Battlepig's forum posts

#1 Posted by Battlepig (285 posts) - - Show Bio

@HigorM said:

anyone please :)


JSA #18 from 2001.

#2 Posted by Battlepig (285 posts) - - Show Bio

Oh, here's another one.

Merchandise. I have come to hate the comic books industry's way of handling the merch. How many shirts with variations of the Superman logo do we need? Same with the Bat-Symbol? But let's say you'd be interested in a hero's looks. Say Wolverine. You don't want a shirt with a picture of Wolverine on it. You want Wolverine's t-shirt. Yellow shirt with blue stripes to the side. Or shirts with symbols of lesser known heroes. It's not like it's a lot of work, because all the design work has been done already. All you need to do is just adapt that. It's not that hard. And what if they had something like Zazzle's way of customizing designs? That would be icing on the cake.

#3 Edited by Battlepig (285 posts) - - Show Bio

I have grown to dislike the attitude most of the comic book fan community seems to have adopted. Well, this doesn't just apply to the comic book fandom, video game fandom is very similar. They're very stuck up and snobbish. I have seen this scene often at the local comic book shop. There's a casual reader flipping through some books. And then either the casual reader asks the staff something and a diehard fan barges in. Or the diehard fan barges in anyways. And typically, the talk starts with "Oh, you don't want that!" followed by a huge rant about how everything sucks. Other diatribe subjects are how you need to know numerous books in order to fully understand and appreciate the book you're currently interested in. And then you're being made to feel like a moron for even being interested in. Or, when asking about a plotline, they launch into the hugest speech that spans numerous decades of plots and just serves to show the diehard's knowledge.

People who go "This sucks!" months before it has happened, solely based on maybe one preview image.

In the industry itself, I don't like editors who okay rubbish. This can include the blatant re-using of the same plot devices such as Marvel's "everyone gets a certain set of superpowers"-schtick. We've had it with the Hulk where there were red and blue Hulks left and right, Spider Island where everyone was Spider-Man suddenly and now we have Avengers vs. X-Men where everyone is The Phoenix. With a biit of a stretch, you could count in Fear Itself as well, where everyone had Asgard powers. I guess we can be lucky that we're running out of well-established powersets at Marvel's.

The people who make the movies based on DC that are not Christopher Nolan. Because whoever backs Nolan did a very good job of just letting him run loose. Like the movies or not, but they were well-done. But Green Lantern and Jonah Hex, for example, were handled by complete hacks.

This desperate need to be all-encompassing and diverse. If you're writing a good story, everyone - regardless of race, creed, gender or sexual orientation - will like it. Be inclusive and diverse because you can, not because you have to.

Villains who can't be villains anymore. Red Skull is a nazi. He has been a nazi for decades. But these days, he just has generic evil plans. Not once would he dare to call Falcon's by a derogatory nickname. He's just the same as everyone else. He's no different from any other villain. So you have one villain with about seven faces. Sticking with the Red Skull example, why can't he have nazi plots anymore? While the nazis have lost the second World War, they're still around. So they're villains who are evil for the sake of being evil. There's nothing behind it anymore.

Books that feature heroes that are only defined through their interactions with other heroes who - in turn - are also defined by talking to other heroes.

The DC and Marvel continuities. They're much too tight and allow for too little freedom, I think.

The editory in comic book companies obviously have read a great amount of comics in their life. I would say that they recognize a good story, or an obviously flawed one. Yet there is the occasional trainwreck such as Ultimatum. How could anyone have okayed this?

Death in comics. I would like to see a rule that has like a minimum time of staying dead. Say you kill off Superman. then the rule would say that he has to stay dead for five years. Because when characters die in March and are back by December, it loses all impact.

#4 Posted by Battlepig (285 posts) - - Show Bio

Since when does Damian go by Redbird? And why? Did I miss something?

#5 Posted by Battlepig (285 posts) - - Show Bio

I do hope they fix the typo in the Wonder Woman one where the word "Fighter" is misspelled every single time it's on the poster. But other than that, they're nice things.

#6 Posted by Battlepig (285 posts) - - Show Bio

I think that The Dark Knight Rises is better than The Dark Knight.

#7 Posted by Battlepig (285 posts) - - Show Bio

Theoretically, yes.

But given DC's track record with live action movies, I prefer to not have it made. Sure, Nolan's Batmans were awesome. And Snyder's Man of Steel looks quite good too. But other than that, DC's moviemaking is lacklustre at best.

#8 Posted by Battlepig (285 posts) - - Show Bio

@HBKTimHBK said:

Paranormal Activity

I didn't like that one either. Mainly because all the scenes that happened during daylight could have been cut out, the movie would have been fifteen minutes long and we wouldn't have missed out on anything. And that's a shame. Also, the scenes at night weren't very rewarding either, let alone scary. But that might be because I'm used to scary movies. I just sat there and thought "Eh, the door slammed. Good job, ghostdemon." Despite all this, I do see how the movie is very influential and is hyped. It was the first big movie smash hit that was unsettling while not relying on gore in a long, long while. There were also no jumpcuts and none of the typical "Person walks around corner, monster stands there with a chainsaw, music goes loud, gore, person dies"-shockeffects that they try to pass off as horror these days. In many ways, it was a return to the more psychological horror, a movie set to emotionally scar you and not just shock you.

@HolySerpent: It didn't exactly suck. It had nice effects, you could tell the actors were having fun, the story wasn't halfways bad even if it was riddled with plotholes and it was a fine superhero romp. But it's no more than that.

#9 Posted by Battlepig (285 posts) - - Show Bio

@ssejllenrad: I haven't seen Paprika, I'm afraid. But after Inception, I am kind of hesitant to go into the whole dream-entering again. but seeing as Studio Madhouse has done it, I might give it a shot.

@TheThe said:


Indeed. It is a good movie. In fact, I enjoyed it a lot and it was a great bit of fun. But it's nowhere near the comic-book-movie-epiphany that people make it out to be. Sure, it looked impressive and the Hulk was fun and it had great effects and everything, but it's just not that awesome. Loki's plan made zero sense, the helicarrier served no function at all, some scenes were drawn out and the Chi'tauri were little but cannon fodder and never posed a real threat. Also, the allusions to the genocide during WWII were very, very clumsy and what's with the plothole around the mind control thing?

#10 Posted by Battlepig (285 posts) - - Show Bio

Inception: The idea of invading dreams and doing crime-things in there is brilliant. So is the idea that you can "deeper", even though I've never dreamed that I've fallen asleep in my dreams. However, the final result is a couple of guys running and shooting in random locations. The dream-thing became little more than an excuse for them to have various shooting sequences. And those scenes weren't all that good or spectacular. And then, occasionally, the good idea pops up again briefly. And the soundtrack itself didn't have the famous BRRRRRM, but ended up being rather bland. I expected that to at least pop up at some point.

The Dark Knight: Heath Ledger as the Joker was amazing. Easily the best portrayal of the Joker I've seen, even though it was very different from what we're used to. But it sufferent from the same thing that many comic book movies suffer from: it tried to do too much. Apart from the fifteen minutes or so of Joker on screen, you had Two-Face. He got even less screentime. Then there's the thing with Hong Kong, the bit with the accountant, Gordon faking his death, the Batpod, Rachel dying, quite probably some other things and then the bit on the boat. That last half hour of the movie was just superfluous. And we get the point of the scene after three minutes. The bad guys aren't as bad as they seem and Gotham's elite are bastards. So why drag it out for half an hour? All I wanted to see was more Joker, because that was what the movie was all about. Also, maybe we want to actually understand Batman when he's saying something.