|
Post by DC-Fan on Aug 23, 2017 22:30:11 GMT
The Joker did have an origin in the comics. He was a thief who wore a Red Hood and was the 1 criminal whom Batman could never catch or identify who he was. That's the point he's making. Batman doesn't know who he is so there is no origin for him. Batman never caught or identified the Red Hood. But that doesn't mean the Joker still has an origin story. The cops never caught the Zodiac killer. But that doesn't mean there wasn't a Zodiac killer.
There was a Zodiac killer, just like there's a Joker, who has an origin story. And in the comics, the Joker was a thief who was known as the Red Hood.
|
|
|
Post by ThatGuy on Aug 23, 2017 22:43:50 GMT
That's the point he's making. Batman doesn't know who he is so there is no origin for him. Batman never caught or identified the Red Hood. But that doesn't mean the Joker still has an origin story. The cops never caught the Zodiac killer. But that doesn't mean there wasn't a Zodiac killer.
There was a Zodiac killer, just like there's a Joker, who has an origin story. And in the comics, the Joker was a thief who was known as the Red Hood.
So there is no origin story for the Joker is what you are saying. He just had another criminal name, but there is no real name behind that. No. Origin.
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Aug 23, 2017 22:51:30 GMT
Batman never caught or identified the Red Hood. But that doesn't mean the Joker still has an origin story. The cops never caught the Zodiac killer. But that doesn't mean there wasn't a Zodiac killer.
There was a Zodiac killer, just like there's a Joker, who has an origin story. And in the comics, the Joker was a thief who was known as the Red Hood.
So there is no origin story for the Joker is what you are saying. He just had another criminal name, but there is no real name behind that. No. Origin. Are you stupid? Do you not understand English?
In the comics, the Joker had an origin story. He was a thief known as the Red Hood, whom Batman never caught and never identified. One day, Batman chased him into the Ace Chemical Company, where he escaped by jumping into a vat of toxic liquids and swimming out through a drainpipe. But the liquids changed his skin and turned him into the Joker.
|
|
|
Post by seahawksraawk00 on Aug 23, 2017 23:09:14 GMT
So there is no origin story for the Joker is what you are saying. He just had another criminal name, but there is no real name behind that. No. Origin. Are you stupid? Do you not understand English?
In the comics, the Joker had an origin story. He was a thief known as the Red Hood, whom Batman never caught and never identified. One day, Batman chased him into the Ace Chemical Company, where he escaped by jumping into a vat of toxic liquids and swimming out through a drainpipe. But the liquids changed his skin and turned him into the Joker.
Yeah, that's just one of the dozens of different interpretations of the Joker's life. The Dark Knight nailed it by just having the Joker mess around with others by tossing out different stories about his life because that's who the Joker is.
|
|
agentblue
Sophomore
@agentblue
Posts: 792
Likes: 248
|
Post by agentblue on Aug 23, 2017 23:30:50 GMT
look......it makes "some sense," since it's basically elseworld stories...................but really? this early? and aside from that, the question is will people understand what these things are? They wont. I am thinking this is a bad idea, UGH DC just do what Marvel is doing a bunch of interconnected movies that are set in the same universe with occasional crossovers.
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Aug 24, 2017 0:51:25 GMT
The stupidest fucking idea I've ever heard. That's like Sony trying to make a separate Spidey Universe when Spider-Man is already in the MC... oh wait. No, the stupidest fucking idea is the idiots who think that everything has to be connected.
The interconnectivity means you have to put actual thought and effort into your work, so I can see why DC doesn't want to do it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 24, 2017 0:58:03 GMT
No, the stupidest fucking idea is the idiots who think that everything has to be connected.
The interconnectivity means you have to put actual thought and effort into your work, so I can see why DC doesn't want to do it. I believe that what WB and DC-Fan are engaging in right now is... how did Tristan put it? Low effort thinking.
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Aug 24, 2017 0:58:41 GMT
The interconnectivity means you have to put actual thought and effort into your work, so I can see why DC doesn't want to do it. I believe that what WB and DC-Fan are engaging in right now is... how did Tristan put it? Low effort thinking. Bunch of mouthbreathers.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 24, 2017 1:01:05 GMT
I believe that what WB and DC-Fan are engaging in right now is... how did Tristan put it? Low effort thinking. Bunch of mouthbreathers. And they don't even have bad allergies as an excuse!
|
|
|
Post by JudgeJuryDredd on Aug 24, 2017 1:37:28 GMT
The problem with having a separate DC movie franchise that is not connected with the rest of the DCEU is that it creates brand confusion, doesn't matter how good or bad the product could be it will still puzzle a lot of people. This will be especially confusing if The Joker appears in another movie
So basically like the confusion when AoU had Quicksilver #2 after X-Men: Days of Future Past had Quicksilver #1?
Or like the confusion when The Avengers had Hulk #3 (Mark Ruffalo) after The Incredible Hulk had Hulk #2 (Edward Norton) after Hulk had Hulk #1 (Eric Bana)?
Or like the confusion when MCU had Rhodey #2 (Don Cheadle) after they had Rhodey #1 (Terence Howard)? Quicksilver was not the lead in either Days of Future Past or Age of Ultron, both of which were ensemble films. Both iterations are fairly different from one another so the only thing they share in common is the nickname; X-Men's Quicksilver is an American raised mutant who is the son of Magneto, was born in the 1950's, lives with his mom, is a wise cracking trouble maker and typically dresses casually. His name is Peter. Marvel's Quicksilver is from contemporary times, was born and raised in Europe, and got his powers via experimentation - he wasn't born with them. His Father is definitely not Magneto, who doesn't exist in that universe, his name is Pietro. Neither movie was also made by the same creative team - Fox made X-Men, Marvel made Avengers. This Joker movie is from the same think tank as the DCEU but isn't going to be set within that universe which is why its eye brow raising for a lot of people. War Machine/Rhodey and Bruce Banner/Hulk are instances of re-casting a character, Don Cheadle's Rhodes is the same Rhodes Terrence Howard portrayed in the first Iron Man and Mark Ruffalo's Hulk in The Avengers is the same Hulk Edward Norton was in The Incredible Hulk. The Incredible Hulk was not a continuation of the 2003 movie with Eric Bana it was a total reboot.
|
|
|
Post by JudgeJuryDredd on Aug 24, 2017 1:59:18 GMT
his story tends to change every once in a while on how much he saw of them. He says Jessica Jones is "the worst superhero show ever made" based on its first season, which he said he saw in its entirety earlier but recently says he only saw the first episode. My story has never changed. I said I watched the 1st half of the pilot episode of Jessica Jones and fell asleep because is was so boring. Then later I decided to watch the rest of the pilot episode to see if it would get any better, but it didn't so I stopped watching the series. I never said anywhere that I watched the entire season nor will you be able to find any post by me anywhere in which I claimed to have watched the entire season. My story has always been that I watched the entire pilot episode of Jessica Jonesand it was so boring and crappy that I stopped watching the entire season. Your confusion probably comes from the fact that I've watched the entire 2 seasons of Daredevil and the entire seasons of Luke Cage and Iron Fist. I've tried to explain to him how keeping the DCEU and the CW shows separate was not that smart of a business plan in the long run and the only time he addressed me about potential brand confusion Only dumb MCU fans who think that everything has to be connected in order to make sense would be confused. General movie audiences are much smarter than dumb MCU fans and don't get confused. There was no confusion in 1983 when Octopussy was released in June with Roger Moore as James Bond for the 6th straight time and then Never Say Never Again was released in October with Sean Connery as James Bond for the 1st time in 12 years. Nor was there confusion in 1967 when Casino Royale was released in April with David Niven as James Bond and then You Only Live Twice was released in June with Sean Connery as James Bond. Very well, and because you only saw the first episode and nothing else you don't have the merit to call the series "the worst superhero show ever made" as you often do - you need to see the full season to make such judgement. "Only dumb MCU fans"...So I take it the number of DC fans who are perplexed by the news that this Joker origin movie not being set within the DCEU are "dumb MCU fans" as well, right? Keep using that straw man all you wish, it'll only continue to highlight your ignorance and ego the more you do. Your James Bond comparisons don't quite work I'm afraid. 1967's Casino Royale was a Bond parody, not a legitimate Bond film and has nothing to do with the franchise, audiences were not alienated or confused by it because they knew it wasn't the real deal. Never Say Never Again was not produced by Eon Productions and isn't considered part of continuity with the James Bond franchise as a whole, complicated filming rights to the novel Thunderball got it up and running and with Sean Connery back as 007 it was hard to say no to it given how he was still the most popular Bond portrayer. The movie didn't do bad critically, however it made quite a bit less than Octopussy, the legitimate Bond sequel, earlier that year. It was an ironic turn of events, as people thought NSNA would make more because of Connery's involvement, but that was simply not the case. In regards to The Joker this origins film its just an eye brow raiser as there are no rights complications at stake here so it doesn't make sense to produce a feature outside of their current slate of DC Films which occupy the same continuity, it is also not based on any earlier on screen Joker either so a NSNA scenario is not on the cards with this one, except that it'll probably make less than the other DC films coming out that year - which WILL occupy the same universe on film.
|
|
|
Post by JudgeJuryDredd on Aug 24, 2017 2:00:23 GMT
However, the movies are still affecting the TV shows even though they aren't occupying the same universe. After the Suicide Squad movie was announced the Suicide Squad as depicted in the "Arrow-verse" decrease dramatically and characters like Deadshot didn't appear as often as they used to. That doesn't seem to be as prominent now as it was a couple of years ago. It still is. Where is Wonder Woman or Aquaman on Flash or Legends of Tomorrow? Or heck, where were they on Powerless?
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Aug 24, 2017 3:00:43 GMT
So basically like the confusion when AoU had Quicksilver #2 after X-Men: Days of Future Past had Quicksilver #1?
Or like the confusion when The Avengers had Hulk #3 (Mark Ruffalo) after The Incredible Hulk had Hulk #2 (Edward Norton) after Hulk had Hulk #1 (Eric Bana)?
Or like the confusion when MCU had Rhodey #2 (Don Cheadle) after they had Rhodey #1 (Terence Howard)? Quicksilver was not the lead in either Days of Future Past or Age of Ultron, both of which were ensemble films. Both iterations are fairly different from one another so the only thing they share in common is the nickname; X-Men's Quicksilver is an American raised mutant who is the son of Magneto, was born in the 1950's, lives with his mom, is a wise cracking trouble maker and typically dresses casually. His name is Peter. Marvel's Quicksilver is from contemporary times, was born and raised in Europe, and got his powers via experimentation - he wasn't born with them. His Father is definitely not Magneto, who doesn't exist in that universe, his name is Pietro. Neither movie was also made by the same creative team - Fox made X-Men, Marvel made Avengers. For general movie audiences who don't keep track of what studio is producing what movies, there isn't any distinction between the X-Men movies and Avengers movies (other than the X-Men movies aren't filled with bad jokes and lame villains). Both movies start with a red-colored Marvel logo on it so for general audiences, they're both Marvel movies. And they have 2 Quicksilvers. War Machine/Rhodey and Bruce Banner/Hulk are instances of re-casting a character, Don Cheadle's Rhodes is the same Rhodes Terrence Howard portrayed in the first Iron Man and Mark Ruffalo's Hulk in The Avengers is the same Hulk Edward Norton was in The Incredible Hulk. The Incredible Hulk was not a continuation of the 2003 movie with Eric Bana it was a total reboot. And that's where general movie audiences would get really confused. Because they've been told over and over again that it's supposed to be a shared universe. So when they replace an actor (and in Hulk's case, not for a minor role but for 1 of the key roles in the shared universe) after just 1 appearance, it confuses people. It would be like if Star Wars had replaced Harrison Ford or Mark Hamill after just 1 movie.
|
|
|
Post by seahawksraawk00 on Aug 24, 2017 3:14:37 GMT
For general movie audiences who don't keep track of what studio is producing what movies, there isn't any distinction between the X-Men movies and Avengers movies (other than the X-Men movies aren't filled with bad jokes and lame villains). Both movies start with a red-colored Marvel logo on it so for general audiences, they're both Marvel movies. And they have 2 And that's where general movie audiences would get really confused. Because they've been told over and over again that it's supposed to be a shared universe. So when they replace an actor (and in Hulk's case, not for a minor role but for 1 of the key roles in the shared universe) after just 1 appearance, it confuses people. It would be like if Star Wars had replaced Harrison Ford or Mark Hamill after just 1 movie. The MCU specifically killed off their Quicksilver because of that reason so they don't have to worry about that for future films. It was kinda a trade-off, X-men gets Quicksilver and the MCU gets Scarlet Witch. But it was hardly a big deal anyways because it was settled, plus they have different names and Quicksilver wasn't even brought up in either film so for all the audience would know, they could have just been two separate speedster kind of characters. You want to pretend you didn't know which was which like a dumbass, be my guess. Recasting happens all the time, whether from conflict on set or scheduling issues. Batman was essentially recasted two times if you consider Burtons and Schumacher's to all be part of a same series. Alfred was played by Michael Gough was Alfred in all four of them. The Dark Knight even recasted Rachel from Katie Holmes to Maggie Gyllenhaal. Again, you want to pretend you were confused just to prove a point, be my guest.
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Aug 24, 2017 3:15:25 GMT
Very well, and because you only saw the first episode and nothing else you don't have the merit to call the series "the worst superhero show ever made" as you often do - you need to see the full season to make such judgement.Very well, and because you only saw the first episode and nothing else you don't have the merit to call the series "the worst superhero show ever made" as you often do - you need to see the full season to make such judgement. No, I don't. Watching 1 full episode is enough to judge a TV show. I've tried to explain this to you MCU fans many times before, but you're slow at getting things. MCU is dumb to try to connect the TV shows with the movies because TV and movies are 2 different mediums. When viewers go to watch a movie, even if the movie starts off really slow and boring, they'll probably stay to see the entire movie because it's just 2 hours or so. But if a TV show starts off really slow and boring, viewers aren't going to spend 13 hours (for a short series) or 22 hours (for a full series) watching the entire season. So a TV show has to get viewers interested with the pilot episode. Moreover, when TV shows are pitched to network executives, network executives will watch the pilot episode and make a decision whether or not to pick up the TV show based on what they see in the pilot episode. Network executives don't watch an entire season to make their decision. Similarly, when Emmy voters vote for the best TV shows, they don't watch the entire season of all the nominated shows. They only watch 1 episode of each nominated show and make their decision based on 1 episode. So it's entirely fair to judge a TV show by its pilot episode only. And Jessica Jones' pilot episode was really boring and crappy so I stopped watching the rest of the series. And it's entirely fair and valid for me to call Jessica Jones the worst superhero TV show ever based on its pilot episode, because that's how TV shows are judged, by network executives as well as Emmy voters. Never Say Never Again was not produced by Eon Productions and isn't considered part of continuity with the James Bond franchise as a whole, complicated filming rights to the novel Thunderball got it up and running and with Sean Connery back as 007 it was hard to say no to it given how he was still the most popular Bond portrayer. The movie didn't do bad critically, however it made quite a bit less than Octopussy, the legitimate Bond sequel, earlier that year. It was an ironic turn of events, as people thought NSNA would make more because of Connery's involvement, but that was simply not the case. Nevertheless, it's still the same scenario you claimed would confuse viewers about DC. 2 movies released just months apart about the same character but played by 2 different actors. And just as general movie audiences don't make a distinction between Marvel movies produced by Fox vs MCU, they don't make a distinction between James Bond movies produced by 2 different production companies.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 24, 2017 3:19:41 GMT
Hey, Anne_Hathaway-Fan, what do you think the new DC cinematic universe reboot will be like now that the DCEU is dying a painful, but swift, death?
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Aug 24, 2017 3:19:54 GMT
That doesn't seem to be as prominent now as it was a couple of years ago. It still is. Where is Wonder Woman or Aquaman on Flash or Legends of Tomorrow? Or heck, where were they on Powerless? The Flash has been on Legends of Tomorrow. In fact, Supergirl, The Flash, Arrow, and Legends of Tomorrow had a 4-way crossover last season and will have another 4-way crossover this season.
Powerless is a show about non-super-powered beings living in a world of superheroes. The main characters are non-super-powered beings. So it makes sense that they didn't have any of the major superheroes on it.
|
|
|
Post by JudgeJuryDredd on Aug 24, 2017 3:46:35 GMT
Quicksilver was not the lead in either Days of Future Past or Age of Ultron, both of which were ensemble films. Both iterations are fairly different from one another so the only thing they share in common is the nickname; X-Men's Quicksilver is an American raised mutant who is the son of Magneto, was born in the 1950's, lives with his mom, is a wise cracking trouble maker and typically dresses casually. His name is Peter. Marvel's Quicksilver is from contemporary times, was born and raised in Europe, and got his powers via experimentation - he wasn't born with them. His Father is definitely not Magneto, who doesn't exist in that universe, his name is Pietro. Neither movie was also made by the same creative team - Fox made X-Men, Marvel made Avengers. For general movie audiences who don't keep track of what studio is producing what movies, there isn't any distinction between the X-Men movies and Avengers movies (other than the X-Men movies aren't filled with bad jokes and lame villains). Both movies start with a red-colored Marvel logo on it so for general audiences, they're both Marvel movies. And they have 2 Quicksilvers. War Machine/Rhodey and Bruce Banner/Hulk are instances of re-casting a character, Don Cheadle's Rhodes is the same Rhodes Terrence Howard portrayed in the first Iron Man and Mark Ruffalo's Hulk in The Avengers is the same Hulk Edward Norton was in The Incredible Hulk. The Incredible Hulk was not a continuation of the 2003 movie with Eric Bana it was a total reboot. And that's where general movie audiences would get really confused. Because they've been told over and over again that it's supposed to be a shared universe. So when they replace an actor (and in Hulk's case, not for a minor role but for 1 of the key roles in the shared universe) after just 1 appearance, it confuses people. It would be like if Star Wars had replaced Harrison Ford or Mark Hamill after just 1 movie. Actually, the distinction between Marvel Studios productions and movies that are based on Marvel properties has become more apparent by general audiences, as soon phase one was completed with The Avengers people really started to see the difference between a legitimate Marvel movie where they are calling every shot( Iron Man, Captain America, Thor, etc.) to one which is based on their properties but primarily produced by a different party altogether( The X-Men's, the Spider-Man's, the Blades, the Ghost Riders, the Punishers, etc.) It's helped Marvel out a lot that with pretty much all their releases they use the "Marvel Studios" block on top of the logos for their films and have a special title sequence to play in front of each. Secondly, its clear as day that the X-Men movies do not occupy the same world as the Marvel Studios movies do, there is just too much in both franchises that contradicts the other its just impossible to think it were any other way. And both iterations of Quicksilver appear too vastly different to be the same exact character, and it wouldn't line up at all to think for one second that Quicksilver in DOFP is the same as the one in AoU, in DOFP Quicksilver is in his twenties and its in the 1970s, in AoU it is the 2010's and Quicksilver is not a mutant but an experiment with a very thick accent. It's called suspension of disbelief. Recasting roles in franchises is nothing new, the James Bond franchise - which you ironically used to defend WB's decision making with this Joker origins movie, has done it before and will continue to do so. Have a problem with it? Blame Howard and Norton for not being more professional and wanting to play ball.
|
|
|
Post by JudgeJuryDredd on Aug 24, 2017 3:56:05 GMT
It still is. Where is Wonder Woman or Aquaman on Flash or Legends of Tomorrow? Or heck, where were they on Powerless? The Flash has been on Legends of Tomorrow. In fact, Supergirl, The Flash, Arrow, and Legends of Tomorrow had a 4-way crossover last season and will have another 4-way crossover this season.
Powerless is a show about non-super-powered beings living in a world of superheroes. The main characters are non-super-powered beings. So it makes sense that they didn't have any of the major superheroes on it.
So what? The Flash has his own series on The CW and along with Arrow it helped launched Legends of Tomorrow, Supergirl is within its contained multi-verse because the same creatives from those shows are on it as well. I was talking about Wonder Woman and Aquaman, why haven't they appeared on Legends, Flash, Arrow or Supergirl yet if WB has no trouble having different versions of these characters on TV than just the big screen? Both of them have been referenced, so unless WB has decided to put as much chips as they can on their iterations and their film versions and don't want a different take on TV to avoid brand confusion - the obvious scenario - then why not have Diana and Arthur pop up on CW then, hmmm? After all, you say that by having the movies and TV shows separate there is unlimited freedom for these shows, also why we're at it here's a good one to ask - Where the hell is Batman on any of those shows? He's been referenced as well, and considering Gotham is another universe in itself what gives then, right? Powerless couldn't help but reference major characters and tie them into their storylines which hurt it big time. Hence, it was dead on arrival and will not be getting a second season.
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Aug 24, 2017 4:00:15 GMT
For general movie audiences who don't keep track of what studio is producing what movies, there isn't any distinction between the X-Men movies and Avengers movies (other than the X-Men movies aren't filled with bad jokes and lame villains). Both movies start with a red-colored Marvel logo on it so for general audiences, they're both Marvel movies. And they have 2 Quicksilvers. And that's where general movie audiences would get really confused. Because they've been told over and over again that it's supposed to be a shared universe. So when they replace an actor (and in Hulk's case, not for a minor role but for 1 of the key roles in the shared universe) after just 1 appearance, it confuses people. It would be like if Star Wars had replaced Harrison Ford or Mark Hamill after just 1 movie. Actually, the distinction between Marvel Studios productions and movies that are based on Marvel properties has become more apparent by general audiences, as soon phase one was completed with The Avengers people really started to see the difference between a legitimate Marvel movie where they are calling every shot( Iron Man, Captain America, Thor, etc.) to one which is based on their properties but primarily produced by a different party altogether( The X-Men's, the Spider-Man's, the Blades, the Ghost Riders, the Punishers, etc.) It's helped Marvel out a lot that with pretty much all their releases they use the "Marvel Studios" block on top of the logos for their films and have a special title sequence to play in front of each. Secondly, its clear as day that the X-Men movies do not occupy the same world as the Marvel Studios movies do, there is just too much in both franchises that contradicts the other its just impossible to think it were any other way. And both iterations of Quicksilver appear too vastly different to be the same exact character, and it wouldn't line up at all to think for one second that Quicksilver in DOFP is the same as the one in AoU, in DOFP Quicksilver is in his twenties and its in the 1970s, in AoU it is the 2010's and Quicksilver is not a mutant but an experiment with a very thick accent. It's called suspension of disbelief. Recasting roles in franchises is nothing new, the James Bond franchise - which you ironically used to defend WB's decision making with this Joker origins movie, has done it before and will continue to do so. Have a problem with it? Blame Howard and Norton for not being more professional and wanting to play ball. Why should I blame Howard for asking for a raise? He's not in movies for free. It's his livelihood. There's nothing wrong with him asking for a raise for doing his job any more than a elementary school teacher or a nurse at a hospital asking their boss for a raise. SO you think any school teacher or nurse who asks their boss for a raise should be fired too?
MCU has made billions so it's not like MCU couldn't afford to give Howard a raise. So no, I don't blame Howard at all for simply asking for a raise for doing his job. I blame his greedy employer who refused to give him a raise even though they've made billions.
|
|