demon with a flaming skull for a head, but hey...he's a good guy!" thing is a tough sell to the average audience. I just think it's a poor example of a film that's not family friendly but still hugely successful because the material of that film was obviously dumbed down for the teenybopper crowd (which is part of why I didn't care for it as much as I would have hoped; the lack of depth in the story and character development).

Still, you are correct, The Flash is definitely more family friendly fare than a character like Ghost Rider. No disagreement there. If we had something with the flavor of The Incredibles or even Sky High where The Flash is concerned, I wouldn't mind as those were both smartly written films with a lot of cohesive plot points, great character development, a great sense of humor and a nice feeling of being somewhat epic in their scope. They created wonderful universes for these characters to interact in and there was something meaningful in the who's and why's of the way things developed. If The Flash can have something like that, I wouldn't mind at all. I just don't think Levy's the guy that can do it. At all. He's demonstrated a talent for banality and that's about it.

jag

You are completely entitled to your opinion. I honestly haven't seen any of Levy's movies, so I can't compare him as a director specifically. I am glad that the studio seems to be moving in this direction however. When there was talk of Goyer directing, or some other darker and more serious directors, I did not think that was a good match for the FLash. That's all I'm saying. And really it seems like we agree on that point. We'll have to see if Levy can really produce anything.

As an example, Story's FF surprised me. That was a similar situation, and while it DID suck, it didnt suck nearly as hard as I expected it to. Not saying that I would be satisfied if it only sucked a little. I don't want it to suck at all. But I'm just saying you never know. Plus alot of FF's problems were with casting/writing/SFX as well. It was kind of an all-around suckfest.

 

[jaguarr]

Poor scripting seems to be a giant plague in Hollywood these days. Throw in a director who's not talented enough to salvage a film with a poor script and it spells atrocity.

jag

 

[dnno1]

So what exactly is "the original"? Really, that to me means you expect the director/writer/producer to pick up the first issue featuring the character, and completely base it on that.

BTW: that would mean batman would carry a gun and have purple gloves, superman would have weird roman boots and not be able to fly (and fight Nazis), and spiderman would have weird "webwings" and a spider-light in his belt.

Comic books characters have always been a fluid thing, and subject to the whim of the creator. I would rather the film be based on what is determined to be the BEST version. Sometimes this is the original, but not always. Or maybe a modified original. For instance, I agree with the Dr.Doom thing. I wanted a burnt guy in a mask. And no electrical powers. But what about Batman Begins? Almost none of that story was "original".

 

[Saint]

Then it really seems like you are wasting your time. Your arguments realy appear to look like you want things your way, but that's not going to happen. I think you are shouting out in vain here.

Dear God, can you read?

 

[GL1]

We've been over this: I don't care if it's financially successful. It can make zero dollars, as far as I'm concerned, so long as I enjoy it.

No, it makes me honest. I don't care about WB's financial returns, and I don't care about your enjoyment of the film, As such, when WB makes a decision I don't like, it's the wrong decision, period. There is no room for negotiation.

Yes, and I don't care. We are not talking about a person's well-being or health, or any situation where it would be appropriate to care about the interests of someone else. We're talking about a film, and when it comes to film the only interests that matter are mine.

OH!



Okay.

By that logic, they could make even more money by making their crappy No-Name Superhero Comedy and a quality Flash film.

No... not by the logic that I gave... that's some other logic you're speaking of.

Ha! You just illustrated that it is subjective (hint: look up definition of subjective) because different people define success differently. And hell, your examples don't even capture the extent to which it is subjective: how many people does it have to entertain to be successful? How much does it have to make? Does another executive think it has to make more than the first executive? Does Joe Blow think it needs X amount of explosions? Does Jack Blow think it needs more? In any case, thanks for proving that yes, success is subjective.

That's because my examples AREN'T subjective.

an event that accomplishes its intended purpose

There's nothing 'subjective about that. You're confusing the existance of success with the degree of success. Whether a movie makes any money or not is not an issue "modified by individual bias."

The Flash is not considered a "trickster-style" hero. Go buy a Flash comic.

So he doesn't do speed tricks anymore? Too bad...

The comics are successful for a reason, aren't they? There's obviously something about the comics that people love, so it's only logical to assume if the movie stays faithful, people will probably love it too.

Comics are successful for several reasons, one of which is that they play to their audience and take advantage of their medium, two things that will be starkly different in a movie adaptation. So again, staying faithful to comics isn't a magic button...

I do not consider him an alternate version, because the filmmakers were not adapting an alternate version, they were adapting the original. This means he is a poorly adapted version of the original.

Who cares what you consider? He was a mix of Ultimate Doom, real Doom and a businessman. This is painfully obvious.

Dear God, can you read?

He's probably not used to seeing someone who's point of view is so pointless. "I Feel X is true, therefore, X is true, end of discussion." You have nothing objective to offer, nor do you acknowledge your point of view as uniquely subjective and devoid of fact.

I personally am not used to someone posting how they feel as though it were fact and expecting that to mean anything. But really, how long can that conversation last?

Saint: "I feel Movie Doom was based on the origional..."
GL1: But Saint, movie Doom got powers like Ultimate Doom.
Saint: Movie Doom was based on the origional, end of discussion!
GL1: -sigh- Okay, Saint, whatever...
Saint: I feel WB is making a mistake with Levy...
GL1: But they're probably going to make a lot of money with their lowest common denominator humor and CGI family fun...
Saint: They're making a mistake! End of discussion!
GL1: Uh... Sure. Then...
Saint: I feel like the sky is black...
GL1: Well, maybe over there, but over here it's daytime and...
Saint: The sky is BLACK. End-
GL1: End of discussion! Yes... I get it. Whatever man.

 

[Odin's Fury]

*Bows Respectfully*

Thank you good sir. Thank you.

 

[Saint]

So what exactly is "the original"? Really, that to me means you expect the director/writer/producer to pick up the first issue featuring the character, and completely base it on that.

For our purposes, since we were talking about Doom, it means the MU Doom. Marvel does not do broad continuity reboots, and as such all their characters--Spider-Man, Doom, and so on--are the same today as they were when they were first published forty years ago. As you point out, DC is a different matter because they do use broad continuity changes, and Batman from 1939 is not the same as Batman today.

In these cases, the solution is simple: those traits that are most consistent and most identifiable are adapted, and those that are rare, or flukes, are probably not adapted, unless there is some special circumstance. There should also be allowances for modern traits that have perhaps not been around long enough to become classic yet.

Comic books characters have always been a fluid thing, and subject to the whim of the creator. I would rather the film be based on what is determined to be the BEST version.

Well, yes, I agree. Obviously I allow room for negotiation and reasonability in these matters. I am also not adverse to changes in film, so long as they make sense and do not detract from the character (organic webshooters, for example, are fine). None of these allowances, however, apply to the ruination of Doom.

Sometimes this is the original, but not always. Or maybe a modified original. For instance, I agree with the Dr.Doom thing. I wanted a burnt guy in a mask. And no electrical powers. But what about Batman Begins? Almost none of that story was "original".

Oh, I am not referring to story. Obviously the vast bulk of a comic book film's plot will be original, because very few individual comic book stories are appropriate for direct adaptation. However, I disagree about Batman Begins--most of it came from various comics, such as Year One, The Man Who Falls, The Long Halloween, and the first Ra's Al Ghul story (the name of which escapes me at this moment, which is odd).

But no, I did not mean plot. I meant character. Of course, certain aspects of a character require certain events to occur plot-wise (the murder of thew Waynes, etcetera) and obviously there are certain storylines that I personally favour and believe should be included, but what I am most concerned with more than anything is that the characters in the film are accurate to who they are in the comics. Now, you may say that there is too much variation on personalities in the comics to do this, but I do not agree. Batman has always been Batman. Yes, he has sometimes been anti-social, angry, paranoid, or even friendly, but these are all traits that every person has in some degree. The only difference is that Batman displayed them over ten-year blocks, haha.

Comic book adaptation is tricky because the writers must consolidate all these traits and aspects. This is why I expect quality writers and directors (as opposed to generic comedy writers and directors) be selected for the task, as in Batman Begins, or the Spider-Man franchise.

 

[Odin's Fury]

Well, yes, I agree. Obviously I allow room for negotiation and reasonability in these matters. I am also not adverse to changes in film, so long as they make sense and do not detract from the character (organic webshooters, for example, are fine). None of these allowances, however, apply to the ruination of Doom.

I don't understand this. Organic webshooters (as far as I know) never occured in any comic before the movie. And yet, at least the metal body/and strange powers, as well as DD being part of the FF's ill-fated mission, happened in a comic. YES, this was in Ultimate FF, but still at least it actually occured in a comic.

So really, it seems to me that the new doom would be more "original" than organic webshooters. So really this is just your opinion. I personally think the webshooters were a bunch of BS. But that's just me.

I'm just confused about how you decide what is "acceptable" outside of the "original".

Oh, I am not referring to story. Obviously the vast bulk of a comic book film's plot will be original, because very few individual comic book stories are appropriate for direct adaptation. However, I disagree about Batman Begins--most of it came from various comics, such as Year One, The Man Who Falls, The Long Halloween, and the first Ra's Al Ghul story (the name of which escapes me at this moment, which is odd).

Again, how is this "original"? I say if you want to call out a Batman story as "original" then if Bob Kane didn't write it, it didn't happen. Again, I'm just confused as to how you truly decide what is "original". Hell, Year One and Long Halloween contradict each other. So which one is more true?

 

[Saint]

That's because my examples AREN'T subjective.

If you believe this, there is simply no helping you.

There's nothing 'subjective about that.

There certainly is: in the definition, purpose is undefined. When your definition is dependent upon a variable (in this case, purpose), then the term is subjective, based on how the variable is defined.

You're confusing the existance of success with the degree of success. Whether a movie makes any money or not is not an issue "modified by individual bias."

That's not what I said. I said the definition of success is modified by individual bias. Since a successful movie, for me, is one I enjoy, and a successful movie for WB is a movie that makes money, success is subjective.

Comics are successful for several reasons, one of which is that they play to their audience and take advantage of their medium, two things that will be starkly different in a movie adaptation. So again, staying faithful to comics isn't a magic button...

This has nothing to do with anything I said.

Who cares what you consider?

How many times do I have to go over this? I am not watching the movie for the enjoyment or benefit of anyone else but me. I have never claimed anything different, nor have I claimed that anyone should care what I want. I am only explaining what I want, and why I want it, because those facts are what dictate my distaste for Levy's selection. This topic was created to discuss the subject of his selection, no? I am discussing.

He was a mix of Ultimate Doom, real Doom and a businessman. This is painfully obvious.

Not accurate. He was nothing like Ultimate Doom (save for getting powers through an accident), and not very much like MU Doom either. As far as personality is concerned--and that is my primary concern--he's nothing like either of them.

He's probably not used to seeing someone who's point of view is so pointless. "I Feel X is true, therefore, X is true, end of discussion." You have nothing objective to offer, nor do you acknowledge your point of view as uniquely subjective and devoid of fact.

That's because any reasonable person knows that everything I've said is just my opinion. I do not feel the need to label everything as such, because one has to be a moron not to see it.

I personally am not used to someone posting how they feel as though it were fact and expecting that to mean anything. But really, how long can that conversation last?

Saint: "I feel Movie Doom was based on the origional..."
GL1: But Saint, movie Doom got powers like Ultimate Doom.
Saint: Movie Doom was based on the origional, end of discussion!
GL1: -sigh- Okay, Saint, whatever...
Saint: I feel WB is making a mistake with Levy...
GL1: But they're probably going to make a lot of money with their lowest common denominator humor and CGI family fun...
Saint: They're making a mistake! End of discussion!
GL1: Uh... Sure. Then...
Saint: I feel like the sky is black...
GL1: Well, maybe over there, but over here it's daytime and...
Saint: The sky is BLACK. End-
GL1: End of discussion! Yes... I get it. Whatever man.

You have misinterpreted everything I have said with alarming consistency.

 

[dnno1]

Dear God, can you read?

Oh I can read alright:

...Unlike Batman, Superman, or Spider-Man, The Flash only has one chance to be what I want...

...I don't care if it's financially successful. It can make zero dollars, as far as I'm concerned, so long as I enjoy it...

...We already had this discussion: they were crappy movies because I didn't like them. My enjoyment is all that matters. The fact that the general public (who also enjoy such stellar cinematic experiences as "White Chicks") enjoyed those terribly scripted, terribly acted crapfests doesn't phase me...

...Success is irrelevant. All that matters is whether I enjoy the film. If a film I don't like (like Fantastic Four) does well and earns a sequel, what good does that do me? It just means they'll give me more of the same--which I didn't like the first time! Successful trash only results in more trash. I would rather have a Flash film be made properly and fail, then have it made wrong and spawn sequels. I would rather have a single quality film than a series of turds, like Fantastic Four...

Sounds pretty self centered to me. Get this through your thick skull. Movies are not made purely for the enjoyment of Saint alone. If you want a film made your way, you should pay about 25% of the production costs. You'll get your say so then, but I doubt you'll ever be allowed to do that again when your film flops financially and only sells to you. Hollywood doesn't make films for the enjoyment of Saint and his small cadre of friends who drink the RottenTomatoe's KoolAid before going out to the movies. They make them for the enjoyment of as many people as they can. They also realize that they can't satisfy everyone with their films, and that is why the try to offer something for everyone (when profitiable). In this case The Flash is the type of character that can reach a broad range of fans (both young and old). Shawn Levy is the type of director that can not only capture a family audience, but can make success out of whatever budget he is given. I feel confident that the WB either doing the right thing or trying to send a message out to fans. The want a successful film that everyone can watch and enjoy.

 

[Saint]

I don't understand this. Organic webshooters (as far as I know) never occured in any comic before the movie. And yet, at least the metal body/and strange powers, as well as DD being part of the FF's ill-fated mission, happened in a comic. YES, this was in Ultimate FF, but still at least it actually occured in a comic.

As I said earlier, because films come out so rarely, I would prefer to see the "real" Doom, rather than the Ultimate variation, because there are so few chances. Every time they change something, that's less chance of seeing what I want to see, which is an adaptation of the character I know, the MU continuity Dr. Doom. However, I have also clarified that I am not so concerned with technical details (webshooters, electrical powers) as I am with the spirit of the character.

So really, it seems to me that the new doom would be more "original" than organic webshooters.

But it is not true to the spirit of the character. In the film, Dr. Doom was only a formidable opponent because he was conveniently whacked with radiation. He was simply not a strong individual, personality wise, which is the exact opposite of the MU Doom. To put it simply, Doom is a self-made man in every sense of the word, and the character in that film was not. The character in that film had not the capacity or drive to do any of the things Doom does. So, it is not so much that he got powers that bothers me, it's the effect getting powers had on the way they wrote the character.

So really this is just your opinion.

Of course. I'm sorry if you got any other impression.

I'm just confused about how you decide what is "acceptable" outside of the "original".

Personal preference, obviously.

Again, how is this "original"? I say if you want to call out a Batman story as "original" then if Bob Kane didn't write it, it didn't happen. Again, I'm just confused as to how you truly decide what is "original". Hell, Year One and Long Halloween contradict each other. So which one is more true?

I explained this in my earlier post. However, a more accurate term for what I want would be "in-continuity," rather than "original." I should have used the former in the first place.

 

[Saint]

Sounds pretty self centered to me.

When did I claim otherwise? In fact, I'm fairly certain I've said this outright.

Get this through your thick skull. Movies are not made purely for the enjoyment of Saint alone.

I never said otherwise. I only said that I don't care why they're made, I only care if they satisfy me or not.

If you want a film made your way, you should pay about 25% of the production costs.

Or I could be like everyone else, and just post my thoughts in a forum designated for the discussion of such matters. Hey, that's exactly what I'm doing (gasp!).

I'm sorry, but it is not unreasonable for me to post my thoughts on films, nor is it unreasonable for me to explain what I would like to see when the matter is relevant (and since I we are discussing opinions on Levy's selection, what I would like to see is relevant to why I dislike his selection). You act as if I am making demands, but I am not. I am posting my thoughts. I am not championing a petition or sending out letters to WB or harassing poor executives. You obviously would rather not discuss these things, but I would, and so I do. As I said before, do not waste my time by saying "Then this discussion is pointless," because that is true of every thread in this forum. Forums do not exist to effect change, they exist merely to discuss, and that is all I'm doing. If you misinterpret my posts as demands, that's your problem.

 

[SilentType]

Subjective opinions and discussions are no longer viable here. We will start a ledger and accounting system for all comments made in this forum. Using a scientific model based on the mean gross of a director’s previous efforts, past merchandising proceeds brought in by the comic character in question, and a random poll of 4 to 16 individuals, we will accurately predict the worthiness of a director. All further discussions must be based on this system and require backup documentation. As soon as we perfect double-entry arguments on an accrual basis we will have the perfect tool of objective discussion, free of the random errors of “opinion” and “ideas”.