52 Comments
  • 52 results
  • 1
  • 2
Posted by ShadowSwordmaster

Nice and you used the image from the third TMNT movie

Posted by cyclopes_with_an_e

hahaha nice codpiece video

Online
Edited by darkrider

i miss sara on the podcast

Posted by Nightwing_Beyond

I'm Kerem, the Nightwing player Gregg mentioned. Feel free to join me, Gregg and Uros for some fun in Injustice time to time. We'd love to have more viners play! Oh and Corey, that Tommy Wiseau quote made me chuckle yet, it also sent shivers down my spine....

Posted by kantrip

@g_man I think Superior Spider-Man 14 is the debut of the new costume. I do know I've seen him sporting it Avengers though during the prelude to Infinity arc.

Posted by fartvader

No Jen? *sigh*

Posted by danhimself

@g_man: Ramos said at Comic Con that he deliberately based it on the concept art that Alex Ross did for a Spider-man movie a while back

Posted by Turkeysammich

Cloak and Dagger switched their powers at the end of their Spider Island mini iirc

Posted by RedheadedAtrocitus

Been in such a TMNT phase as of late so this was wonderful to listen to ^_^

Edited by iceslick

@g_man: Just in case to let you know itunes released Justice League: Flashpoint Paradox during the same week as Comic Con. So, thats why a few of us including me have already seen it.

Edited by lifeboy

I just saved this. Your voices are trapped within my cellphone...FOREVER......

Posted by longbowhunter

Did Batman really punch punk rock in the face?

Edited by LordCmdrStryker

Sure are lots of people posting like 7 questions at a time... -_-

Edited by ArtisticNeedham

@k4tzm4nI agree with Gregg. This year's San Diego Comic Con was actually much less crowded than I remember it being before. (The security guards were jerky) But I felt like i could easily, most of the time, get from one end of the Convention to the other with ease and in short time too. Which I did several times each day. I even would leave a section early because George Perez was signing at Hero Initiative at 4 and it was 3:30, and I would be there by 3:40 or 3:50. So It was pretty... not... crowded.

I used to be like that at Comic Con, and to a certain extent I still am, where I wouldn't approach people I wanted to meet like that. But now I try to because it might be my only shot, like a few years back I met Andrew W. K. and Ken Marino, just walking around the Con and San Diego. This year I met the Venture Brothers creators walking out for a break. But other times, like Mark Waid, I saw him talking with his (I think) wife as they walked through the Convention and I didn't want to disturb them.

@g_man I noticed in the Random gallery you posted a picture of George Perez, did you get a drawing by him? He drew me Monkey Boy!

http://indyplanet.com/store/product_info.php?products_id=8631

So, to read the Trinity War in a linear story without leaving an issue out do I HAVE to buy the tie ins? Go from Justice League to Justice League Dark? Or could I just pick up Justice League and continue the story? Or is JLD issue #2?

.

.

.

.

.

@g_man Not sure if this would be something you'd be interested in, or don't know about already but:

http://www.welovefine.com/5649-scarlet-spider-hoodie.html#.UfQgRx3Pr8s

(picture wont load? But its Scarlet Spider/Ben Reilly's Hoodie that you can actually buy (cut the sleeves off) and wear.

The thing about Superman is that, to avoid having to make Superman do what he did, the writers could have handled that from the beginning by not writing him into that situation. They could have had the story play out differently like HISHE showed, or something similar. Could have just had Zod be in the space ship when it was sucked into that black hole thingy. Then spent the rest of the film having Superman clean up, become Clark Kent, meet the Daily Planet, or whatever.

Also, I tend to think that at a certain point the mass exiting of Metropolis happened, and that the city wasn't fully populated by the time the HUGE fight happened. I am sure many people died, but I don't think every building was full of people. Again, they could have writen that into the movie. Showing the people leaving and the city being a sort of ghost town.

The Guy presented in the One Punch thing was during Giffen/Maguire's JLA run (then JLI) where Guy was presented as a conservative republican loud mouthed jerk who idolized Rambo and put down men who weren't macho and women who were feminists. He was meant to be a jerk and not so heroic either, when he gets scared by a mouse and knocks his head into a table and knocks himself out for hours. When he got punched he was deciding to proclaim himself leader of the team because he thought the other leader was lacking what he obviously had.

Posted by King_Drama

just want to say to corey good work on the room ref as a roomie ive shown the room to over half the poeple i know and then something i didnt see coming they showed there friends. in the end there is about sixty or more people that i got in to the room.

Posted by FastestBlender

Isn't anyone picking up on the pattern that the rating system is consistently misinterpreted? Listen at two hours in, all three of you have a different interpretation of what 3/5 stars mean. If the staff don't have a steady interpretation, how can you expect and audience of thousands to? Not to mention the academic interpretation of a 3/5 which is a 60/100 or a failing grade. It's because there aren't enough crayons to color with. Use 1/2 stars or double up to 10. Imagine a 4.5 on Aquaman 22. That'd probably satiate both Matt and Tony. It's a simple adjustment that would save a lot of headaches.

Edited by MuyJingo

Edited by FastestBlender

@g_man "There wasn't anything as memorable or as epic as grand-scale I guess as what Scott (Snyder) has been doing"

Wow. This is a new level of Snyder hyperbole.

You need go no farther than this site itself to find 97 other Batman stories that are just as memorable, epic, and grand-scale as what Snyder is doing:

http://www.comicvine.com/profile/the_poet/blog/comic-vines-top-100-batman-universe-stories/79521/

To think Snyder's work is going to be remembered as well as The Dark Knight Returns, The Killing Joke and Batman Year One is short sighted. He writes a good Batman. He's yet to define the character for a generation (i.e. Moore, Miller, ONeil/Adams, Timm/Dini, Rogers/Engleheart)

Posted by ILLO_29

Does anyone realize that all the problems that people have with MoS, the death, the destruction and all of that is all the fuel that Lex Luthor needs to go after Superman when he show's up. Am I the only on that see's that?

Edited by Shallbecomeabattoo

@illo_29: Nope, I also see that and love it.

Also, if you watch the movie with a little bit attention... Superman causes almost no destruction to Metropolis at all. He crashes the scoutship into buildings that are already destroyed and rams Zods face through a few windows. All the buildings are destroyed through the world engine and after its deactivated, Zod destroys 3 other buildings. Sure, Supes doesn't try to save those tumbling buildings, but he has no time to do that, because Zod would destroy a lot more if Clark doesn't attack him without stopping. Believe me, I saw the film 6 times now and especially looked for the damage Clark supposedly causes in the last two viewings. He takes out a few things in Smallville by accident, but has almost nothing to do with the destruction of Metropolis. Without him, the world would've been lost.

Rant over. I just hate when people bash the movie for something that doesn't actually happen, if you pay attention. The only real problem I see with the amount of destruction is that we don't get any reaction from Clark to it. That is my only real problem with the movie. He saves enough people, they even have three scenes completely devoted to that (Schoolbus, Oil Rig, Helicopter crash).

Posted by MuyJingo

@shallbecomeabattoo: It isn't that Clark willfully causes damage, it's that he doesn't seem to care about the damage being caused.

On the podcast Gregg talks about flying Zod into space, of which I was a proponent of. It wouldn't have been a death sentence, because it could have easily been made that Clark has more energy reserves than Zod from being on earth for 33 years.

Posted by NightFang

I liked the all 5 TMNT movies.

Posted by Shallbecomeabattoo

@muyjingo: Yeah, all right. I can see that. As I said, I also would've liked a short scene where he sees the destruction the world engine caused and have him react shocked to it, maybe attack Zod because of it. In my mind he is shocked aboutit, we just don't see it, so its notthat big of a problem for me.

But the way he handled Zod was in my eyes perfect. Not from a character standpoint, of course, since its a failure of Clark, from which he will learn to never kill again, but from a theatrical standpoint. This scenes was one of the most tense and thrilling scenes I have ever seen in a superhero movie and I loved it. For me, its among the best things in MoS, because it really shocked me, I did not see it coming and the whole theatre gasped when it happened. Thats a great thing to happen in a Superman movie, especially if they use it in the follow up to built his moral code on it. Its a great way to explain his no killing rule and why he is so set on it.

Overall, did you enjoy the film?I really loved it and am a bit saddend that it has so many haters to fight. Its a cool movie.

Edited by k4tzm4n

On the podcast Gregg talks about flying Zod into space, of which I was a proponent of. It wouldn't have been a death sentence, because it could have easily been made that Clark has more energy reserves than Zod from being on earth for 33 years.

Even then, there's literally nothing to justify saying Clark can dictate Zod for that long. Their fight went crashing into a satellite and then smashing back to the ground and neither lost consciousness from that madness. I don't think Clark just dragging him out of our solar system is even remotely feasible in that film. Zod became too powerful to let such a thing simply happen.

I liked the all 5 TMNT movies.

Favorite one?

Staff
Posted by NightFang
Posted by MuyJingo

@shallbecomeabattoo: If you have to rationalize away part of the movie so it's not a problem, then that's a flaw in the movie, that you're required to do that.Don't get me wrong, I do that all the time with various things, especially comics so that it makes a nice kind of cohesive sense....but, it's a flaw with the medium that it is necessary.

The same is true for the movie...if people are OK with it because they have an idea of Superman in their minds and they are rationalizing the Man of Steel Superman into that version..well, they have managed to make the movie seem better than it is.

I think the biggest problem I have with the whole Zod thing is that....there is always another way, and he should have found it. That's what heroes do.

People are excusing the killing because he is inexperienced and it's apparently going to be the way Clark learns killing is not acceptable. Except that doesn't make sense. Let's say 2 movies from now after Clark has a strict no killing rule...what is he going to do if he is in the same situation? Kill because there is no other way, or find another way? If the latter, then the killing is less excusable.

Although as I said, I don't mind the killing so much, as it's not comic book superman. I did enjoy the movie...I just think it was disappointing, as instead of this gritty realistic take, they could have given us a bright superman to look up to.

How amazing would it have been to have a superman in bright colors who always did the right thing, who cares so much about people...

Edited by MuyJingo

@k4tzm4n said:

Even then, there's literally nothing to justify saying Clark can dictate Zod for that long. Their fight went crashing into a satellite and then smashing back to the ground and neither lost consciousness from that madness. I don't think Clark just dragging him out of our solar system is even remotely feasible in that film. Zod became too powerful to let such a thing simply happen.

That's kind of my point though. Superman should have been more powerful, for having been under the sun an extra 3 decades.

All Superman had to do was fly Zod away from Earth with enough momentum that Zod couldn't get out of it. Hell, Superman could have done that before Zod learned to fly, making it even easier.

Keep in mind, Superman wouldn't necessarily have to take Zod out of the solar system. He just has to take him far away enough from the sun so that he isn't a risk, and then something can be worked out what to do with him. What if he was left on Neptune or Europa, where the atmosphere would filter the sun, not killing him but not allowing him to be powerful enough to escape either?

You really don't think an ending along those lines, even if the details were different, wouldn't have worked in the movie?

As to how feasible it is...I guess it depends on how fast he can fly, which wasn't answered exactly in the movie. We know he can fly faster than the speed of sound. We know he can get from somewhere in the USA, probably on the East Coast to the Indian Ocean in seemingly no time at all, which is lets say 10000 miles.

We know he can go up to geostationary orbit, which according to what I just looked up is 22,223 miles, in about 2 seconds.

Lets say his speed is about 15,000 miles per second, or 90,0000 mp/h. Europa to Earth at it's closest is 365 million miles, which means it would take him just slightly over 16 days to get there. It could be a whole lot sooner if he can fly faster in a vacuum and builds up speed as he goes.

That seems reasonable to me.

Even if it isn't, I'm sure the filmmakers could take a dramatic license with the science as they so often do, and the movie wouldn't have been any the worse for it.

Oh, and for the record? I was saying Clark should have talked to Jor-El for ideas on how to deal with Zod, ale the HISHE video. For some reason silly people were saying since the copy uploaded into Zod's ship was destroyed this was impossible, despite other copies remaining.

Posted by k4tzm4n

@muyjingo: And there's why we'll never see eye to eye on this. You're telling me Superman should be more powerful than Zod in the film, but there's literally no evidence to support a significant power advantage. You're creating an ending based on how you think the movie should be -- which is fine and IF that was the case, then sure, it's a possible outcome -- but based on what happened in the actual film, there's about a 0% chance of convincing me that should have happened because you're basing it on a different version of Superman -- one which is more powerful than Zod, and not a version who could barely stalemate him and neither showed signs of slowing down.

As for HISHE, it's brilliant because it showed a critical moment when Clark should have sought out his father's advice -- one which sadly none of us thought of. In your scenario, it has Superman talking to Jor after the Zod fight because you had to dispute why you believe Jor still exists. It's a huge difference, especially to me because, again, there was no evidence Clark could do more than temporarily knock Zod out in due time -- and even that was proving immensely difficult.

@k4tzm4n said:

@nightfang said:

I liked the all 5 TMNT movies.

Favorite one?

The 2nd one.

Interesting choice. Mine's definitely the first. Why the second?

Staff
Edited by MuyJingo

@k4tzm4n said:

@muyjingo: And there's why we'll never see eye to eye on this. You're telling me Superman should be more powerful than Zod in the film, but there's literally no evidence to support a significant power advantage. You're creating an ending based on how you think the movie should be -- which is fine and IF that was the case, then sure, it's a possible outcome -- but based on what happened in the actual film, there's about a 0% chance of convincing me that should have happened because you're basing it on a different version of Superman -- one which is more powerful than Zod, and not a version who could barely stalemate him and neither showed signs of slowing down.

I agree we will never see eye to eye. For what it's worth, I've enjoyed the discussion with you and other fans.

I just wanted to clarify something. I agree the movie didn't show Clark as more powerful than Zod, I was arguing that I think it would have been one of many better endings to the movie we got.

As for the version of Superman we were given, not shown to be more powerful, why couldn't he have done something when Zod was overwhelmed after his helmet was broken? I mean, Zod was down at the point and it was clear he needed to be stopped. Clark didn't even try to incapacitate him. You can't deny that there were many opportunities for Clark to have done something before things reached the point where he had no choice but to snap Zod's neck. That is why the movie fails.

As for HISHE, it's brilliant because it showed a critical moment when Clark should have sought out his father's advice -- one which sadly none of us thought of. In your scenario, it has Superman talking to Jor after the Zod fight because you had to dispute why you believe Jor still exists. It's a huge difference, especially to me because, again, there was no evidence Clark could do more than temporarily knock Zod out in due time -- and even that was proving immensely difficult.

I remember arguing that Clark should have talked to Jor-El to get help in simulating a Kryptonian atmosphere as a way to contain Zod, or at least an atmosphere that would have weakened him.

What I argued was different from the HISHE ending, but I did make the point that he should have sought help from the Jor-El program.

Speaking of which, do you recall what happened to the scoutship that Clark was on, where he got his costume from? I feel that was never explained, and it may have been useful since it likely had a phantom drive and a copy of Jor-El.....

Edited by Shallbecomeabattoo

@muyjingo: yeah, you are right that its a fault of the film that they don't show Clark reacting to the destruction, but just becaus ewe don't see it, doesn't mean he doesn't care.

Would the movie be better if they would have shown it? Heck yes!

And about the killing... I think its perfect, especially when Clark gets into the same situation again (which he will in the sequel, I am sure), because then he has grown out of that mistake and finds the other way. Thats character growth and something a character as out there as Supes needs in a movie take on him. I also think that simply sending Zod back into the Phantom zone or something like that would've been pretty anticlimactic. I really do think it was the right way to end the film. They could have handled the tonal shift right after it a little better, but apart from that I really loved it. It was such a great shocking and emotional scene.

Again, I really loved the film. Its in my top 3 favorite superhero movies. I did not found it to be dark or gritty at all and saw Clark as very inspiring and uplifting. I was grinning and smiling all the way through the movie (apart from the metropolis battle. There were more jaw and the floor and grab my seat moments, which is great!), so for me it is almost a perfect film version of the modern comic Superman.

To be fair, I have to explain that my story sensibilities always lie in the serious and sombre corner. I always prefer a serious story to a lighthearted one, thats why all Marvel movies, as much as I like them, are never really for me, because they are too funny and lighthearted.

So in the end, Man of Steel, just as the Dark Knight trilogy before it, was almost tailor made for what I want in my superhero movies. I want a serious world, a serious (some would call it darker) tone and high odds against the hero, which he has to overcome and all without jokes to break the tension. I get that a lot of people may have a different view, but for me, MoS was almost flawless (apart from a few nitpicky things every movie has of course).

Edited by NightFang

@k4tzm4n said:

@nightfang said:

@k4tzm4n said:

@nightfang said:

I liked the all 5 TMNT movies.

Favorite one?

The 2nd one.

Interesting choice. Mine's definitely the first. Why the second?

It's mostly because of the mutants Razar and Tokka calling Shredder mommy, it kills me every time.

Edited by MuyJingo

@shallbecomeabattoo said:

And about the killing... I think its perfect, especially when Clark gets into the same situation again (which he will in the sequel, I am sure), because then he has grown out of that mistake and finds the other way.

That's the problem I have though. That doesn't make sense to me. People are defending the killing because apparently there is no other way. So lets say Superman from the 3rd man of steel movie has a strict no killing rule...what would he do in this situation in the train station?

I'm glad you enjoyed the movies as much as you can...I guess I'm just the opposite way. I think it would be incredible if Marvel would make DC's movies for them.

Superman was kind of uplifting...but not anywhere near what he could have been. For starters...even his costume was kind of dark...why not a bright, cheery blue? That's the Superman costume...red underpants or no.

I guess I feel like if Marvel made the movie...we would get a Batman in the grey who was a detective and had the intellect, not just money and bat themed gadgets...a Superman who was cheery while being just as powerfull as Man of Steel version. There wouldn't be the crazy destruction....there would be kryptonite and things like that done in a comic book way....

I think Marvel has the perfect tone for comic book movies....Maybe in 15 years or so Marvel can try serious and DC can try lighthearted....

Posted by k4tzm4n

@k4tzm4n said:

@nightfang said:

@k4tzm4n said:

@nightfang said:

I liked the all 5 TMNT movies.

Favorite one?

The 2nd one.

Interesting choice. Mine's definitely the first. Why the second?

It's mostly because of the mutants Razar and Tokka calling Shredder mommy, it kills me every time.

Heh. My friends and I rewatched that in college and there was so much rofling. Shredder saying, "Babies! They're babies! Arghhhhhhhhh!" had me in tears.

Staff
Edited by Shallbecomeabattoo

@muyjingo: But read what I said about the kill. I said that he then would find another way even in the same situation, because he learned that he has to find another way.

I think its geat that DC chooses to do something so different from Marvels approach, because if DC would do it like Marvel, people like me, who like the serious approach, would be getting no movies made for them. You enjoy your lighter Marvel movies and I the more serious DC ones and we are both happy. Its perfect. I would die if Batman would be done the Marvel way... wisecracking all the time, never wearing his mask in action scenes, no real threats against him. Ugh.

And again about the desuction... the comics have it too. Smallville was rebuilt 5 times in the last 10 years of comics. Metropolis gets trashed almost every issue. I don't get how that by itself is a problem. I wanted to see that in a Superman film, because that makes the stakes so much higher.

About the MoS costume... I actually think its the best version of the suit outside of the comics, ever, including the colors. I LOVE the suit. The brighter colors would look stupid in a modern movie. It wouldn't work, he would look like a circus performer. Same for Batmans comics outfit. Certain things have to change for another medium. Over at Marvel it is the same thing. Thor never wears that helmet, Cap has no Pirate boots. Its better that way. To make the jump from one medium to another you have to adjust some stuff.

And I mean, wanting them to do it just like in the comics is kinda boring, since we already have that. I am glad they use the characters in slightly other ways, that are optimized for the film medium. For example, the "Superman in a real world" thing works really well in a movie. In the ongoing comicbook it would not work as well, with all the continuity of the other books, with gods, aliens, vampires etc.

Also, I think Batman in Nolans movies had plenty of intelect and was a detective. He built that sonar thingy on his own and showed enough detective work in all three movies (finding out what was going on in Arkham and the Narrows, taking fingerprints from the bullet, realizing that Selina took his fingerprints and find out her real identity, even if she wore fake prints herself). Sure, they could show him do more, but I guess that would bore the general audience.

Posted by MuyJingo

@muyjingo: But read what I said about the kill. I said that he then would find another way even in the same situation, because he learned that he has to find another way.

OK, but if there was another way, way couldn't he find it this time? I mean, he has seconds before the family dies, right? He will have the same amount of time....if there is another way, he could have found it this way.

If a later movie shows him in a similar situation and finding a way out, it only reinforces how bad the endings of the first movie is. Or perhaps, how unnecessary it is.

I think its geat that DC chooses to do something so different from Marvels approach, because if DC would do it like Marvel, people like me, who like the serious approach, would be getting no movies made for them. You enjoy your lighter Marvel movies and I the more serious DC ones and we are both happy. Its perfect. I would die if Batman would be done the Marvel way... wisecracking all the time, never wearing his mask in action scenes, no real threats against him. Ugh.

What? lol. Marvel are fairly true to the characters. A batman movie made in the marvel way wouldn't have his mask off and be wisecracking. Since they tend to be truer to the characters, he would probably have the mask on most of the time and be very grim...

I guess it's nice that there are both kinds of movies...but I don't care about Marvel characters at all..I love DC characters, and it makes me sad that DC is screwing up their properties so much when they could have an amazing shared universe.

And again about the desuction... the comics have it too. Smallville was rebuilt 5 times in the last 10 years of comics. Metropolis gets trashed almost every issue. I don't get how that by itself is a problem. I wanted to see that in a Superman film, because that makes the stakes so much higher.

The difference is in comics Superman tries to avoid destruction, cares a lot more about saving people. I didn't see Superman try to move the fight. It's not like he made an effort and failed...he didn't try. Having him try and fail would have been a small change but it would have made a big difference.

About the MoS costume... I actually think its the best version of the suit outside of the comics, ever, including the colors. I LOVE the suit. The brighter colors would look stupid in a modern movie. It wouldn't work, he would look like a circus performer. Same for Batmans comics outfit. Certain things have to change for another medium. Over at Marvel it is the same thing. Thor never wears that helmet, Cap has no Pirate boots. Its better that way. To make the jump from one medium to another you have to adjust some stuff.

Lol....and with that statement, we couldn't disagree more :)

Batman's costume is horrible....maybe you have to change the costumes for the medium, but not drastically. You have to change a costume like Hawkeyes because it's ridiculous. Batman's costume, the more recent incarnations without the underpants are fine as is. Changing his costume into a riduclous suit of armor that gives him no freedom is not the way to go.

The biggest problem I have with Superman's costume in MoS is the lack of red to break up the blue. Why does he appear to have a belt buckle with no belt? Why not add a red belt ala the New 52? It breaks up the blue and looks a lot better.

I also have no idea why you think brighter colors would look stupid in a modern movie. It would have to be as bright as the donner films, but it can be brighter than it was. His costume is blue, not navy....

And I mean, wanting them to do it just like in the comics is kinda boring, since we already have that. I am glad they use the characters in slightly other ways, that are optimized for the film medium. For example, the "Superman in a real world" thing works really well in a movie. In the ongoing comicbook it would not work as well, with all the continuity of the other books, with gods, aliens, vampires etc.

Except we don't have any DC characters that are anything like the comics. Nolan's Batman wasn't Batman, Snyders Superman has many differences and Green Lantern...was actually ok not half bad in terms of being close to the comic but was a poor movie over all.

I don't really want to see realistic takes on fantastic ideas that fail at being realistic. I'd much rather have an escapist fantasy which could be real with a minimum of suspended disbelief. That's where the Marvel movies shine.

Also, I think Batman in Nolans movies had plenty of intelect and was a detective. He built that sonar thingy on his own and showed enough detective work in all three movies (finding out what was going on in Arkham and the Narrows, taking fingerprints from the bullet, realizing that Selina took his fingerprints and find out her real identity, even if she wore fake prints herself). Sure, they could show him do more, but I guess that would bore the general audience.

He didn't build the sonar thing, Lucius built it for him. Lucius built everything for him.

He wasn't shown to have any intellect. In Batman Begins when Lucius tries to explain the antidote to him, he looks back with a blank stare and asks if he is meant to understand any of what was just said. The answer is yes, because he is Batman...except not in Nolan's universe.

There was no detective work, the closet was when he stole evidence and fed it to a computer.

Nolan's Batman also murders....

Edited by Shallbecomeabattoo

@muyjingo:

Oh man, why did such a nice discussion turn into such a passive aggressive punch out?

Its not a bad ending. It just an unexpierienced Clark not finding another way. It just doesn't go down with what you wanted from the character and the movie. It is in no way a bad ending. Its a brave ending that made people talk.

You say that DC screws up their characters, but that is again your view of it. In my opinion and in the opinion of a lot of other they are doing it absolutely right.

Marvel doesn't stay completely true to the character. They had Tony Stark and Clint Barton almost switch characters entirely. Tony never was that jokey before Downey played him. Barton was though. Cap looses his Mask in almost every battle he is in and Tony doesn't even wear his armor anymore.

For me Nolans Batman was completely in synch with the soul of the character. The same with Superman. Again you state your opinion as fact, but its not.

About the sonar thing... Nope. You are just wrong about that. Believe me, I have seen TDK at least 50 times. Lucius didn't even knew the Sonar thing existed. Bruce did it on his own, in the R&D lab. Thats why he lies to Lucius when he says he has a cellphone contract with the military and is using R&D for that.

"I wasn't aware we had any government contracts." says Lucius to him. Wen Bats show him the thingy, he is shocked by it and says, that this is what Bruce used R&D for.

He also fixes the auto pilot by himself and even Lucius says to him that it needs a greater mind than his own to fix, referring to Bruce in that way. Rewatch it, man. You are just plain wrong. No two ways about it.

The same thing with Selinas prints. How could the computer figure out Selinas identity, without her real prints? That was all Bruce and not the computer, doing detective work, off screen. You just have to use your own mind to get that. Nolan does not take your hand and spells it out for you, but if you actually pay attention, you get that Bruce is quite smart in the movies.

Nolans Batman does also not murder. Muder implies intent. Yes, he killed people, but only in scenarios where he had no other choice to, if he wanted to save people. Harvey died because Bats had to save the boy and couldn't save Harvey at the same time. Harvey brought himself into that situation and Bruce had to make the choice to risk Harveys death.

The same thing with Talias driver. The countdown is running out, the truck doesn't stop... what is he supposed to so? He has to throw anything at the truck to make it stop, to save the city. If the guy dies in the process, so be it. Also he didn't shot AT the guy, he shot at the front of the truck to stop the truck and killed the guy in the process.

To be honest, I think it should be this way in the books too. Its pretty childish to expect that there is always a way, because there isn't, no matter who you are. In Final Crisis Bruce killed Darkseid and there was no other way. Its great when the hero has a no killing rule (I prefer that), but to never even show him struggle with that is boring.

I am also a bit saddened that you try to turn this friendly discussion around by trying to convince me that the movies I have stated to love are crap and not "real" Batman. Maybe to you they aren't, but you don't have to be mean about it. I get that you dislike them, lets agree to disagree here, but please... if you try to talk something down you should know what you are talking about, which you clearly don't in regard to the Dark Knight Trilogy. I'm sorry, man, I enjoyed this in the beginning, but I am not wasting my time any further, by talkint to people who want to fight about stuff as subjective as this.

Verdict: you (and others) don't like the serious take, I (and others) don't like the Marvel take.

I'm out.

Posted by NightFang

@k4tzm4n said:

@nightfang said:

@k4tzm4n said:

@nightfang said:

@k4tzm4n said:

@nightfang said:

I liked the all 5 TMNT movies.

Favorite one?

The 2nd one.

Interesting choice. Mine's definitely the first. Why the second?

It's mostly because of the mutants Razar and Tokka calling Shredder mommy, it kills me every time.

Heh. My friends and I rewatched that in college and there was so much rofling. Shredder saying,

"Babies! They're babies! Arghhhhhhhhh!" had me in tears.

Yeah, Shredder sounded like Arnold Schwarzenegger in that scene.

Posted by MuyJingo

@muyjingo:

Oh man, why did such a nice discussion turn into such a passive aggressive punch out?

Err....we disagree over some things. I don't see it as being a passive aggressive punch out. In fact I thought it was still a nice discussion...

Its not a bad ending. It just an unexpierienced Clark not finding another way. It just doesn't go down with what you wanted from the character and the movie. It is in no way a bad ending. Its a brave ending that made people talk.

I disagree. It's a cheap ending to be edgy. For a new take on Superman, it was unnecessary to have him kill in the first movie, inexperienced or not. If there is another way, he should have found it.

You say that DC screws up their characters, but that is again your view of it. In my opinion and in the opinion of a lot of other they are doing it absolutely right.

Out of genuine curiosity, how attached to the comics are you? Every fan of Batman from the comics or animated series wasn't impressed with Nolan's version. No one liked Green lantern. Man of Steel seemed to be evenly divided amongst fans.

Out of 5 movies, one has a 50/50 split. I don't know how that's getting the take absolutely right.

Besides, what I meant by that comment was accuracy to the characters. Batman is the biggest gripe, and I explained why I think so above.

Marvel doesn't stay completely true to the character. They had Tony Stark and Clint Barton almost switch characters entirely. Tony never was that jokey before Downey played him. Barton was though. Cap looses his Mask in almost every battle he is in and Tony doesn't even wear his armor anymore.

I'm not as familiar with the Marvel characters, and I especially don't know how much they may have changed as a result of the movies...but it seems like they really got the spirit of the characters right.

Tony didn't wear his armor only in the last movie....and that's because it served the story. Not ever Iron man comic is going ot have him in his armor all the time...

Aside from Tony being more of a comic than he was, what were the other character changes they made? I'm genuinely curious...I've read very little Marvel stuff aside from Civil War and a few other titles.

For me Nolans Batman was completely in synch with the soul of the character. The same with Superman. Again you state your opinion as fact, but its not.

I stated my opinion as opinion. The facts I stated were facts, like the lack of detective work and the line I quoted from Begins characterizing the portrayal of Bruce Wayne..

About the sonar thing... Nope. You are just wrong about that. Believe me, I have seen TDK at least 50 times. Lucius didn't even knew the Sonar thing existed. Bruce did it on his own, in the R&D lab. Thats why he lies to Lucius when he says he has a cellphone contract with the military and is using R&D for that.

"I wasn't aware we had any government contracts." says Lucius to him. Wen Bats show him the thingy, he is shocked by it and says, that this is what Bruce used R&D for.

If you're wondering how this discussing is becoming a passive aggressive slugfest, maybe it's because you are telling me I am flat out wrong and to take your word for something, when you are actually incorrect?

Lucius gives Bruce the prototype phone in the airport. He says he had R&D work it up. Bruce uses that existing technology on a larger scale, but he doesn't create it.

He also fixes the auto pilot by himself and even Lucius says to him that it needs a greater mind than his own to fix, referring to Bruce in that way. Rewatch it, man. You are just plain wrong. No two ways about it.

So wait...you're arguing that because he fixed a dang autopilot he is an intellectual and a detective? It's an autopilot. Sorry, not impressed. The scene from Batman Begins still rings true in my mind when Lucius is explaining the antidote, and he responds with "Am I meant to understand what any of that means?". Disappointing.

The same thing with Selinas prints. How could the computer figure out Selinas identity, without her real prints? That was all Bruce and not the computer, doing detective work, off screen. You just have to use your own mind to get that. Nolan does not take your hand and spells it out for you, but if you actually pay attention, you get that Bruce is quite smart in the movies.

geez, you really love you're off screen rationalizations don't you. Look, it's pretty simple. If it didn't happen on screen, if we didn't see it, if no one mentioned it, then it didn't happen.

He did no detective work in begins. In TDK he had the computer analyze evidence. He hasn't shown any detective abilities aside from the short scene with the safe in rises. Henri Ducard, the man who trained him as a detective in the comics was reduced to an alias for Ra's in the movies. That says it all.

Bruce is smart, yes, but he is no where near comic book Batman...not even close. He's just a smart guy with access to technology.

To put it simply, comic book Batman is still Batman without his money, costume or toys. That isn't true for Nolan's Batman.

Nolans Batman does also not murder. Muder implies intent. Yes, he killed people, but only in scenarios where he had no other choice to, if he wanted to save people. Harvey died because Bats had to save the boy and couldn't save Harvey at the same time. Harvey brought himself into that situation and Bruce had to make the choice to risk Harveys death.

Actually, the most prominent example of murder is when he murdered Ra's. The whole I won't kill you but don't have to save you but. What people don't understand is, that was murder.

It was murder because Ra's was not suicidal, was planning to leave the train. Batman sabotaged the train if you recall, which was equivalent to cutting the brake lines. He then bailed, knowing that Ra's couldn't. That is murder.

The same thing with Talias driver. The countdown is running out, the truck doesn't stop... what is he supposed to so? He has to throw anything at the truck to make it stop, to save the city. If the guy dies in the process, so be it. Also he didn't shot AT the guy, he shot at the front of the truck to stop the truck and killed the guy in the process.

I don't have so much of a problem with that, as the murder of Ra's. Harvey I'm more forgiving about, but it seemed...the opposite of Batman to just run and tackle a guy off a ledge. I mean, when has Batman does anything like that in the comics? No batarang to the gun? Not real enough? He couldn't have distracted him and got him to aim at him and then done something?

To be honest, I think it should be this way in the books too. Its pretty childish to expect that there is always a way, because there isn't, no matter who you are. In Final Crisis Bruce killed Darkseid and there was no other way. Its great when the hero has a no killing rule (I prefer that), but to never even show him struggle with that is boring.

I agree, and don't get me wrong, I actually really like the realistic take on stuff because I like to imagine how heroes would be in our world. I just think they get the characters wrong, or miss the mark.

I am also a bit saddened that you try to turn this friendly discussion around by trying to convince me that the movies I have stated to love are crap and not "real" Batman. Maybe to you they aren't, but you don't have to be mean about it. I get that you dislike them, lets agree to disagree here, but please... if you try to talk something down you should know what you are talking about, which you clearly don't in regard to the Dark Knight Trilogy. I'm sorry, man, I enjoyed this in the beginning, but I am not wasting my time any further, by talkint to people who want to fight about stuff as subjective as this.

Sigh. I didn't mean to be mean, and I wasn't aware that I was. I can't see how I was, but I apologize. It wasn't my intention.

It is a subject I am passionate about and I'm actually writing a pretty long article about how Nolan missed the point of Batman. Perhaps you will find interesting even if you disagree when I post it.

I argued that Nolan's Batman was not a scientist or detective as he is in the comics. That was demonstrated in the films. Before you accuse someone of not knowing what they're talking about, it helps if you check your facts. At the moment you just look foolish. The areas you insist you were correct above you were actually wrong. I'm happy to post clips from the movie to show that if necessary.

But sure, let's agree to disagree.

Edited by k4tzm4n

@k4tzm4n said:

@nightfang said:

@k4tzm4n said:

@nightfang said:

@k4tzm4n said:

@nightfang said:

I liked the all 5 TMNT movies.

Favorite one?

The 2nd one.

Interesting choice. Mine's definitely the first. Why the second?

It's mostly because of the mutants Razar and Tokka calling Shredder mommy, it kills me every time.

Heh. My friends and I rewatched that in college and there was so much rofling. Shredder saying,

"Babies! They're babies! Arghhhhhhhhh!" had me in tears.

Yeah, Shredder sounded like Arnold Schwarzenegger in that scene.

:D

Staff
Posted by theRedHoood3

@g_man Hey is there is any chance of the comicvine crew appearing at the New Orleans Comic Con in the beginning of next year. Also I use to love the X men animated series that was on TV but haven't read the comics. What is a good jumping on point where i can pick up a trade or two to catch up too??

Posted by CapnEric

@k4tzm4n, couldn't agree with you more about Scarlet Spider. I started reading last month, and I've just found it to be tremendously entertaining!

Posted by stettsen
  • 52 results
  • 1
  • 2