jphulk26's forum posts

#1 Posted by jphulk26 (1791 posts) - - Show Bio

@jphulk26 said:
@mpfly88 said:

@agent41:

Being nominated for an Oscar is an honor. Over a hundred movies are made every year, and when you get nominated by the academy for best actor, that's a big deal. Ben's performance in both Argo and Hollywoodland were great. Hate to burst your bubble but it's stupid to say "Well if they hired Gal Gadot, why not Ben?"

he wasn´t nominated for oscars for those roles. he´s never been nominated as actor.

I looked it up. He was nominated for Best Actor at the BAFTA awards for Argo, and nominated for his portrayal of George Reeves at the Golden Globes, which is a respected award show. So he has been recognized for his acting ability, but some people are still "But he was in Duuuurdevil!!!"

@agent41 said:
@mpfly88 said:

@agent41:

Being nominated for an Oscar is an honor. Over a hundred movies are made every year, and when you get nominated by the academy for best actor, that's a big deal. Ben's performance in both Argo and Hollywoodland were great. Hate to burst your bubble but it's stupid to say "Well if they hired Gal Gadot, why not Ben?"

No. They don't mean a thing because countless of legendary actors never recived a nomination yet they have a huge legacy in the industry. Ben proved himself a good actor so why shouldn't Gadot have her chance?. Some people just want to assume that she can't do it without any solid proof.

Did you ever think that perhaps those actors were just outshined by other actors in certain years?

I don't disagree with you that Gal should receive a chance to better herself and prove herself as an actress. But she hasn't earned Wonder Woman. None of which she has shown has proved that she, on her own two shoulders, can carry a big major league franchise. It takes a certain amount of screen presence, charisma and acting talent to do that. At least if you want to be respectable. It sounds to me like you guys are just "settling" for Gal Gadot, because it's who they picked and you're gonna go with it. But we all know there are dozens and dozens of much better choices out there. Wonder Woman deserves so much better than this.

I never thought Ben Affleck would be bad in the role, I just think he´ll be serviceable, average. I don´t think he´s going to make innovative, interesting, controversial or unusual character choices.

Affleck is not that type of actor. Everyones excited from the trailer and few lines he´s uttered. I´m not that impressed at all. He´s exactly what I expected him to do when I lamented his casting. All I was saying is I would prefer a character actor like Bale, who might have an interpretation that was more unexpected and inteteresting. I think Jeffery Dean Morgan actually would have been a better Batman and Ben a better Thomas Wayne.

#2 Posted by jphulk26 (1791 posts) - - Show Bio

I like Gail's writing, but something about what she says rubs me the wrong way. Maybe not in this quote, but in previous statements she more or less shows she has little respect for the time period concepts she was created in (and the characters that were created specifically for Wonder Woman). I'm not saying that every Wonder Woman writer has to hold the Marston originals on the pedestal, but with nearly every other A-list character, writers have done exactly that and stuck with it for the most part.

Nothing against Simone's writing, but something about her just gets on my nerves, like she thinks that her origin ideas and her characters should be the status quo for the definitive Wonder Woman, and I guess it turns moderate Golden Age and so-on fans like me off as I think that attitude only exacerbates the problem Diana consistently has. Every writer thinks that THEIR rendition of Wonder Woman is right, and all past ones are just scrap. Past renditions are worthy of brief mention, but apparently not worthy enough to build upon. In this instance that Simone is talking about, that's more or less on DC, but there's still a lot she and other writers since Azzarello or Rucka could've used, but decided not to for some reason.

In other words: I think Wonder Woman has some of the most egotistical writers to date, Simone included. In addition to really wishy-washy editors, it all has hurt Diana in constructing her world.

Diana's character is not the problem, as so far (barring wtf the Finches are doing) her portrayal has been somewhat consistent if not evolving. The huge problem is building upon her world and support system, which means, yes, you're going to have to use characters and concepts from the past.

i think rucka did the best job in building a solid foundation for ww amongst modern writers. I like simone, but she did better building up Themyscira. Rucka built a logical foundation for her in OUR world. I prefer her being Ambassador far more than spy. I thought her as a spy sucked.

#3 Posted by jphulk26 (1791 posts) - - Show Bio

@agent_z said:

@alsummers @jphulk26 I get where you guys are coming from, but how de we know that showing her combating gender issues in a period piece means the story will end with her being victorious in the fight for equality. I can see them simply saying she got involved but couldn't make anymore advances than real life feminists. There's a bit of a fallacy in the assumption that superheroes could solve every problem in the world. I mean, they could make contributions but most of their stories are about people taking on fantastical problems that don't exist in the real world.

Diana defeating Hitler doesn't mean she could solve the problems that resulted in men like him getting into power in the first place. And that's even if she could; we saw in MoS that human weapons are capable of hurting super powered beings.

This would be great if they could do that. IN BOLD That is a mature version and thematic discussion I could get behind.

However the point remains, even if this version of wonder woman is only half as strong as the kryptonians, maybe more maybe less, there is no way she couldn´t just take out the leaders of the third reich by herself. Take down one Concentration Camp after another etc. That is why Superhero films tend to be facing fantastical beings.You can´t have Thor, Superman or Wonder Woman against The Nazi´s or some threat like that, especially wonder woman who we know just wouldn´t tolerate such BS, they need to be facing a threat that is a challenge for being of their magnitude. You could have a brief scene in the beginning of a film where they stop protesters being killed by some rogue Government, to give some nod to real world problems, but in the end that can´t be the major threat. It is true what you say, spiritually ww couldn´t change the hearts of men, the bitterness and anger and hatred that lead to things like the Holocaust, but the fact is she can physically stop it from happening and ww in particular has been shown to have no tolerance for that kind of thing. Superman is weary of imposing his will on the world. He respects the laws of mortals and sovereignty of nations, even though at times he feels he must do something to prevent madmen asserting their will, he also doesn´t want mankind to fear him. WW doesn´t give a crap about all that nonsense.

The Wonder Woman I know, sees injustice and no matter the law or country or whatever it is trying to prevent her, she will go in fight it anyway. With words firstly, but if failing that she´s willing to fight till her last breath as well. That´s why I can´t see her in the 1940s keeping quiet about her abilities and hiding in the shadows, when mass genocides, racism, imperialism, collonialism and all that stuff is going on. The WW I know wouldn´t stand for all that crap. Added to that it disances her world so far away from the dc universe I just think it´s plain unfair on the character. All her supporting cast are going to be dead and buried in the modern dccu. It will make her less interesting in the present. She pretty much won´t have a world apart from the Justice League in the present time. It will make her far more remote than even Captain America.

#4 Posted by jphulk26 (1791 posts) - - Show Bio

but should Superman be able to beat Wonder Woman?"I have seen this debate go back and forth and seen the two camps point of views, but it dawned on me today that Wonder Woman fans are asking the wrong question. Clearly there are iteration of Superman that are so OP that Wonder Woman seems feeble in comparison; but is that the appropriate power-level of Superman and does that fall in line with the original intentions of Wonder Woman who was supposed to be, which is a female match for Superman?

My preferred level of both characters is to have them more vulnerable without losing their awesome abilities and skills. The more vulnerable in my opinion the better and more relatable and interesting they are as heroes. Superman and WW are both my favorite superheroes and I know quite a lot about them and their various iterations. With Superman it seems that certain versions of him are so powerful and SUPER that he becomes ridiculous and actually would better serve as a villain since he comes across as the ultimate obstacle for a hero to overcome; whereas, as a hero, it feels there is very little he is not capable of, so what obstacle can you possibly put in his way apart from the now overused Kryptonite. However, on the other hand without him being really really SUPER he ceases to be Superman. So what should be his appropriate level. I think the versions of him where a being like Wonder Woman can defeat him, where he doesn´t have things like super intelligence, kryptonian martial arts training, and blood he can flick at such velocity it can crack divine metals (true story) is a Superman who serves better as a hero. Wonder Woman on the other hand, despite her original purpose of being as strong as Superman has actually become a far more nuanced and intriguing match for power-houses, in terms of the fact she´s not necessarily as strong as the mightiest beings but she more than makes up for that in the tactical, warrior training and mystical weapons department.

Her battle against Power-Girl, which was a perfect demonstration of how her advanced combat training is enough to overcome Kryptonian strength, makes her all the more mysterious and appealing. I like to think when wonder woman faces a being of that magnitude she is up against it and therefore has to rely on cunning, guile and warrior experience to have a chance of defeating them.

Also to all the superman fanboys who are overjoyed at seeing characters like WW, Shazam and Green Lantern overpowered as if they were nothing by the big, blue boyscout, the simple reason DC has ever had those story-lines, is only to make Batman look all the more cooler when he outsmarts him Supe´s. That´s literally the only reason. Superman is made so powerful that it looks all the more impressive when Bat´s defeats him. They don´t even do it to show how brilliant Lex is. So I hope Supe´s fanboys are happy with Superman being used as Batman´s bitch.

A reasonably vulnerable Superman is a better heroic character, as is a reasonably powered wonder woman. They both need to be awesome, but there also needs to be accepted limits to their powers. Making them OP does neither any favors.

#5 Posted by jphulk26 (1791 posts) - - Show Bio

@goodboy6 said:
@risingbean said:

@goodboy6: Magic and tech/science are indistinguishable at a high enough level. That is the route the MCU has used thus far and based on word of Doctor Strange will continue to use.

which sucks btw.I knew that.they also explained it through quathom/phantom physics bullshit whatever the name is.I mean how could you explain magic to be science when you are doing Doctor Strange movie???that is why I love Dccu WW-s demigod direction not Mcu crap.

quantum physics. phantom lol. yeah i agree with you. i want ww to be from another realm where divine beings exist, steve trevor somehow breaks the barrier.

#6 Posted by jphulk26 (1791 posts) - - Show Bio

@mpfly88 said:

@agent41:

Being nominated for an Oscar is an honor. Over a hundred movies are made every year, and when you get nominated by the academy for best actor, that's a big deal. Ben's performance in both Argo and Hollywoodland were great. Hate to burst your bubble but it's stupid to say "Well if they hired Gal Gadot, why not Ben?"

he wasn´t nominated for oscars for those roles. he´s never been nominated as actor.

#7 Edited by jphulk26 (1791 posts) - - Show Bio

@alsummers said:

@jphulk26: From what it sounds like with Chris Pine's deal, Trevor will be featured in multiple films not including possible sequels, so I say (and hope) the chances that the WW movie will be set as a complete period piece are fairly slim. Not to say that it won't, or that it may have flashbacks, but in regards to the sequence of events in her origin as we know of it will more than likely be set in the present or near past.

I know they released concept art of her standing over WW2 soldiers (which we are basically going off of hearsay, and those who saw it are going off of what it sounds like a split second of it being shown at SDCC before the BvS trailer) but I'm not sure the script has been completed yet (still hoping they get a new writer--but that's too much to ask for I guess), so as it stands it's still hasn't been confirmed that the film will be a period piece.

I just think it´s silly as well because ww story can be set in any time. It´s nothing like Captain America which is so linked to WW2 it would be impossible to untether it from it´s roots. WW´s origin in comics hasn´t been set in WW2 since Marston who was writing when ww2 was happening. There is nothing inherently tying ww to world war 2.One can only hope they´re not getting their inspiration from the 70s TV show, which is the only other time her story was set in the 40s.

Also Captain America even with his enhanced abilities wasn´t powerful enough to stop Hitler, so it made sense having the Nazi´s as badguys because they could realistically challenge him power-wise. WW could have stopped the whole war in a single day even if she´s presented as half as powerful in the movies as she is in the comics. I hear in the film she can´t fly, but clearly from the trailer she was incredibly powerful, so how are the Nazi´s (humans) going to even present a threat to her? And okay, we can say maybe Ares is behind the war; but if that´s the case, once she defeats Ares, why would she not go back and stop 6 million jews being slaughtered? It´s just mirky waters to tread in unless done very very carefully. Without very close attention to detail it could end up really alienating audiences from her.

You´re talking about one of the worst tragedies in human history; if a supposedly benevolent being with god-like abilities just stood by and watched the tragedy unfold, then she is almost as bad as the perpetraitors of the crime. She should be going in and tearing down Concentration Camps, freeing prisoners and hunting down the leaders of the party.

I´ll be interested to see how they try and do it, but I think it might suck. I also hate the idea of her tackling feminist issues from the early 1900s as if women don´t have any problems anymore. Why can´t we have a modern wonder woman who can reflect on gender politics in the modern era? Whats the point of her fighting for womens rights and equality in the 1940s when we´ve already moved past that era and gender issues have vastly evolved? Wouldn´t it be a more profound statement for a newbie wonder woman to be introduced to our world and reflect on current history, than issues way back then? Plus, was she around for the civil rights movement and apartite, etc? And I guess she didn´t bother to do anything about the various terrible wars and crimes against humanity that plagued the entire 20th century. What is it? she only fights for women? Screw blacks, arabs, vietnamese, chinese and all other victims of the various horrors throughout the 20th centuries blood stained history. These are the questions that are going to be asked if you tie her story to closely to events that actually happened in the real world.

It is fine to be inspired by actual events that happened in the real world for the foes and evils superheros go on to face. But when you place a superhero in our historical context, especially one as powerful as wonder woman, then you run risk of taking audiences out of the movie experience and instead wondering why someone so powerful can´t just easily prevent something like WW2 or the dropping of the atom bomb from ever happening in the first place. Think about Watchmen. That was done smartly because Dr. Manhatten was a United States Army shill who actually changed history by his very presence, so Nixon won the war in vietnam and JFK was never president etc etc etc.

#8 Posted by jphulk26 (1791 posts) - - Show Bio

@jphulk26: i´m happy chris will play steve though. good choice, i would have gone gossling. but excellent choice.

#9 Edited by jphulk26 (1791 posts) - - Show Bio

@klaus said:

I like Meredith's ideas on the current Wonder Woman title. I think she just needs to have more practice with the execution and writing part of those ideas. David Finch has improved on his art with WW and is much more consistent now than he was during the first few issues. We also now know that Wonder Woman holds back even more than we thought as that guy said she doesn't use her GOW powers ( or something along those lines).

As for Justice League. Amazing as usual. Fabok is the best. No argument there when it comes to who draws the best Diana. And the writing is really high quality lately. I was really hoping to see Diana enter God-mode and fight Grail, but it looks like Johns wants to save that fight for later in the event. I was so hyped when Diana charged towards her, then the stupid Anti Monitor just had to interfere.

I know the Finches (specially the writer) do not know what they are doing.

The Finches have barely gotten around to show any of Wonder Woman's powers. She flies, but very slowly. She wields a sword, but who doesn't in Themyscira? She hasn't gotten to show any skills that any other amazon doesn't have, other than the incessant ability to blab (which is all everyone does in this title).

Are all amazons now as powerful and fast and invulnerable as the champion of the gods(?), or even as a demi-goddess daughter of Zeus, or even as the full blown goddess of war (suppossedly one of the most powerful members of that pantheon)? Well then show it in her title. Wielding swords, even I can do that (not very well though).

What is going on here?

Whether she is really powerful or not has nothing to do with good story telling. This is a poor, dare I say infantile criticism. It´s almost embarrassing.

Yet almost every other title Diana/Wonder Woman appears in treats her with the respect, power feats, and show of skills she deserves. What is going on in her own title?

She so is insecure that she now covers her body from head to toe in armor. She isn't even intelligent enough to tell the difference between a magic arrow and one used by a normal human (Aegus). She doesn't know she has bracelets that produce swords at will and instead carries standard issue amazon swords. Tear gas stuns her (the goddess who could withstand Doomsday's spores).

I don´t like her new outfit either. But I don´t think ones intelligence is measured by the things you´re suggesting here.

She leaves her indestructible bracelets behind in exchange for some that match her latest outfit (whatever the fancy of the moment is).

I've heard of learning at the job (looking at you Finches) ... but please. I want women writing this title but I have to wonder if this assignment came at the expense of talent. Show some respect for the character ( and yes that includes powers... this is a comic book after all), do some research and do not just write this character as if nothing came before you. Gail Simone did a great job ( not as great as I would have hoped but she improved massively over time). I did not love everything she wrote but she got Wonder Woman and her place in the DCU from the get go.

I agree with this. Apart from the whole power thing. Personally I enjoy wonder woman demonstrating just enough power so we know she can handle Kryptnians etc, but I still want her to show vulnerability and have obstacles. Otherwise she may as well just be invincible.

I am not getting this from the Finches right now, and even though I hope for improvement from issue to issue ... I see none coming and especially in the writing and plotting.

They have only written 3 comics I issues (?) and considering they had to come out of that convoluted trash that Azzerrello wrote, I´m not sure why everyones being so hard on them. In the first place ww should never have been made God Of War. Ares should never have been her ally (mentor) The amazons should not have been portrayed like savages. She should not be living in London etc etc etc. I wish they had have just rebooted her whole story.

Finces, you are not writing a romance novel about girls playing with swords. You are writing what should be a comic book about the premier super-heroine ever created and one of the most complex characters in any company's line-up, but first and foremost she should be (whether goddess or not) one of the most physically powerful, and compassionate characters in comics.

If this statement is true. why is it all you seem to care about i her power-levels?

All I can say is that I hope the movies avoid this drivel like the plague ( and may god forbid that tortured new costume not die an immediate death... a V in the crotch(?)... really?

The costume has to go.

#10 Posted by jphulk26 (1791 posts) - - Show Bio

@agent41 said:
@jphulk26 said:
@brunnhilde said:

Chris Pine has officially been cast as Steve Trevor and he's reportedly a wwii pilot that crashed on Themyscira. That means Steve is probably deceased in the present time and that Wonder Woman's back in the market which blows the door wide open for that rumoured relationship between her and Batman, or Superman.

For real?

Here´s the problem with giving ww a film. She´s had no definitive modern origin story done of her since Perrez. I think it is why screenwriters have such a problem writing for her.

As for the ww2 thing, that hasn´t been confirmed. But I think DC would be shooting themselves in the foot if they don´t set it in modern day and give her a strong villain like Ares. The Nazi´s have been done to death, plus wonder woman could take down the whole nazi´s so easily, which would beg the question why did she let so many die? Unless they are going to do some lame ass thing where she changes history. I honestly would leave this one alone. It is a lose lose situation. This generation needs their own wonder woman. Setting her in the past means the evils she´s combatting will be something kids won´t relate to.

Perez origin was an updated version of her classic origin from the 60s. Updated because he kept the basic elements and made them fit into the modern world, and gave her the best character development her character has had. Even if the movie was set in ww2 Ares can still be the real threat behind everything. As long as they have a good script,direction and production. There's still hope.

By modern I mean one set in the 00s like Birth Right or Earth One etc. You don´t need to defend Perrez to me, I love his run. Stop being so defensive. Yes ww2 wonder woman can be good, but that does not take away from the fact that qall indication would suggest that superhero origins that are period pieces do less well than superhero movies set in current time. SEE Captain America First Avenger, Watchmen as evidence.

It is not impossible to make period pieces that are successful to start off superhero franchises, but it is clear that audiences for these type of movies prefer that superheroes do there superheroing in contemporary settings, hence all the real success stories in this genre have been set in the current timelines..