nick7913's forum posts
I don't think you will find me contrary to the opinion that reading a review is pretty much exactly like asking a random guy coming out of the movies what he thought of the film. In fact, that is exactly what I wrote in my post. I do not wish to invalidate your right to enjoy any movie you want. But what I'm going to insist on is the following. Say you have seen a trailer of Green Lantern where a poodle is dressed like a Lantern and overseeing training. And you say to yourself: "If that poodle is what Kilowog is going to look like then I'm not watching this film." Then reviews come out and they clearly state that "Yes, Kilowog is a poodle," would you watch it?
To be quite clear on this: The above post has nothing to do with Kilowog or his portrayal in the movie, which from the trailer appears to be quite faithful to the comics. It has everything to do with finding a way to assess the best way to spend your money using the tools at your disposal, namely trailers and critical reviews. To give another example, if I saw that the studio had chosen Jack Black to play Hal Jordan (which if you believe that rumour going around was actually considered in the 90s) and reviews indicated that Jack Black played the classic Jack Black character, I would not watch that film. Maybe Jack Black would be able to rise to the occasion and give us the best performance of Hal ever. If the reviews indicated that, I would consider watching it. The difference between the two of us apparently is that you would watch it either way. More power to you! I'm glad that you enjoyed the film and I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree, because you can't convince me that there's no merit in reviews.
Sometimes the mob is wrong. Scott Pilgrim was a great movie and I ignored popular opinion because I realized from all the resources out there that it would be a film that I enjoy. And sometimes the mob is right. I feel this is probably one of those times.
I think that the argument that comic book fans dislike change is a stock argument that gets thrown around a lot and it is mostly inaccurate. Some of the most popular runs in comic books have ended with totally changed characters. Those who followed them had no problem with them. The ones who whined about the changes were the ones who didn't actually read the titles and therefore couldn't see how the characters changed to what they are now. So you get a new creative team in and wipe any significant changes while changing the costume to give the illusion of change, therefore alienating your core readers whilst trying to attract new ones that aren't really sure to come anyway. So it's not change in general, one should argue, that comic fans don't like, but rather those out of the blue changes the big two keep pushing on the characters before everything gets back to the status quo in a couple of years.
Comics without the ability to grow and change quickly become stale and pointless. Talking as a reader who got into comics 4-5 years ago, while at first buying a lot of the core titles of the big two found myself slowly migrating to limited runs and indies. It seemed that I couldn't go half a year without an event cutting into my favourite titles, taking away characters and bringing in new ones and destroying any hope of a coherent long run with significant changes to the characters.
I hate the mentality that you should put all of the toys back exactly how you found them for the next team to play with them. It totally destroyed great character development that happened in the pages of Astonishing X-Men, Fantastic Four, Wonder Woman and many other titles that I have since dropped. The industry is slowly killing itself.
I remember the solicit for this. It seemed really interesting but I had already exceeded my budget and couldn't get it. Maybe I'll catch it on the big screen now.
@norusdog said:It already has, my friend. Xavier has commented that mutant heaven must have revolving doors as well as a comment (I can't recall who by) saying something like: "Jean would be turning over in her grave... If she could stay in it for more than five minutes that is."yes let's support the trite notion of character deaths not meaning anything. no, she shouldn't return. no "dead" hero should.This. By the way, Jean death will become a running gag.
Ugh... I hate it when people bring up the fact that Jean didn't really die in the Dark Phoenix Saga. I have a great deal of respect for Kurt Busiek (who actually came up with the whole idea of the Phoenix cocoon) and I love almost anything he's ever written but you know what? Chris Claremont never intended that character to be anyone else but Jean. Therefore Jean has died at least twice.
Also, the fact that Claremont threw Madelyne into the mix certainly didn't help the situation...
@joshmightbe said:
@nick7913: There are many really good movies out there that critics hated are we supposed to ignore those because some failed screen writer didn't like them
No. That's the same as waiting outside the theatre for a random guy to come out and asking him if he liked the movie. But if an overwhelming number of people say it's bad, it probably is. I'm not saying I won't eventually watch it, I just don't want to pay $15 to reward WB for something that in all likelihood I won't like. Plus, I should add that usually, when I see a film certified as "rotten" on RT I will read the fresh reviews first (which don't seem to be pointing to Green Lantern being a very good film anyway) and I might read just 1-2 of the rotten ones. I do the opposite for "fresh" movies. People who review a critically panned film as "fresh" are more likely to point out its true flaws.
Anyway, to all those who do watch it, I hope you have a great time! And drop by to let us know what YOU thought of the film. :-)
I love how people are so dismissive of the critics and keep stating that they don't know anything. Now, if I'm going to pay what I think is already too much money (with the prices theatres in Greece are charging, I don't know about the rest of the world) I'm going to pay attention to the overall "trend" of the reviews. I have already seen the trailer and have some concerns about the film. Those concerns seem to be things that bothered the reviewers. Ergo, I'm not going to be watching this in the cinema (maybe I'll rent it).
Do the same. If you find that the things that bothered the reviewers are think you have made your peace with or simply don't bother you, you're welcome to watch it and I sincerely hope that you enjoy it. But don't dismiss them as flawed or unimportant. Reviews serve a very important purpose: To help people decide how to spend their money. Some may be off the mark, some may just be going along with the flow. But usually when a movie is critically panned, there is something wrong with it. Whether it's important or not is up to you.
@omertalvendetta said:How can you write new, interesting stories when characters are never allowed to grow and evolve? This is the problem that is facing comics today and is the reason why the industry is in decline. Even with loyal readers, if every year we get a new writer who totally ignores everything that has gone before and wipes the slate clean, we eventually get bored and drop off. The point isn't what the (soft) reboot of the character be, it is how long will Morrison's run be (judging by Batman it could be long, which is good) and what will the next writer to come aboard will do.ABSOLUTE BRILLIANCE, SIR!!!!! I agree completely. From what I have seen of this DCnU, it will be an abject failure. It appears that no one at DC understands what they need to do to get new readers. And making something current that is already timeless only serves to turn the character into something he's not. Want people to enjoy Superman? Don't change the world around him, don't change his character. Write good Superman stories. That's something that hasn't been done in years. As for the rest of the DCU .... Well, they threw the baby out with the bathwater, didn't they? Then they refilled the tub with mud. God I hope this is a Flashpoint thing and that the DCU will revert after a few months. Probably not, though.
Most overrated writer in history... I have a feeling this whole revamp started like this... Morisson.... "I want to write Superman, from scratch. Make it so." DC Executives.... "We shall. We will restart Action Comics just for you. Hell, we should just do the whole universe while we're at it."
Take Ultimate Spider-Man for example. Love it or hate it, it's Bendis's version of the character and he has been the only one to write him for the past decade. The character and his supporting cast has changed so much (for the better imho) since the beginning and has escaped the trappings of regular Spider-Man, who no matter what must always return to the status quo every time a writer ends his run.
This will be a good period for Superman. The point is: What happens next?
Are they now? Damn... I guess I'm going to gift my trade to somebody and get this then. You know who I respect? Brubaker and Phillips. They put those articles at the end of Criminal and Incognito and they only have them in the issues so that loyal fans who support the title get rewarded with something.
Log in to comment