Originally Posted by Wallcrawler:
Ah. So you're just picking and choosing which established facts about Superman that we're going to adhere to, and tossing the ones that don't suit your point.
Originally Posted by Wallcrawler:
Grow some pubes. Well, that's certainly something you can post I guess. Makes about as much sense se as the rest of your drivel justifying any and all changes made to source material.
Originally Posted by ThaVirus:
You don’t have a point. You’re just complaining because you’re a bitch.
They took a more grounded approach in this universe because that’s Nolan’s style. They did a good enough job with it too. Hardy bulked up for the role and despite being like 5’8” in real life, they did a great job with the camera angles to make it seem like he was a massive hulk.
You wanted a CGI roid freak with veins popping in every muscle instead.
The worst part about the whole thing was how difficult it was to understand him at points. That didn’t stop people from loving how dangerous he was and the iconic quotes. Thematically, he was a good villain choice too. They went from villains to challenge his ideology to one who could challenge him physically. I thought that was a nice shift.
Concerning Superman, idk what to tell you. You strike me as a dipshit purist who isn’t even familiar with source material. If you’ve actually read comics, you’d know they change shit up all the time. Superman was created in the 30s. You really want 90 years of retelling the same exact story in comic, movie, cartoon, TV show and video game format? That would be dumb af. Yeah, every once in a while have Superman kill snap and kill someone (ala Injustice or Man of Steel). Funny thing about your complaint in Man of Steel is that Superman literally had no other choice. Either he breaks Zod’s neck there or he watches as his heat vision obliterates a family of four. You’d rather him sit there and watch that happen just to preserve some bullshit, unbreakable moral code.
What a stupid fucking complaint.
Early Superman is him beating the shit out of landlords and corrupt politicians. It didn't change to more what people associate it with until WWII. [Reply]
Originally Posted by 4th and Long:
Grown men fighting over a fictional comic book character. This should be good.
More of a discussion on the like, dislike, or indifference about liberties taken with source material, but close.
In this forum, the majority appears to find in favor of do whatever you like with established characters and stories, no matter how far off the mark you land.
Example: The mother of Bruce Wayne's child in the books is turned into a suicidal fanatic bent on killing him and destroying Gotham in TDKR.
That makes about as much sense as if you saw Lois Lane to betray Superman, shoving a chunk of kryptonite up his ass during naughty time, shooting him multiple times leaving him for dead and riding off into the sunset with Lex Luthor.
Being a "purist" somehow makes you a dipshit, and knowledge of the source material makes you a "nerd".
Being critical of frankly, idiotic changes made to characters is frowned upon, and will naturally draw the ire of anyone you're disagreeing with, because, how dare you not enjoy being sold a false bill of goods?
As they say, ignorance is bliss.
Rumors are already swirling that in a test screening of the Superman film the resulting buzz was not great. Gunn claims there are no reshoots taking place. The tone of the film was described as comparable to Captain America: The First Avenger. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Wallcrawler:
More of a discussion on the like, dislike, or indifference about liberties taken with source material, but close.
In this forum, the majority appears to find in favor of do whatever you like with established characters and stories, no matter how far off the mark you land.
Example: The mother of Bruce Wayne's child in the books is turned into a suicidal fanatic bent on killing him and destroying Gotham in TDKR.
That makes about as much sense as if you saw Lois Lane to betray Superman, shoving a chunk of kryptonite up his ass during naughty time, shooting him multiple times leaving him for dead and riding off into the sunset with Lex Luthor.
Being a "purist" somehow makes you a dipshit, and knowledge of the source material makes you a "nerd".
Being critical of frankly, idiotic changes made to characters is frowned upon, and will naturally draw the ire of anyone you're disagreeing with, because, how dare you not enjoy being sold a false bill of goods?
As they say, ignorance is bliss.
Speak for yourself. Ignorant I am not. I'm very aware of what a moron you are. [Reply]
Not sure which Mummy film they're referring to, if it's the Brendan Fraser flick with Arnold Vosloo, I liked the first two in that trilogy quite a bit, terrible Dwayne Johnson CGI notwithstanding.
Didn't see Tom Cruise's mummy film, trailer just didn't seem that great and Im not much of a Tom Cruise fan to begin with.
They've got 6 months to address main concerns, but given the response to the costume backlash, James Gunn may just stick to his original vision for this film, feedback be damned.
Originally Posted by Mecca:
Early Superman is him beating the shit out of landlords and corrupt politicians. It didn't change to more what people associate it with until WWII.
I didn’t even know that.
Apparently Wolverine, when he was first introduced in a Hulk comic, wasn’t even a mutant and his claws weren’t in his body but a part of his gloves lol
Superman actually couldn’t even fly. He could just jump really high, IIRC.
It’s a good thing that writers try out new stuff.
Originally Posted by 4th and Long:
Grown men fighting over a fictional comic book character. This should be good.
I have no issue fighting over comic book characters, but I’m really arguing in favor of artistic license. [Reply]
I know people who were upset because Superman doesn't kill people however in the 2nd Superman film where he takes Nod and his two companions powers away, everyone seems to forget that they fell to their deaths. They didn't show it however they are dead.
I never remember Superman needing to recharge, is that something that I missed? I never read the comics because I couldn't afford them.
It's a movie, are you not entertained? I don't remember Batman having guns and shooting people either. Of course, he ran around in tights with an underage boy that he kept putting into peril. Bad parent at the minimum. [Reply]
Originally Posted by crayzkirk:
I know people who were upset because Superman doesn't kill people however in the 2nd Superman film where he takes Nod and his two companions powers away, everyone seems to forget that they fell to their deaths. They didn't show it however they are dead.
I never remember Superman needing to recharge, is that something that I missed? I never read the comics because I couldn't afford them.
It's a movie, are you not entertained? I don't remember Batman having guns and shooting people either. Of course, he ran around in tights with an underage boy that he kept putting into peril. Bad parent at the minimum.
Snyder did a job on Bats' no kill rule for sure. He's essentially the Punisher dressed like a bat. You just watch Snyders versions as like one of those "What If?" Books was made into a feature film. What if Batman just said you know what, I'm gonna fuckin kill these assholes from now on. Lmao.
More reports coming from Gunns test screening are more positive, touting it as "Guardians of The Galaxy good".
I guess thats a pretty good sign, right? Guardians spawned 3 films, and they were popular enough to have made appearances in Infinity War and Endgame.
Hopefully the film gets a fair shake and isn't just boycotted because it isn't Henry.
That happened to David Harbour's shot at Hellboy, which I absolutely LOVED Harbour as Hellboy, but the fan backlash that Pearlman didn't get his third to complete the trilogy pissed off a ton of people, and you couple that with just a terrible story decision for the film, and any shot Harbour had to reprise the role died with any hopes for profit on that film.
Hopefully it turns out as something Superman fans enjoy. [Reply]
Originally Posted by ThaVirus:
I didn’t even know that.
Apparently Wolverine, when he was first introduced in a Hulk comic, wasn’t even a mutant and his claws weren’t in his body but a part of his gloves lol
Superman actually couldn’t even fly. He could just jump really high, IIRC.
It’s a good thing that writers try out new stuff.
I have no issue fighting over comic book characters, but I’m really arguing in favor of artistic license.
Yea the comic heroes that were around very early are far far different than what they are known as today. [Reply]
