Superhero/Comic Based Films & Tv - Vol.2

[Gendo'sPapa]

MARVEL just announced Spider-Man: Homecoming will be retitled Iron Man & Some Brat in a Red Suit. Nah.

Movie looks fine in new trailers. Tying everything into the greater Avengers universe will let people overlook the cookie cutter factory nature of it all but it should be superior to the unfocused, messy Marc Webb run of the character.

Honestly, nothing will replace the Sam Raimi series for me & I'm really just in this for Michael Keaton playing Birdman.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xbQdPBiF3Co

[Sachi]

I'm really just in this for Michael Keaton playing Birdman.

A lot of "^very much this".

Spiderman was my favorite superhero growing up. His origin story on screen, however, has been played out a lot. This movie will inevitably be Spidey settling into his role as superhero and ultimately proving himself. The Avengers tie-in is refreshing though, as well as the fact that one of his major villains yet to be featured, the Vulture, will acted by none other but the real birdman, Michael Keaton! Will definitely see this in theaters if just for that, and Spidey's new costume with the camera shutter eyes.

[Chuckman]

https://youtu.be/pT75YHqlD9k

Here's a really good video essay on the evolution of the Superhero genre.

It made me realize what's wrong with the DCCU:

Introducing Superman first was a terrible mistake.

What they should have done was build it off if TDKR. Continue with Gordon Levitt as Batman and add in the other heroes, exploring them one by one. Keep the jaded immortal Wonder Woman.

Then, after establishing a "realistic", explicitly twenty-first century late stage capitalism America with all its jaded ways and ironic distaste for unwavering belief and disdain for moral clarity, where these heroes are at each other's throats... and then make the Superman movie. Take modern America and deliver a perfect man who comes from the sky to do only good.

That's the role Supes should play, on a mega level, in this genre. Who better to star in the reaffirmation of myth than the platonic ideal of the superhero?

That would be a great origin story for Superman. Cut the Zod crap and make a movie about him struggling whether to come out and reveal himself and how. Develop the moral choice with Jor El and Jonathan Kent as his shoulder angels arguing between "a light to show the way" and "you don't owe anyone anything"

Oh and grow some balls and make Superman an actual political figure. Give him some ideals, make him stand for something. Give his choices some weight and meaning.

[Ray]

[DELETED]

[Chuckman]

I disagree with your premise. Continuity is the death of good storytelling. Comics turned to shit when they stopped giving out No Prizes and listened to rules lawyering RPG bullshit about travel times between issues.

That said...

They can probably do something similar to what I suggested when they bring him back. Instead of what they inevitably will do, which is pop him out of the grave in the third act of Justice League, they should give him an entire movie to deal with the fallout of his death and actually grapple with the issues raised in MoS, which would be more interesting in the hands of a good writer and capable director. Spend an entire movie with Superman grappling over the issue of revealing himself, where he belongs, etc. Throw some complexity at it. Drop the "oh he died punching a space monster, he's universally loved now" nonsense; that is unrealistic. If people blame him for Zod they'd blame him for Doomsday.

Have him come back without his powers and frame the story around him realizing they're slowly coming back.

Also, like I said, grow some balls and go political with it. Have Superman grapple with real issues of today. Say something other than "you know what? We should just murder criminals." Enough of the sophomoric Frank Miller shit.

I really like the idea of Lex Luthor as a Steve Jobs/Elon Musk type. Luthor as businessman is rich with story ideas. I'd write a movie where Luthor is the arch conservative's wet dream running for President.

[Ray]

Really DC? You're going to do this to yourself again?

http://comicbook.com/dc/2017/05/24/gree ... he-galaxy/

Making Green Lanter a comedy after the disaster that was the last Green Lantern movie bombed with critics and audiences for trying to do just that, is a huge mistake.

[Chuckman]

You think the best way to reintroduce the character to a skeptical public after the Reynolds debacle is to adapt a story where he gets his arms chopped off or he fucks up and everyone dies?

I have a better idea. Drop Hal Jordan and use Jon Stewart as a combined version of the various GL's. Give him a military background and artistic talent as an architect. Maybe he's a vet who always dreamed of engineering buildings but his sense of justice caused him trouble overseas and he had to give up his career plans to become a city cop. Let's cast Lance Reddick to play him and make the love interest Katma Tui and cast... Emilia Clarke to play her. Make the villain the Manhunters. Make the movie a plot that moves around to lots of locations with some room to show off space weirdness from the comics and has lots of openings to delve into obscure comic lore.

Let's get that blind Green Lantern that uses sound in there, too.

Then in the sequel cross him over with Swamp Thing.

Edit: Oh and no origin story. Green Lantern's origin is just tedious for a screen adaptation. Oh gee, he's worthy of it. What a surprise. I never would have guessed that's how the first half one of this movie ends.

[Ray]

[DELETED]

[Chuckman]

It doesn't have to be obvious CGI. CGI costumes can work
just fine. They're using CG for a lot of capes now and Iron Man's suits are all full CGI except for a few small elements used as reference for the animators.

CGI snobbery is kind of funny because people bemoan all bad special effects as CGI even if they're actually practical or in camera effects.

Green Lantern should be The Wire In Space. The Guardians are dicks anyway. (I wonder how they'll handle the naming thing...)

[movieartman]

I would use Lance Reddick for Sinestro, Martian Manhunter or Mr Freeze.
Lupita Nyong'o or Paula Patton as Natu or Fatality.
Timothy Olyphant for a older Hal.
Idris Elba as Stewart.
Alice Eve for Star Sapphire.

Honestly I am among the few that liked the 2011 cgi suits alto they could have been a bit less skin tight.

I'm really just in this for Michael Keaton playing Birdman.

95% same here, the other 5% is seeing Shocker in live action.

My Spider-Man is that of the 90s animated series were he was already deep in science in college plus I have never read Ultimate Spider-man so the high school age Pete really has never appealed to me at all.

Even if he is mentally and ( somewhat) morally unsound

I would say he is a perfectly normal person who has chosen to be a fly on the wall type guy (altho not outright reclusive) with just a tiny bit of pent up rage dew to not hitting down for 33 years.

6. Black Widow: Oh no I can't babies!

The sterility was mentioned in only a single line out of a in-common tragedy both her & Banner suffered as a result of their transformations. People really need to stop exaggerating that sequence.

Personally I think that was among the best emotional scenes in the Mcu (just counting movies).

[Bagheera]

Which I will have you know is a complete mirror opposite of the way their personalities were in the comics and the TV shows. Stewart is supposed to be the ex-marine who's seen too much and is Jaded and bitter, while Jordan is the young punk kid who's still learning the ropes.

Ah, no. Your assessment of Stewart is correct, but Jordan was the first of Earth's ring bearers and was long past "learning the ropes" long before the notion of any other Earth sector GL was a thing.

Can't speak for the TV show, as I wasn't around for any of his appearances.

[FrDougal9000]

So I ended up seeing Wonder Woman with some friends today, simply because I hadn't met up with them since seeing the surprisingly good Kong: Skull Island back in March/April. I make no pretense about my utter loathing of modern superhero movies, and indeed most big budget franchise films made by people who seemingly are given no time to make anything above mediocre, when they can easily afford to do so much better than that (and I speak of this as someone who's done a couple of years of practical film-making as a college course). So it may not come as a shock to say that I hated Wonder Woman. Why? Let me count the ways:

1. If you're going to make a film with at least five action scenes, please hire someone who knows how to make a fucking action scene. The constant cutting between different angles with no rhyme or reason, the pointless flailing about of limbs, the characters blending in too well with their surroundings (more on that in a bit): it all results to grossly incompetent film-making that would have been laughed out of a student film festival; let alone something with countless resources worth of studio backing.

2. It is a visually ugly film. Ignoring the way-too blatant CGI that look like outtakes from the Dead or Alive movie, the character's outfits are tinged with the same types of blues and oranges used for the backgrounds, making them indistinguishable from each other and difficult to focus on what's going on. The cinematography is ranges from average to abysmal; some times you get a decent landscape shot, but more often than not, you get incoherent trash that makes for a disorienting watch.

3. It suffers the same problems as basically every other superhero/franchise/tentpole film: they put enough focus on the script and acting, and little else. The music is once again a meaningless wall of noise where nothing would be lost if you removed it from the film, I've already gone into the visual and action problems, it's poorly edited to the point of being legitimately painful to watch at times; the usual jazz. The end result is yet another film where, if you don't like the script, you better turn it off because there is NOTHING worth staying around for.

4. It's 2 and a half hours long. STOP DOING THIS, PEOPLE. You can be economical with your film-making, you can tell stories like this in 90 minutes, so why do you keep doing this? There is no goddamn reason in the world to do this - it also means that your boring film is simply going to be boring for much longer than need be.

5. It's boring. I was hoping, going from the general reception, that it might be a decent film. I would have even taken something hilariously awful. But this film is simply mediocre sludge you watch for two and a half hours before moving on to the next sludge, and fuck that contemptible disregard for what film can be to the depths of hell. I will never understand why anyone would want to watch something 'adequate' over something good or bad, let alone actually want to create something so trite.

I don't care if anything more would cause the film to lose 'some' money at the box office; it will do well in theatres because it's fucking Wonder Woman! Besides, what about ten or twenty years from now, when all the money, production constraints and what not have faded into memory? When all we have left is the film to enjoy on its own merits? Why watch this load of nothing, when there are so many other (and better) films to check out; films that strived to be more than the bare minimum? Tripe like this will be forgotten when this fad finally fucks off, I guarantee that.

Supposedly, this is the best DC Cinematic Film released so far. As I said to one of my friends afterwards, "That's not a compliment!"

[Chuckman]

Wonder Woman has redeemed the D.C. Cinematic universe and my immortal soul. It's in my top 3 comic book movies, maybe even in my top ten movies. It's everything a superhero should be and it's mature without a heavping helping of 90s grimderp stupidity.

Chuckman says: See this movie.

[Ray]

 

it's mature without a heavping helping of 90s grimderp stupidity

Good news I just wish you had said it in a less antagonistic way. No honor in kicking someone while he's down.

[FreakyFilmFan4ever]

I'm sorry, but when I watch Wonder Woman, I will be comparing it to MoS, BvS, SS, and maybe even the Harry Potter and The Hobbit movies produced by the same studio if appropriate; especially if the movie becomes even more impressive given what kind of history the studio has. That's just how art works. We learn from mistakes (even those of other people) and appreciate that which is good. I'm sure Warner Brothers won't mind.

[Gob Hobblin]

 

Good news I just wish you had said it in a less antagonistic way. No honor in kicking someone while he's down.

.....Whaaaaaaaaa...?

Anyhoo, going to see this movie tonight! Can't wait.

[Guy Nacks]

For some reason, I'm getting flashbacks to when TDSA used to whine and bitch about getting banned from Toho Kingdom at the drop of a hat.

Can't imagine why.

[Chuckman]

Here is my fuller review. Spoilers.

SPOILER: Show

Wonder Woman is close to being the ideal superhero movie. I say close, because it stumbles in the third act and misses its own mark a little bit.

Visually, this is a very complex film. I considering it reductionist to call it ugly. The first third or so takes place on a literal paradise and everything there is absolutely gorgeous and bright and colorful, and that is the point. This contrasts with the rest of the film, which takes place in World War I. It is drab and brown and muddy and things blend together for a purpose, and despite that blending it remains visually interesting. Throughout the rest of the film the color radiates from Diana herself, which is an important visual motif.

One of my favorite aspects of this film is that it is utterly lacking in the male gaze, despite Wonder Woman's outfit and a dress up scene where she tries on a bunch of outfits. This movie could have easily turned into fetish fuel- imagine an island of Amazons and a superhero in a one-piece swimsuit and boots under the direction of Zach Snyder. It's actually remarkable how desexualized the whole thing is, even though sex comes up a lot and there is a lot of tastefully executed humor riffing on DIana's being a fairly immature person from an island of women, who has only an academic idea of sex and relationships. Diana gets to move, fight, and strike power poses like any other superhero and it's beautiful to watch it unfold. The movie prizes femininity without minimizing women as sex objects, the way so many fetish-feminist director helmed films are wont to do; compare with Joss Whedon's output and you'll see what I mean. Even her costume takes the Greek hoplite excuse for Wonder Woman's costume and actually makes it work, it looks (and acts) like armor.

Gal Gadot pulls off the look and acts the part flawlessly. Her accent isn't distracting and the director made the wise choice to have the other Amazons pattern their accents off hers. Her chemistry with Chris Pine is amazing. Yes, they fall into instalove but it makes sense and avoids the predatory undertones of the fish out of water trope.

The genius of this film is that it grapples with the issues Man of Steel attempted to raise, but fell flat in exploring. It reminds me of a favorite line of mine:

It's easy to be a saint in paradise.

Diana emerges from Paradise Island as a naive do-gooder with overly idealistic ideals and a simplistic, Manichaean approach to evil; there is an evil god corrupting all this and if we go stab him everything will be okay. The rest of the film is her confronting reality- World War I is a senseless inhuman slaughter that no one can really fully explain to her and it's happening because of the fundamental nature of human beings. You can't punch the concept of war in the face and you can't fight your way to peace.

The ultimate, hopeful conclusion is a realistic one: you can't give up n the world because it's not perfect, and you can't give up on the world because it can't be perfect. There is good in the world and it is worth fighting for. Progress is a process, not a destination. It's a very hopeful film in a relentlessly pessimistic world going through a worldwide political struggle as humanity collectively wakes up to its own sins and the realization that the post-soviet era is not the end of history.

Where it stumbles, I think, is that right after the film shows Diana (and us) that you can't just kill the one bad guy and everything is solved... it gives her a bad guy to fight. The Aries reveal is, I think, well executed and ties into the rest of the film very well and doesn't undermine the central arc of Diana's character too much; killing Aries is more about realizing her place in the world (and unlocking her powers) but the film, again, stumbles a little bit in the way the pacing of the denoument kinda-sorta says that yeah, killig Aries did actually fix everything.

That's why it was such a remarkably smart choice to set the film in World War I rather than World War II. The astute viewer will realize that she really didn't kill the concept of war. The next war will be just as bad, maybe worse. The atrocities will worsen. Things fall apart... but we still have to try; as Steve Trevor tells her in the beginning, you can do nothing or you can do something, and nothing doesn't really work out that well.

This was really the movie I wanted Man of Steel to be- the story of where a perfect man/woman who came from the sky/a magic island to do only good fits into a world that just isn't that simple. I'd rate it 8/10; if they'd taken the finale in a different direction I'd call it the best superhero movie of all time.

A note on Diana's powers.

I expect that there will be a lot of nerds coming out of this movie lamenting that Diana's abilities are inconsistent.

Early in the film, she's wounded and displays a superhuman healing factor. Later she turns out to be straight up invincible, develops the ability to fly, etc.

As I said, this film rewards the astute viewer. Diana's equipment- her iconic bracers and armor as well as the sword and shield in the film- don't actually do anything. It's all her. Their actual function is to guide her to use her powers by acting as a mental focus until she doesn't need them anymore. She actually spends the entire movie charging up her powers for the final fight by absorbing energy through her bracers. The only piece of her gear that actually does something is the magic rope.

What I like about this, is that while there are some exposition heavy scenes- there's no big reveal where a mentor figure tells her all this ands he doesn't explain it to the audience, either. The movie trusts you to be smart enough to pick that up on your own.

Hopefully the DCCU planners do the smart thing and move her to the front and center of the 'verse, since she should be the one mentoring the other heroes. I can see her being the moral center of this universe. In a better world, this movie would have come out first and set the tone and thematic framework for the rest of them.

[Ray]

The bigger question I need to ask is how are they going to take the elements in this movie and apply them to the dceu going forward? Given this takes place before the events of the two-and-a-half movies that the majority of the audience didn't like?

[Gendo'sPapa]

The easy takeaway from Wonder Woman is WB needs to focus on making their DC movies work as actual movies. Forms of entertainment that reach across to all audiences & entertain people. Not misogynistic hate-filled manifestos written to angry 12 year old boys. Once the hurdle that is Justice League is cleared things should look brighter for the DC Universe. James Wan, Matt Reeves, Joss Whedon & Patty Jenkins are a good crew of filmmakers to tell real stories with real characters.
In the long run people will look back at the history of the DC Cinematic Universe & view the first films the same way people view the first few MCU movies. The universe was trying to figure out what stories they wanted to tell & how to go about doing them.

Very glad Wonder Woman was good. Like REAL good!