Amazing Spider-Man 2 clustered plot

As some of u may know, Amazing Spider-Man 2 opened internationally and our friends across the pond have summarized the plot on Wikipedia. I don't mind spoilers but I know some of u are not to keen on it so I will be discreet on a few things. For instance, the lineage of Green Goblin being passed down from father to son is premature at best in this film but at the same time, I didn't really like the idea of Chris Cooper being Norman Osborn anyway. Chris Cooper would have been better off playing Spencer Smythe since Alistair Smythe is being introduced along with the Rhino exo-suit as a Spider-Slayer.

The creation of Harry's Green Goblin is rather askew but of course, some people will call it original. I say "Whatever." The means to his creation is unstable at best because these properties are more in control and only amplify the negative qualities within one's self plus they cover the entire body rather than just being a neat look to Green Goblin's armor.

Overall, Amazing Spider-Man 2 is okay. I wouldn't say its any better than the first but I suppose it would be worth the watch. I think this sequel would have been better served with Electro as the main villain and he uses the Spider-Slayers like Rhino and Alistair Smythe as his personal army to destroy Spider-Man, take over NY and then the world. I would pay to see that movie because the plot is simple and it flows (not clustered). At the same time, Webb could have introduced other villains into the mix who have cybernetic enhancements like Doc Ock, Vulture, Scorpion or Mendel Stromm.


Arkham Knight Revealed?

It seems someone on twitter got a hold of the cover for the impending Batman: Arkham Knight Game and one of the disclosures on the cover says "Masked as Bruce Wayne's son, drive the Batmobile and defend the city from notorious villains." Its possible since the release of Batman Incorporated that the Arkham Knight is actually Damian Wayne because the villain known as Heretic who was responsible for Damian's death is in fact a clone of Damian that was subjected to an accelerated growth experiment by Talia. Its possible the one night stand that Talia referred to in Metropolis with Bruce during Arkham City eventually led to the conception of Damian but Talia and her father Ra's al Ghul had bigger plans for the Son of Batman

It has been confirmed that the Arkham Knight does know the secret identity of Batman by remarking "You are getting slow old man." However, this remark doesn't sound like Damian who is a bit more reserved and composed in his dialogue. Its also possible that the Arkham Knight is Jason Todd but his drive to be the Arkham Knight would be some what flawed since the Joker is dead but at the same time not by Bruce's hands. I look forward to your input my fellow users


Lord Death Man vs the Joker

It seems I have found somebody who is more insane than the Joker. If u ever get a chance to read the final issue of Talon, u will see what I mean. Lord Death Man is straight off the wall "nuts". However, some of u may differentiate a certain level of crazy. In ur opinion, who is more insane? Joker or Lord Death Man? Give examples. If u feel like someone else is more bizarre than either two. Let me know


Corey Stoll for Ant-Man (Latest Development)

It seems Corey Stoll is the latest addition to the cast of Ant-Man. His role much like Patrick Wilson is still a mystery but more than likely, he will be the second villain for Ant-Man to go up against. One of my fellow users suggested the possibility of the Cross cousins being the villains for the film. Darren Cross, CEO of Cross Technologies and his cousin William Cross aka Crossfire.

I'm hoping the villains for the film will be Egghead and Whirlwind and they join forces with Ultron. We will just have to wait and see. As for the film itself, I wonder how its going to play out because the film synopsis basically depicts Scott Lang stealing the suit from Pym but Pym convinces Lang to utilize his talents as a master thief in order to infiltrate a high security facility. Its possible that Egghead is trying to resurrect Ultron and Whirlwind is Egghead's hired muscle.

Start the Conversation

The Villain for the Ant-Man film?

It was revealed about a month ago that the main villain for the Ant-Man movie would be played by Patrick Wilson (Insidious & A-Team). Only question is who he will be playing in the film. Scott Lang who will be played Patrick Rudd never really had an arch nemesis. On the other hand, Hank Pym had a few memorable ones. Atlas who is like an anti version of Giant-Man, Egghead who is Pym's intellectual rival and Whirlwind who hated Pym because Wasp fell in love with Hank rather than him.

Now, obviously having Atlas be the main villain would be counter-productive as well as redundant which only leaves Egghead and Whirlwind. Its possible that Ultron will return for the Ant-Man movie and having Egghead as his human protege would be plausible. Though at the same time, I don't think I could take Patrick Wilson seriously if he played Egghead because the character looks like evil version of Conehead. This really leaves Whirlwind but Whirlwind is more like an underling/ hired muscle material.

I'm sure there are few users who would say Graviton would be the perfect role for Wilson but Graviton has always been the dramatic type and Wilson has been known to play sly and deviant characters. Let me know what u think. Maybe we can start a tally chart or draw up plausible plots for the Ant-Man film.


Arkham Knight: More than just the title

According to Rocksteady, they are introducing a new character who is obviously the Arkham Knight. He is going to be one of the main villains next to Scarecrow and most likely Hush. Apparently, this character is going to be original with his on backstory but more than likely it will be someone we already know. I would like to say its Jeremiah Arkham but that might be too obvious or a bit of a stretch then again Jeremiah was Black Mask for a brief time. At the same time, it seems the Arkham Knight has adopted the Batman's style so it could be an Anti-Batman character like Wrath or Prometheus. Speculations have always been my inadvertent forte. Who knows: maybe the Arkham Knight is the Jason Todd or Hush has taken on a new persona. Only time will tell. Who do u think the Arkham Knight is?

Riddler, Scarecrow, Two-Face, Harley Quinn and Penguin are already set to star in the final installment which seems like a drag because I think Rocksteady could expand on the Arkham Origins take and give us two more games with Batman rogues and allies that we have yet to see. Rocksteady has also considered expanding on other characters like giving Catwoman, Nightwing, Red Robin or Birds of Prey their own video game. I would definitely play those spin offs if Rocksteady was behind it.

On a side note, has anyone gotten a chance to read my blog about the New 52 changes or unnecessary turn of events being done to the Batman Mythos. I feel like Brainiac because I crave input. If u get the chance to read the blog, send me your thoughts on any of the questions that I wrote by via message because I wager the your answers will be just as long as the questions.


The Batman Mythos: What's necessary and what's unnecesary?

I have often come under attack and sometimes provoked others about the cinematic changes that are made towards our beloved superheroes. Chief among them is the Batman. Some say I should accept change and be surprised by new developments while others concur that altering the story line or character does not benefit the film adaption at all. Therefore, I propose a challenge or debate however, you choose to look at it. I will dictate some crucial points or certain characters in Batman lore and they will be followed by hypothetical questions.

Your task...should u choose to accept it, will be to answer the question with a compelling argument which if possible, is backed up by precedence (whether it be from a comic book or a creditable form of documentation/ literature). If u like these thought provoking questions, more will follow. I know your answers may be extensive so feel free to send them through a message on my portal. Let's begin...

1) Joseph Chilton is the man responsible for the death of Thomas and Martha Wayne. However, few people know that Joseph's mother Maria Chilton was actually the caretaker at Wayne Manor when Thomas was a boy. Maria's employment with the Waynes ended when she was accused of stealing Mrs. Wayne's necklace.

What really happened was Thomas stole his mother's necklace in order to present it to his childhood sweetheart (it is unknown if he meant to give it to Martha Kane or somebody else). Mrs. Wayne however, was looking for any excuse to terminate Ms. Chilton because she suspected her husband was having an affair with the hired help. This age old scandal would explain why Joe Chill felt angry as well as drawn to the pearl necklace around Martha Wayne's neck on that tragic night.

However, in most story lines, Joe Chill has been written off as a product of Gotham City's environment, a city that breeds desperation and violence thus making Bruce simply a tragic victim of death and chance which inevitably caused his transformation into the Batman. My question is which scenario sounds more compelling to portray on the silver screen. Is it plausible that Joe Chill, a product of his own environment, just happened to be in the right place at the right time or does it sound more intriguing that the Chiltons had a torrid history with the Waynes.

2) In New 52, Joker has been revitalized as the Red Hood, purely a mad man since birth rather than a tortured soul of bad luck who is then transformed into Clown Prince of Crime. I'm referring to Joker's past as a man named Jack who had a pregnant wife and was struggling to make ends meat. When Jack tried to back out of a heist that he arranged with the mafia, they strong armed him into doing it and they murdered his wife since she was aware of the plan. Afterwards, Batman tries to save Jack from falling into the vat of chemicals but fails to hold his grip. This is Bruce's first and most epic failure to save a life that will haunt him forever.

In New 52, Joker chooses to fall into the vat even though Batman tries to save him. This act in a way absolves Batman/ Bruce of any guilt or remorse he has toward the Joker's creation because Bruce can just as well say "Hey, at least I tried". This event was one of the many defining moments for Batman. My question is which Joker is more appealing? A Joker who is humanized to a certain extent so that someone like Batman, the reader or the movie goer feels pity for the Joker despite the pain he has brought on others or should he be just pure evil with a death wish like he was in Nolan's Dark Knight.

3) In New 52, Joker asks the Dollmaker to surgically remove his face in order to shed any sense of humanity that he has left. In a way, this hints at the possibility that Joker is aware of his former life as a man named Jack and he wants to forget it. The only other person who can verify his actual life before he became the Joker is the Riddler. The Riddler saw a crooked cop murder Joker's wife and agreed to tell the Joker the truth about his former life in exchange for protection from Hush.

I actually have three questions for this scenario. Should the Joker go as far as removing his face in order to detach himself from his humanity or could it be a sick gift for his predecessor. Could this act of madness be better served as the stepping stone for Joker's Daughter who later asks the Dollmaker to sow the Joker's face to her own. Lastly, should it have been the Riddler who saw Joker's life unfold into the madman he has become or do you think someone more significant in Joker's life like Harley Quinn should have witnessed the murder of Joker's wife.

4) Should Killer Moth's transformation into a giant insectoid be achieved by supernatural means (making a pact with the devil Neron) or should he be a science experiment gone wrong. As a side note: Killer Moth's origin may derive from the Moth Man from Point Pleasant, West Virginia whose own origin shares similarities with Agaes, a companion of the Greek god Janus. Janus told Agaes all of his secrets about the beginning and ending of many things. When the other gods chased down Agaes for his knowledge, Janus transformed Agaes into a moth and Agaes chose to take Janus secrets to his grave by plunging himself into the sacred fire of Vesta. The quote "Like a moth to the flame" comes from this story while at the same time, Moth Man was considered an omen of terrible things that would happen. He was the beginning of the end.

5) Hugo Strange has been reintroduced in the New 52 arc but his involvement with Batman has been minimal at best. Hugo Strange already figured out who the Batman was and he has apparently died on two separate occasions (getting shot by Gotham PD and being impaled by a weather vain because the Scarecrow pushed him). My question is should characters like Strange who figure out Batman's identity continue to spring up when they have already outlived their usefulness as a creditable threat to Batman or should the character be killed off?

As a side note, the only reason why the Riddler hasn't been killed off is because his arrogance causes him to fail in figuring out who the Batman is and Batman uses Nygma's weakness to his advantage. Other villains like Ra's al Ghul or Bane have a sense of honor so they choose not to provoke Bruce until they need to while individuals like Hush, Thomas Wayne Jr and Simon Hurt only wish to steal Bruce's identity in order to demoralize the Wayne legacy.

6) The character Grace Balin aka Orca regained her ability to walk by harvesting the spinal tissue from a killer whale. Should this character be reintroduced as a villain or anti-hero of Aquaman or should Dr. Balin be the doctor who developed Venom in order to regain her ability to walk since in certain cases, steroids are used to help paralytics during their rehabilitation.

7) During the Crisis sagas, there were many deaths flying around like Killer Moth being ripped apart by Superboy Prime, Luhtor Jr. being tortured and killed by the Joker or Joker's Daughter being gunned down by a Monitor. These particular deaths lack significance and were unnecessary at best or maybe I'm wrong. Do you think these characters' untimely demises were necessary or could they have been better served elsewhere and under different circumstances?

Start the Conversation

Should Comic Book Purists be open to Cinematic alterations?

As I'm sure some of you are aware, comic book movies for the last decade have been known to stray from the original mythos. Take for instance, the pseudo Mandarins from Iron Man 3. Trevor Slattery (played by Ben Kingsley) portraying the terrorist leader of the Ten Rings and Aldrich Killian (played by Guy Pearce) who was actually the mastermind behind the supposed Ten Rings attacks on the US. Both men claiming to be the Mandarin yet not one of them acknowledged the true Mandarin for what he was or shared any concepts with his origins. Now, people like me were naturally disappointed that an infamous Marvel character was dissected and recreated into something completely different. On the other hand, some people were glad that they were given something new or modern.

These words have been thrown at me for the past couple of days in regards to the upcoming Batman vs Superman movie. For example, the Lex Luthor that we know and love as a xenophobic yet well composed megalomaniac is being redefined as an evil version of "Bill Gates". What's the basis for making Lex Luthor, a computer nerd/ corporate entity who hates Superman. If anything, Lex Luthor is the exact opposite of Tony Stark. He creates weapons (whether it be alien or human technology) and sells them to the highest bidder, he maintains the illusion of being patriot whenever it suits him and like Tony Stark, he feels that he should be the only force in the universe that should be reckoned with but naturally feels threatened when someone like the Man of Steel comes into play.

As a comic book purist, I'm open to adding new details to existing story lines or cinematic adaptions but to alter the very core of a character or a story line is like ripping out the very staples that hold the story together. I'm sure some of you will disagree with me while others will agree with what I have just said. Please share your thoughts and if possible give me examples of cinematic adaptions or comic book plot lines as precedence. At the same time, I will create a separate blog dedicated to the Batman and discuss the alterations that have been made recently by New 52. If these changes keep occurring, what will become of the mythos that is Batman. Will Bane no longer be the Man who broke the Bat? What if the Joker's attack on Barbara that caused her paralysis never really happened but was simply a figment of her imagination? The person responsible for scarring Harvey Dent and transforming him into Two-Face has already been altered. Whose to say what's next? Will we still be open to change or shall we reject it? Stay tuned...


Arkham Underworld is coming!!!

Arkham Underworld, the long awaited sequel to Arkham City is finally under production and Rocksteady had taken the helm once again. Azrael's prophecy about Batman will finally be fulfilled and the fate of Gotham will be sealed. Just think Hush bringing down Wayne Enterprises. Secret societies like the Black Glove, the Court of Owls, The Order of St. Dumas and the League of Assassins will be converging toward the epicenter of what is left of Gotham. The reign of the Joker was brought to an end when his body was cremated but this is simply the beginning of the end.

Characters I hope to expect include: Maxie Zeus, Killer Moth, Doctor Hurt, Ventriloquist, Talon, Spoiler, the Sensei but there are infinite possibilities. Who would u like to see or would like to come back?


Jesse Eisenberg as the Riddler

I have received a lot of comments about my blog regarding Eisenberg playing Lex Luthor. As always, I appreciate your thoughts. From what I gather, a lot of you agree that Eisenberg can play an arrogant but calculative individual so wouldn't he best be served for the casting of the Riddler. If Zack Snyder or "sorry to say" Christopher Nolan had said Eisenberg is going to play the Riddler then I wouldn't really have a problem or be so skeptical.

Plus at the same time, Michael Rossenbaum pulled off the Lex Luthor persona in more ways than one. I think if movie goers were to see Eisenberg bald and contending with Superman in a LexCorp kryptonite suit, they would be laughing until their sides got sore. At this point, I can only hope that Joaquim Phoenix is going to play the Joker. That's only way I can see this movie surviving with Lex Luthor reluctantly partnering up with Joker to take down Superman and Batman.

One other point, I would like to make is Bruce Wayne, Clark Kent and Lex Luthor should relatively be the same age. The whole age difference thing that Snyder is trying to capture with Batman sounds just as ridiculous as Batman taking an 8 year hiatus from crime fighting in Nolan's Dark Knight Rises. I have said it once and I will say it again. The true Batman may feel remorse for his faults but he always gets back on the horse and rides again. Batman doesn't take time off like Superman who goes on these year long missions in order "to find himself." Gotham will always need a Batman.

As always I look forward to your thoughts.