Jazon's forum posts

  • 15 results
  • 1
  • 2
#1 Posted by Jazon (18 posts) - - Show Bio

@drthanos91: eh? is that the finale? or will the male Thor continue his adventures using his god-killing axe Jarnbjorn instead? seems a waste to discontinue this awesome series.

#2 Posted by Jazon (18 posts) - - Show Bio

hey now. Remender has proven himself to be good in writing events and mixing various characters that had little interaction before. in him i trust.

if nothing else, i'm interested in seeing the grudge match of the century: Red Skull (who was a nazi and stole prof x's brain) vs Magneto (who was a nazi victim and rival/friend of prof x).

#3 Posted by Jazon (18 posts) - - Show Bio

I wish this movie will fail so horribly that Marvel can buy the license back at a cheap price.

#4 Posted by Jazon (18 posts) - - Show Bio

Regrading As for why he doesn't kill the Joker, I really do believe by Batman breaking his code, Joker would win.

If this is Batman's mindset then he's not looking at the big picture. Every moment the Joker lives countless lives are in danger.

We often hear, "Batman always wins." In Death of the Family, Batman "won." But what good has it done?

#5 Posted by Jazon (18 posts) - - Show Bio

@k4tzm4n said:

It's obviously not "realistic" and everyone knows TDKR has its flaws, but the trilogy strives to be more realistic than most comic book films. It's more than transparent Nolan's objective was to create a world without powers.

Then we can say that Nolan failed in his objective since in a sense, Iron Man is more realistic because a suit that gives enhanced strength, flight capability and advanced armament is well within the laws of physics (as shown in Michio Kaku's Physics of the Impossible). Wayne's capacity to heal with inappropriate and crude tools in TDKR is certainly not realistic. People not succumbing to disease while confined and crowded in closed space is not realistic. A bomb blast on the earth's surface that doesn't produce shock waves is not realistic. And so on.

The sooner people accept that Nolan's bat-verse is no more "realistic" than Iron Man's the easier it will be to accept Nolan's Batman standing among the more outrageously powered heroes of the DC universe.

#6 Posted by Jazon (18 posts) - - Show Bio
One of the many things that made Nolan's movieverse so exceptional was the fact it was grounded in reality.

i do not like how people say that of Nolan's Batman, especially DKR. it's the same as saying iron man is realistic because his ability to fly is consistent with newton's third law.

a man with what essentially is osteoarthritis puts on a brace for a short while is miraculously cured. cops who have been huddled together in the sewers deprived of fresh air and probably sat on their own filth emerged healthy and ready to fight after months of confinement. a nuclear weapon explodes in the sea but there's no tsunami or shock wave that hit the city afterwards. a broken back can be set right with crude slings and the man can do acrobatics a few months later. etc etc.

no, the Batman in DKR and how the natural laws operate around him are just as unrealistic as those in Marvel's movie-verse.

unfortunately, people seem to have fooled themselves into believing Nolan's Batman is "grounded in reality."

now they will have a hard time accepting their "realistic" Batman being incorporated in a wold where super powers exist.

#7 Posted by Jazon (18 posts) - - Show Bio

this is what i love about the x-books: there's actually character development and progression. i've been reading them since the late 80's and i am quite pleased that they are pushing the merry mutants in different directions. well done.

i think cyclops will eventually doom mutants if he continues on his course. the task of the younger cyke is to prevent that from happening, kinda like past xmen stories of preventing the future from happening, only, our present is the young x-men's future.

#8 Posted by Jazon (18 posts) - - Show Bio

@sethysquare said:

@Jazon said:

Methinks whoever the villain in the nest Superman movie is should be the villain in the JLA movie plus his cohorts. That way, the villain will have a background story and not someone who came out of nowhere.

and why do you need a villain with a back story? Can't it be told in the film?

it can be, but recall that there are also other team members of the JLA to be introduced. so in my opinion the villain should established in a movie prior so that the story of the JLA movie can focus on the other League members the audience may not be familiar with or because they haven't been seen in big screen before.

#9 Edited by Jazon (18 posts) - - Show Bio

Methinks whoever the villain in the next Superman movie is should be the villain in the JLA movie plus his cohorts. That way, the villain will have a background story and not someone who came out of nowhere.

#10 Posted by Jazon (18 posts) - - Show Bio

I think this is a step in the right direction, a breath of fresh air. So Cyclops is going to do what Wolverine's X-Force used to: to eliminate threats to mutants. I love that twist. With Magneto and Magik in Cyclops's team, i think there's no limit to the extent of things he will do to achieve that goal.

Also, Cyclops revealing his faith in Wolverine means he has seen his mistake before. He is still humble to a point.

I look forward to how Cyclops and his relationship with other mutants, particularly Wolverine, develops.

  • 15 results
  • 1
  • 2