Where did DC/WB go wrong? - Part 1

[chiefchirpa]

The Irony.

You are a Marvel fan, admit it.

Well yeah, I'm also a DC fan sometimes. Depends on the situation.

But do you think being a Marvel fan in this thread is a problem?

 

[jmc]

Black Widow was the biggest waste of time in IM2 and Scarlet completely miscast. I do not buy her as this kick-arse action woman.

 

[Micromind]

Come on, you were the one who said that DoomsdayApex was a DC fan.

I am a fan of both, maybe more of DC.

 

[The Morningstar]

Black Widow was the biggest waste of time in IM2 and Scarlet completely miscast. I do not buy her as this kick-arse action woman.

I can agree with this. I'm meh about her role in Avengers too.

 

[Micromind]

Black Widow was the biggest waste of time in IM2 and Scarlet completely miscast. I do not buy her as this kick-arse action woman.

To be honest, Happy Hogan could have done whatever a$$ kicking she did in IM 2, she was there just so that she could get entry into Avengers, the whole movie was a setup to Avengers.

 

[DoomsdayApex]

Come on, you were the one who said that DoomsdayApex was a DC fan.

I am a fan of both, maybe more of DC.

He knew exactly what he was doing.

I might be a fan of DC, Dark Horse and Image more than Marvel, but I am no damn fanboy.

Black Widow was the biggest waste of time in IM2 and Scarlet completely miscast. I do not buy her as this kick-arse action woman.

I wholeheartedly agree with this.

Hawkeye was another waste too.

 

[The Morningstar]

That, i can't agree with though.

There wasn't even a single Avengers reference until over an hour into the movie. And that was just a passing comment.

Iron Man 2 had problems. It wasn't an advert for Avengers though, this is one the biggest, ******** arguments i've heard (read?) on these boards.

 

[jmc]

I keep asking why is she in that film and the only response I've heard is 'to keep an eye on Tony', which is possibly the lamest reason to put a character in a film.

 

[DoomsdayApex]

That, i can't agree with though.

There wasn't even a single Avengers reference until over an hour into the movie. And that was just a passing comment.

Iron Man 2 had problems. It wasn't an advert for Avengers though, this is one the biggest, ******** arguments i've heard (read?) on these boards.

Bulls**t.

The film was rushed for a reason, and The Avenger Initiative was present since Iron Man and The Incredible Hulk (2008).

 

[The Morningstar]

Explain, in detail, how the film is an Avengers advert. I'm not talking about the production being rushed, i'm talking about the actual content of the story, being an Avengers advert.

I've yet to see anyone come close to convincing me.

SHIELD perhaps being too "Deus ex machina...ry"? I can accept that though.

 

[DoomsdayApex]

I'm not saying that the entire plot revolved around The Avengers, but the introduction to Black Widow and an appearance made by Nick Fury certainly gave off that odor -- not to mention Thor's Hammer at the end of the film.

And yes, of course, SHIELD.

 

[chiefchirpa]

Realistic films rarely outgross CB/Sci-Fi/Pixar/Mythology films, and it's not because of ingenious marketing schemes. It's because the general audience gravitates to these genres.

Just tell me which film grosses more Begins/TDK or GL. Iron Man or GL. In the beginning of this debate it's really about the question why people doesn't get interested much on GL compared to the rather more realistic superhero movies. $100 million marketing push for GL equals to the budget of many realistic films. Film like the Vow requires $30 M to make, but it's now making more than twice its production budget.

No one is trying to make this a DC vs Marvel fanboy debate except you, so please, just stop embarrassing yourself.

I don't care what you are, and what you're a fan of or follow, but I'm a fan of cinema. So yes, from to time, I'll follow my favorite directors and actors to see what type of new projects they're creating and/or attached to.

The hypocrisy is mind-blogging.

It's not really about DC vs Marvel, but you got to be carried away on (neutral) superhero films which people don't think it's anything impressive but in your view it's something. GL is a slightly below average movie, the reviewers have voted but if you still think that GL has better ensemble acting performance than IM2, it's your call.

That's a seldom excuse. Black Widow is still an Avenger and Scarlett Johansson's name was billed in Iron Man 2. Imagine that.

It's cute that you believe that 10-15 more minutes for ScarJo's character would have made an immense or significant difference when, in fact, it wouldn't -- unless you consider three more scenes of her speaking no more than five words in latex or performing Lucha Libre stunts as stellar acting.

Scarjo had awards and nominations. Lively had none (but in your mind, she might have). End of Story

 

[chiefchirpa]

Come on, you were the one who said that DoomsdayApex was a DC fan.

I am a fan of both, maybe more of DC.

I can see that TDK is a better film than IM, and IM is a slightly better than BB. I value each film of what it is, whether is Marvel or DC or any other brands. I don't have an comics based avatar so that says how biased I'm to a superhero brand.

Now if someone says that GL has a better ensemble act than IM2, I can't say other than the person is firmly biased trying to polish a guano.

 

[chiefchirpa]

To be honest, Happy Hogan could have done whatever a$$ kicking she did in IM 2, she was there just so that she could get entry into Avengers, the whole movie was a setup to Avengers.

Well in essence you're right. Black Widow was a cameo for the Avengers, but the Avengers or BW in the Avengers itself was not a sure thing back during IM2.

 

[DoomsdayApex]

Just tell me which film grosses more Begins/TDK or GL. Iron Man or GL. In the beginning of this debate it's really about the question why people doesn't get interested much on GL compared to the rather more realistic superhero movies. $100 million marketing push for GL equals to the budget of many realistic films. Film like the Vow requires $30 M to make, but it's now making more than twice its production budget.

I'm quite sure that the theatrical trailers released and the bad reviews were the culprits. It had nothing to with the fantasy elements of the film. You're stretching here. Films like TDK and IM grossed more money because of their quality. It virtually had nothing to do with 'realism' alone.

Your comparison is incredibly flawed.

It's not really about DC vs Marvel, but you got to be carried away on (neutral) superhero films which people don't think it's anything impressive but in your view it's something. GL is a slightly below average movie, the reviewers have voted but if you still think that GL has better ensemble acting performance than IM2, it's your call.

Yes, it is my call.

The only one that got carried away was you. Don't try to play it off either. I'll let it go, but don't ever make another snarky fanboyish remark like that again.

Scarjo had awards and nominations. Lively had none (but in your mind, she might have). End of Story

Your stupidity continues to amaze me.

 

[chiefchirpa]

I'm quite sure that the theatrical trailers released and the bad reviews were the culprits. It had nothing to with the fantasy elements of the film. You're stretching here.

The quality of the film is the culprit. But there's a reason why Marvel heavily modify Thor from being an utter fantasy to a slightly more realistic film, with more Earth scenes than Asgard. As more realistic superhero films are better received than the more fantastic films of its genre, the trend is still the same.

Yes, it is my call.

The only one that got carried away was you. Don't try to play it off either. I'll let it go, but don't ever make another snarky fanboyish remark like that again.



Your stupidity continues to amaze me.

Well, I rather be stupid than being a biased consumer.

 

[jmc]

Well in essence you're right. Black Widow was a cameo for the Avengers, but the Avengers or BW in the Avengers itself was not a sure thing back during IM2.

I think it's safe to say both her and the Avengers were a sure thing during IM2 given they are smack bang in the middle of the movie.

 

[Optimus_Prime_]

Wolverine biggest hole is the crappy "made by Fox, to hell with you comicbook readers" script. Acting-wise Wolverine is superior than Green Lantern.

I never said Wolverine is good, but I think it's better than Green Lantern (that ain't saying much though).

 

[DoomsdayApex]

The quality of the film is the culprit. But there's a reason why Marvel heavily modify Thor from being an utter fantasy to a slightly more realistic film, with more Earth scenes than Asgard. As more realistic superhero films are better received than the more fantastic films of its genre, the trend is still the same.

There was nothing realistic about Thor, other than one of the settings featured modern Earth. However, do continue. It's entertaining to watch you grasp for straws and try wiggle out a sane argument without trying to sound like a fanboy. Let's see what else you can pull out of your ass when I simply tell you that your logic does not compute. That there is nothing realistic about Frost Giants, a Thunder God, Asgard, Mjolnir, a BiFrost bridge, etc moreso than traveling through Wormholes, a Power Ring, an Intergalactic Police Force, etc.

Well, I rather be stupid than being a biased consumer.

Interesting statement... good for you Jack.

 

[Optimus_Prime_]

I was actually impressed by how Thor very matter of factly presented the Kirby-esque and mystical elements of the fiction. They jammed packed quite a bit of the mythos in the story, and I felt did so in a way that is not disjointed (which is something people have said about Iron Man 2). I also felt like they did a nice job making the case that in the confines of the movie science and magic really were one in the same. Magic simply became science we haven't discovered yet rather than something foreign to it.

Having rewatched Thor, Thor really seems like it accomplished much of what Green Lantern failed to and it has a really strong cast and very strong dialogue. Thor is a well rounded film.

 

[craigdbfan]

Definitely agree with that.

 

[roach]

I was actually impressed by how Thor very matter of factly presented the Kirby-esque and mystical elements of the fiction. They jammed packed quite a bit of the mythos in the story, and I felt did so in a way that is not disjointed (which is something people have said about Iron Man 2). I also felt like they did a nice job making the case that in the confines of the movie science and magic really were one in the same. Magic simply became science we haven't discovered yet rather than something foreign to it.

Having rewatched Thor, Thor really seems like it accomplished much of what Green Lantern failed to and it has a really strong cast and very strong dialogue. Thor is a well rounded film.

my only issue with the way they portrayed the science/magic was that it was Thor who described the magic as a form of science. For someone who believes he is the god of thunder to poo-poo all over that...i would have preferred if someone else made that assumption.

 

[roach]

I never said Wolverine is good, but I think it's better than Green Lantern (that ain't saying much though).

wholeheartedly disagree....IMO there were no insane leaps of logic in GL.

 

[DoomsdayApex]

my only issue with the way they portrayed the science/magic was that it was Thor who described the magic as a form of science. For someone who believes he is the god of thunder to poo-poo all over that...i would have preferred if someone else made that assumption.

I absolutely hated that quote.

"Your ancestors called it magic, but you call it science. I come from a land where they are one and the same."

 

[Micromind]

^^ Worst part is that Jane is a scientist and she accepts Thor's explanation without any questions just because she likes him.