digimod's forum posts

#1 Posted by digimod (239 posts) - - Show Bio

@lvenger said:

If you honestly think that's the best part of the film, you don't understand Superman at all. This is far too generous a 'review' for Man of Steel. It has way more flaws than this and it's a shame they aren't covered here. A lot of things were unnecessarily changed to make the film seem more 'realistic' which betrayed the core concept of Superman. If Snyder thinks Superman needs tragedy for his no killing code, he doesn't get the character at all. AND there are ways for Superman to stop Zod without killing him. I never thought I'd be dissatisfied with a community verdict but I guess there's a first for everything.


I have to agree with you and more. I've been a huge Superman fan for thirty years and have almost every issue he appeared in since 1990. When it comes to Superhero movies I am pretty liberal - I understand that some things don't translate well to real imagery and some comic book elements look silly on the screen. I also like alternate versions of superheros as long as they pay homage to the core values of the character. (For example - I loved Smallville.) Man of Steel slaughtered the character. Killing Zod was one. Another was destroying a city in a fight (hundreds if not thousands of people must have died in those buildings.) Allowing his father to die (even when his father told him not to save him) - I can't imagine Superman (or Clark in his youth) ever letting family or friend perish if it was in his power to save them. I also didn't like the way they handled his meeting and friendship with Lois. I don't know why they felt they needed to have her in on his identity right off the bat - I might have accepted it if handled better but just seemed weak to me I also felt Lois was miscast - she didn't feel she played the part 'strong' enough - she came off too 'girlish' to me.

While I was certainly happy to see the Superman logo on the screen again - I was very disappointed in the handling of the character. I hope this is worked out in the sequel.

#2 Posted by digimod (239 posts) - - Show Bio

Your articles are geared more towards roleplaying rather than discussion of comic books and their content.  Just sayin'
#3 Posted by digimod (239 posts) - - Show Bio
@danhimself@IrishX: Now the icing on the cake would be for Abnett to actually write a Team 7 series. 
And then there is my other Wildstorm team that I drool to see brought back - Wetworks
#4 Posted by digimod (239 posts) - - Show Bio
@danhimself: funny - gen13 was one of the 90s comics that pulled me back in after 15 years of dormancy.  I remember paying way more than worth for all 13 variant cvrs of #1
#5 Edited by digimod (239 posts) - - Show Bio

Weird - I find myself agreeing with most of your opinions now.  In fact more than any other staff member now.  That was not the case before (at least I don't remember it that way). 
She has been my favorite Batgirl for years now.  None of the others captured the mood of what I expected a Bat family to be better than her.  Hopefully they will showcase some stories with her in some form or another and eventually (maybe) let her be Batgirl again.
#6 Posted by digimod (239 posts) - - Show Bio

(sarcasm on) That would work out great - a black character that becomes more powerful when he turns white.

#7 Edited by digimod (239 posts) - - Show Bio

I don't see the controversy here - doesn't seem anymore risque than her previous portrayals.   She has always been a sort of 'fanservice' character.
And guys - fanservice is not a good thing, it is almost always used in a deragatory tone to point out unnecessary visuals that focus on panties or breasts for the purpose of exciting a male dominated demographic. 
And I don't like the art - has potential but the shadows look like dirt on the characters.
#8 Edited by digimod (239 posts) - - Show Bio

Natural selection and evolution as it is dicussed in science is based on our observations of nature over a period of time where man had not developed a civilization or technology even close to what we have today.  It is based on a theory of natural selection and survival of the fittest in the context of Nature.  I do not believe that the same theories apply in our modern age.  In this day and age Suvival has nothing to do with the Fittest nor Natural Selection and is more a byproduct of money and power derived from very non-natural parameters.  In this modern scenario I can very easily see intervention and protectionism being the agenda of a higher power that had an interest to see a more highly evolved species survive - especially when that species might embrace a more evolved sense of ethics than the lesser species. 
The second reason that a higher power might have an interest in watching over and protecting the evolution of a species are cosmic and/or catastrophic events that occur outside the sphere of life on the planet.  Such as a comet, Galactacus or invading aliens. 

So the existance of these Evolutionaries makes sense to me in context to the premise of the story.  The fact that it was a genetically enhanced primate is no big deal - Man is a primate - the physical appearance of the Evolutionaries is directly related to the point in prehistoric time that they were invoked. 
While not the best story I have read I felt that the premise and plot were well thought out and compelling, certainly not stupid nor idiotic.

#9 Posted by digimod (239 posts) - - Show Bio

Ms Marvel is one of those characters that may work (somewhat) in comics but just does not have the right  appeal for film

#10 Posted by digimod (239 posts) - - Show Bio

I never dug Toby as Spider-man - too much of a limp dud while Peter is a more animated character in the comics.  These pics look promising.