Fanboy Wars Thread: Personal Attacks not allowed | With Digital Fur Technology

[Jonwo]

Most of the Batman storylines in the comics are standalone so having a Batman film not referencing the wider DCEU isn't a huge deal.

 

It's like why superheroes don't ask other superheroes to help them with a situation in their city and the main reason is most superheroes are busy dealing with their own threats to deal with a situation elsewhere. 

Edited August 25, 2017 by Jonwo

[Barnack]

10 minutes ago, Jonwo said:

Most of the Batman storylines in the comics are standalone so having a Batman film not referencing the wider DCEU isn't a huge deal.

 

It's like why superheroes don't ask other superheroes to help them with a situation in their city and the main reason is most superheroes are busy dealing with their own threats to deal with a situation elsewhere. 

That why it can be good to not have an end of the world level of threat when it do, they would often at least ask and if the hero is not busy with a world ending one come to help.

 

Or I imagine that why they make all of them end of wordy.... so other heroes are currently busy saving the world from a different villain.

[jf8350143]

5 hours ago, iJackSparrow said:

OMG HAVE YOU GUYS SEEN THIS?!!!

 

 

They should really announce DC vs MK 2 already. Sub Zero's dialogue has already showed the first DC VS MK happened in the Injustice universe.

[AndyK]

7 hours ago, iJackSparrow said:

VERY excited for this as well:

 

 

Well that didn't help the DC Grimdark vs Marvel light Colorful trope. 

[ZattMurdock]

8 hours ago, AndyK said:

Well that didn't help the DC Grimdark vs Marvel light Colorful trope. 

Marvel vs. Capcom is a classic from my youth just like Mortal Kombat. Lotsa love for both MvC and the Injustice series from my end.

[Harpospoke]

21 hours ago, Barnack said:

I don't know, I'm not sure it seem WB did propose role to cast member before Ayer was officially hired. I'm not sure why you bring WB up ? and worst a WB franchise-universe rushed movie has some example. At least look at Dunkirk, Revenant, some of the Potters/Lords of the Rings, Matrix trilogy, Dark Knight Rises, MadMax Fury Road or others like that.

 

This was in response to the claim that Marvel directors are expected to make the movie the studio wants to make while DC directors can do anything they want.   The implication was of course that the former is a bad thing.   

 

21 hours ago, Barnack said:

While yes did you notice that casting is considering a major director decision (and many say that it is one of the biggest decision they take) same for production design and all creative aspect.

But not writing the movie.   Directors have "a big role" in casting...but it's not only their decision.   

21 hours ago, Emerald kikyou said:

True , it wasn't done in comic books movies, but it was done before by starting solo characters and then crossing them over to make one universe:

http://www.cinelinx.com/movie-stuff/item/8459-the-original-shared-universe-a-look-back-at-the-universal-monsters.html

 

to a lesser extent you can also add this:

http://bloody-disgusting.com/movie/3419348/lets-explore-shared-slasher-movie-universe-already-exists/

 

You should calm down and re-read my post. I was saying they weren't the first to do a shared universe. It was done ages ago and it was successful. But they were the first to do it comic book wise and it was hugely successful. People need to chill.

 

 

That's reaching.    A studio getting desperate for a gimmick because the public was tired of their monster movies isn't the same thing.  They didn't go into it with that in mind and there certainly was no overall connecting story.   It was 65 years before so obviously that gimmick didn't catch on.   Much different than post Marvel when a planned shared universe is suddenly a popular idea.

 

And obviously movies doing homages to other movies isn't the same idea either.   Was Back to the Future in the same universe as The Honeymooners?   Is Maverick in the same universe as Lethal Weapon because Gibson and Glover recognize each other in one scene in the former?   Is Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas and Rango in the same universe because Raoul Duke shows up in Rango?

 

Norman Lear did spinoffs TV shows in the 70s too but that doesn't mean he was planning a shared universe.   It was just a reaction to All in the Family being so popular that they started new series with Maude and The Jeffersons.    Lavern and Shirley started on Happy Days but that's also not what Marvel did.   Marvel did a very specific thing that was planned and implemented from the start.   And that is what is being copied by other franchises now.

 

21 hours ago, AndyK said:

I'm not saying that, what I am saying is that foregoing critical acclaim is the price that must be paid to go the way of Marvel.

 

Not sure what you mean.   It's played out exactly the opposite.

 

Average DCEU RT score:  49.75 (3 rotten in 4 movies)

Average MCU RT score:  82.19  (0 rotten in 16 movies)

18 hours ago, Darth Lehnsherr said:

Reeves just had a poor choice of words that is all. 

He made a pretty specific statement.   Not sure how it could have been a mistake to say "When they approached me, what they said was ‘look, it’s a standalone, it’s not part of the extended universe.'”     Kinda sounds like someone at WB made a phone call to Reeves to "clarify".

 

I remember how Reeves is the type to allow his audience to make up their own minds about his movies though.   On Let Me In, he always insisted that the audience had to make up their own minds whether or not the Abby character was evil.  (I say she isn't)  So this sounds like more of the same to me.   "You make up your own mind if you think it's in the DCEU or not because I'm not going to tell you in the movie".

 

8 hours ago, AndyK said:

Well that didn't help the DC Grimdark vs Marvel light Colorful trope. 

Why would something like that need any "help"?

[AndyLL]

So... based on the current WW thread (see... it's not very hard to post in the right thread)

 

Why would Wonder Women be considered a stronger feminist character than Black Widow?

 

Discuss 

[WrathOfHan]

16 minutes ago, AndyLL said:

So... based on the current WW thread (see... it's not very hard to post in the right thread)

 

Why would Wonder Women be considered a stronger feminist character than Black Widow?

 

Discuss 

This..... is actually a pretty good question. Diana is a woman who desires to explore the world outside of her homeland, and Natasha was oppressed and sterilized by the Russian government. I suppose Black Widow is closer to the type of character people are criticizing James Cameron for including in his films: victim turned hero. I don't see how that type of character can't be feminist. Characters like Widow, Ripley, and Sarah Connor are hardened fighters, yet being survivors is also a strong, personable trait for ANY character.

[ZattMurdock]

20 minutes ago, AndyLL said:

So... based on the current WW thread (see... it's not very hard to post in the right thread)

 

Why would Wonder Women be considered a stronger feminist character than Black Widow?

 

Discuss 

Other than AoU Whedon's slip, Black Widow is a great and strong feminist character. 

[AndyLL]

9 minutes ago, iJackSparrow said:

Other than AoU Whedon's slip, Black Widow is a great and strong feminist character. 

Nothing wrong with showing a female character ( or any other character ) having issues in the past as long as it helps define who they are today.

[Premium George]

If looking at characters in vacuum, I don't think so one is more "feminist" than another. But looking at their roles in movies, I think ww is more important for the shear case of being lead character of her own movie. Same as falcon vs black panther.

[AndyLL]

4 minutes ago, damnitgeorge08 said:

If looking at characters in vacuum, I don't think so one is more "feminist" than another. But looking at their roles in movies, I think ww is more important for the shear case of being lead character of her own movie. Same as falcon vs black panther.

Answers a different question.

 

Of course WW & BP are the most important characters in their solo movies.

 

However... after reading JC's comments I wonder if WW would be considered a 'stronger feminine' character over BW?

 

 

[Barnack]

10 minutes ago, damnitgeorge08 said:

If looking at characters in vacuum, I don't think so one is more "feminist" than another. But looking at their roles in movies, I think ww is more important for the shear case of being lead character of her own movie. Same as falcon vs black panther.

Would also be my take if you are talking about their movies incarnation Wonder Woman having her own movie give her quite the head start for that over the others, hard to judge Widow (cinematically) before seeing her movie.

 

I would also no use thumb-rules (like type of background or anything) when speaking about specific character in specific movies deeper and more fun analysis that do not rely on rules should be used imo.

 

But in a vacuum wonder woman was designed from the start as a feminist propaganda tool apparently (the movie about is creator could be fun), so I would imagine that she would be the one.

Edited August 25, 2017 by Barnack

[Premium George]

Just now, AndyLL said:

Answers a different question.

 

Of course WW & BP are the most important characters in their solo movies.

 

However... after reading JC's comments I wonder if WW would be considered a 'stronger feminine' character over BW?

 

 

I don't think so....... Like I don't think oprah is better role model than madonna.

I can't see from a woman's pov but a girl can be inspired same whether she looks at wonder woman, BW, Ripley, or connor. Let me think more about this.

[Premium George]

24 minutes ago, Barnack said:

Would also be my take if you are talking about their movies incarnation Wonder Woman having her own movie give her quite the head start for that over the others, hard to judge Widow (cinematically) before seeing her movie.

 

I would also no use thumb-rules (like type of background or anything) when speaking about specific character in specific movies deeper and more fun analysis that do not rely on rules should be used imo.

 

But in a vacuum wonder woman was designed from the start as a feminist propaganda tool apparently (the movie about is creator could be fun), so I would imagine that she would be the one.

Didn't understand this. Feels like a punctuation or two is missing but if you meant, we should not look at background of the character for judging them as role model than I got it.

 

It's difficult to not see wondy as more feminist role model on first thought than BW. Never read comics, so have no idea about their history but WW is more famous and has always been seen as an icon. But what if we replace Black widow in that place. Let's imagine BW was written before WW and got more famous with part of a trinity of marvel. Don't change their history and characterisation. DC made their cinematic universe before marvel but WW is only a side character in their movies like real life BW. Now marvel late to the game release a winter soldier-esque BW movie with high praise and powerful BO performance.

Most probably, BW would be seen as feminist icon rather than WW without changing their character in some major way. By that sorta logic I think no one is more feminist than other. 

Just looking at character without any history or association. 

[Barnack]

11 minutes ago, damnitgeorge08 said:

Didn't understand this.

I am talking saying one characther is better than an other by saying stuff like:

 

One has no troubled backstory/external motivation, has female friend and not the others, need help from a male character from time to time, etc...

 

Those type of rules are interesting when looking at a situation, of the last 100 female protagonist 87 were helped by a men while men protagonist are helped by female character only 37% of the time type of analysis, but often they are not interesting or good analysis at a case by case level, a bit like the Bechdel, quick rules of thumb to talk about 1000 movies and give some idea, but criticizing Gravity or Locke to fail it make no sense at all.

 

 

Edited August 25, 2017 by Barnack

[ZattMurdock]

Meanwhile in the latest Marvel Comics fuck up:

 

 

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/comic-store-owners-announce-they-wont-offer-marvel-legacy-issues-1032851?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

 

Is it too soon for a Kevin Feige intervention in the comic book side of Marvel already? Because I just can't stand it anymore. 

[TwoMisfits]

Just finished Suicide Squad extended version...OMG...

 

WB and DC should never let the folks who made Wonder Woman go...they should pay them whatever it takes to make every DC movie from now on, b/c I didn't think anything could rival the awfulness of BvS, but wow, somehow I can always be surprised...

 

And it's funny b/c SS had the bones somewhere to be mediocre and not horrendously bad...it's 1st half is in the C+/C territory, and then it just plunges off the cliff into epic, hilarious awfulness...

 

I'm trying to decide if it gets the F BvS got, or if it gets the D- for wasting less of my time and actually causing me to pause the movie and giggle at the absolute awfulness a few times with my spouse...I think I'll go with enjoying it more than BvS and the D-...

 

 

 

 

[AJG]

30 minutes ago, TwoMisfits said:

Just finished Suicide Squad extended version...OMG...

 

WB and DC should never let the folks who made Wonder Woman go...they should pay them whatever it takes to make every DC movie from now on, b/c I didn't think anything could rival the awfulness of BvS, but wow, somehow I can always be surprised...

 

And it's funny b/c SS had the bones somewhere to be mediocre and not horrendously bad...it's 1st half is in the C+/C territory, and then it just plunges off the cliff into epic, hilarious awfulness...

 

I'm trying to decide if it gets the F BvS got, or if it gets the D- for wasting less of my time and actually causing me to pause the movie and giggle at the absolute awfulness a few times with my spouse...I think I'll go with enjoying it more than BvS and the D-...

 

 

 

 

 

I can’t even imagine what kind of hell a Suicide Squad extended edition would be.

[ZattMurdock]

38 minutes ago, TwoMisfits said:

Just finished Suicide Squad extended version...OMG...

 

WB and DC should never let the folks who made Wonder Woman go...they should pay them whatever it takes to make every DC movie from now on, b/c I didn't think anything could rival the awfulness of BvS, but wow, somehow I can always be surprised...

 

And it's funny b/c SS had the bones somewhere to be mediocre and not horrendously bad...it's 1st half is in the C+/C territory, and then it just plunges off the cliff into epic, hilarious awfulness...

 

I'm trying to decide if it gets the F BvS got, or if it gets the D- for wasting less of my time and actually causing me to pause the movie and giggle at the absolute awfulness a few times with my spouse...I think I'll go with enjoying it more than BvS and the D-...

 

 

 

 

I think I was on drugs the first time I saw Suicide Squad. Looking back, I legit think that I was drunk. I thought it was awesome. Came home and rave it here. Then I watched the extended version months afterwards and I couldn't understand what the hell was I even thinking. I think I was wanting to like that film so bad that I didn't realize how bad it was. Harley is gorgeous but then a lot of cosplayers are gorgeous. Yeah, it sucks. Still better than BvS's theatrical version tho, on par with BvS Ultimate Cut.