He can make a good movie with a decent script. Besides, his contract with WB stated he still has to direct two more DC movies after Justice League and one standalone project (likely going to be an Adaptation of Ayn Rands, the Fountainhead. Which I am morbidly interested in regardless of how well JL and the other movies are received)

I didn't know George Miller was involved. The things I'd do for a George Miller superhero flick.

Hopefully all these reworking are to make it more Geoff Johns and less slow motion super poopface.

Snyder's made one decent movie with a good script. And really most of the credit for DAWN OF THE DEAD 2004 should be given to James Gunn for writing it. Everything else he's made has been tonally disastrous cinematography porn. His films work great if you turn the sound off or just watch a scene or two on Youtube.

I'd be curious to know what George Miller's involvement is too. Was he actually involved with the production or was he simply given a very healthy paycheck for an afternoon discussing the movie over tea & the use of his name in marketing. Something that happens ALL the time. Like the movie FREE FIRE being "Produced by Martin Scorsese". He spent an afternoon with Ben Wheatly & then gave him a few pointers after watching the first cut. That's about it. But the marketing got to trade on his name with a splashy FROM MARTIN SCORSESE credit. (Fun movie, nobody saw it sadly)

Snyder's made one decent movie with a good script.

300? Watchmen? Forget it, I'm not in the mood to argue.

Point being, with George Miller and Geoff Johns in tow, essentially altering the movie as it's being made? That's just going to be a massive mess in terms of tone and quality, and likely get a worse reception than it would've been if they stuck to their original creative guns, flawed as Zack Snyder may be as a filmmaker.

Mera getting a 2nd outfit for the Aquaman movie, a little plastic-ish but looks fucking great regardless. People demanding more color will be happy.
Only downside is I liked the carved scales of the 1st more the hexagons pattern on this one.

Unf.

Honestly though that makes sense for clothing worn by an underwater water breathing person. I mean, it's not like you want to wear poofy dresses under the sea.

She should have like a pixe cut, though. Or put it in a ponytail or something.

On second glance I think it'd look better as a proper wetsuit (going up to her neck) without individually sculpted boob cups. Boobs don't need boob cups to be glorious. Embrace the uniboob hollywood.

Edit another pic...

Chuckman wrote:On second glance I think it'd look better as a proper wetsuit (going up to her neck) without individually sculpted boob cups. Boobs don't need boob cups to be glorious. Embrace the uniboob hollywood.

Strongly disagree, that said she does have basically what your asking for the in the current comic's run altho she will thankfully be going back to the cleavage when the next artist comes on.
new 52 (best imo) - https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/or ... b2f018.jpg
new 52B - https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/73 ... cbc52e.jpg
Rebirth - http://media.comicbook.com/2016/07/aqua ... 191243.jpg
Rebirth B (current) -
http://www.newsarama.com/images/i/000/1 ... 9_mera.jpg
https://comicnewbies.files.wordpress.co ... l-8-10.png
Rebirth C (next & 2nd best imo)
https://i0.wp.com/thefanboyseo.com/wp-c ... 025%2C1200

Note:

The embargo for critic reactions to WONDER WOMAN has passed. The word of mouth is there finally is a DCU film that doesn't suck. In fact it's pretty great. Just browse Twitter and you'll find them.

Thank You God. Now lets see if they can keep up this positive momentum with Justice League.

That suit of Mera's looks awfully uncomfortable. Hopefully it's not as stiff-looking when she's actually moving.

As to WW, yay!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gw_o7XUX3fg

My biggest worry with wonder woman was that they were going to do what BVS in and hamper the story by including pointless cameos and setup for future DC movies. The biggest reason I was worried was because of the inclusion of Native American Actor Gene Brave Rock. Who was rumored to be playing Apache Chief.

I was worried that including a semi-iconic superhero like that in the movie would short change Wondy. It'd be like having Giant Man in the first Iron Man.

Fortunately that doesn't seem to be the case. He's playing Johnny Brave Cloud. A Fighter pilot from DC's WW2 comics reimagined for WWI.



My favorite moment from him was courtesy of Darwyn Cooke in The New Frontier. Where he was a member of D-List superhero team/Science Adventurers. The Losers.

I'd love it if the have Sgt. Rock and the Howling Commandos Easy Company in there.

I'm really curious about this movie and looking forward to it. I love how the trailers don't give away the plot and I'm going to go in totally dark. The anticipation is killing me.

Chuckman wrote:I'd love it if the have Sgt. Rock and the Howling Commandos in there.

Think you're mixing people together. Sgt. Rock worked with Easy Company, and was a DC character. The Howling Commandos worked with Sgt. Fury and were Marvel characters.

Oops.

Tom Hardy has sighed on to play Eddie Brock in the stand alone Sony Venom movie by the director of Zombieland...
https://www.comicbookmovie.com/venom/ve ... ct-a151255

Yeah my brain was short circuiting a bit reading that, holy shit...

Tom Hardy as Venom sounds wonderful, but why is movie happening at all without Spiderman?

On the one hand, wow that's perfect casting that I'd never have thought of.

On the other hand, this movie feels like a mess and everything about it screams "we have to make this movie so we don't lose the rights". Apparently the rights to Venom and the symbiotes aren't part of a package with Spider-Man.

It's gonna suck.

Venom ONLY makes sense within the context of an already established Spider-Man mythos. Venom as a character is only interesting when he's an obstacle for Spidey to overcome. His entire origin story only happens because he has the worst day of his life because of Spider-Man exposing him as a fraud. Which makes him want to get revenge on Spidey by any means necessary.Without that, he's just not interesting or compelling enough to hold up his own film.

Furthermore, there's something much more nefarious going on behind the scenes that could put Spider-Man in a worse place than he was before the Marvel-Sony Collaboration. This movie, according to what I've read and heard is NOT going to be connected to the MCU because of a power play by Sony to get more money from the MCU deal. Basically, they're planning to make a bunch of movies starring Spider-Man villains and b-listers to create their own cinematic universe to compete with Marvel, and they plan to abuse a contract loophole with Tom Holland, which says he has to star in THREE spider-man movies for them to make the audience think these movies are in the MCU when they really aren't.

More info here.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tLAYPJyBQZ4

Eddie Venom can work as a Punisher style vigilante anti hero as he has been before.

movieartman, Ray isn't saying that Venom can't carry a standalone movie. There have been Venom standalone comics for years exploring various aspects and version of the character, with Eddie and the Symbiote, other people, the symbiote on its own, etc.

What he's saying is that unless Venom is an alien creature (or lab-created thing or something) that Spider-Man wore as a costume, discarded, and bonded with an ordinary man who has a grudge against Spider-Man, his whole character makes no sense.

I have to agree. Venom's whole shtick is "evil Spider-Man". He's Spider-Man's nightmare reflection. If they make a movie where he's not that, it's just Venom in name only.

I like the alien costume saga and the Venom character a lot but I don't have any hope for this movie. It feels like a soulless play to engage in negotiations with Marvel and I hope it ends with Marvel/Disney just buying the damn right back. I like Fox's approach to X-Men but I'd rather Disney gobble everything else up.