|
Post by DC-Fan on May 5, 2017 7:07:19 GMT
I can't tell what the hell you're saying but Marvel is kicking ass and taking names while DCEU falters and disappoints. LOL!!! zoilus just got owned!
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on May 5, 2017 7:09:14 GMT
Mads Mikkelsen as Kaecilius from Dr. Strange alone blows anything the DCEU has brought to the board out of the water. Never saw it. Prolly the best looking MCU movie in 3-4 years if the trailers are any indication, to say nothing of Cumberbatch's general standard of absolute excellence in everything he's in. I've no particular knowledge or opinion of the character either and know nothing about Kaecilius, although I will say that the name itself sounds a little like a venereal disease and lacks the panache of, say, "The Riddler." I saw Doctor Strange and it was another boring and crappy MCU movie with a forgettable villain.
|
|
|
Post by coldenhaulfield on May 5, 2017 7:13:14 GMT
Never saw it. Prolly the best looking MCU movie in 3-4 years if the trailers are any indication, to say nothing of Cumberbatch's general standard of absolute excellence in everything he's in. I've no particular knowledge or opinion of the character either and know nothing about Kaecilius, although I will say that the name itself sounds a little like a venereal disease and lacks the panache of, say, "The Riddler." I saw Doctor Strange and it was another boring and crappy MCU movie with a forgettable villain.
|
|
|
Post by Tristan's Journal on May 5, 2017 10:26:41 GMT
I saw Doctor Strange and it was another boring and crappy MCU movie with a forgettable villain. lol, yeah it is, but only the usual bummer! From a more nuanced and unbiased perspective than DC-fan or the MarvelousRaptor:
The film is another typical and mediocre (not bad!) entry, painting the Marvel formula by numbers (Thor/Ironman-like Jerk becomes good guy, learns craft, loses mentor, defeats the paper-tiger villains, there is a romantic interest, tone is bright and quippy, with a lot of pop culture references etc).
It (needlessly) infuses some drippy Matrix/Inception CGI elements (bending town and surrounding) for show; and composer Michael Giaccino reused his Star Trek theme Hindu style.
The villains were per usual unremarkable (had to look them up again): a cardboard mid-level villain, and a Tron/StarTrek end-boss villain with a deus ex machina (SciFi) resolution to beat him (cf reused ST theme). Interestingly, IMO there was some bad acting from normally solid actors (not Cumberbutch, he was ok).
Oh, and there was an annoying amount of lowbrow pop culture references to pop singers (cringe!, always a sign of a classic and of solid writing, eh?)
6/10 - serviceable warmed-up junk fodder, but instantly forgettable.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 5, 2017 12:29:00 GMT
The one big advantage DC have always had over Marvel is female superheroes. Stan Lee has even said this in interviews when he has praised DC characters and said he wished he could have created a female superhero as popular as Wonder Woman. DC have a lot of great female superheroes like Wonder Woman, Supergirl (Kara and Linda), Batgirl, Black Canary, the Huntress, Raven, Lady Blackhawk, Starfire, Zatanna, Vixen, the Spoiler, Orphan, Bluebird, Batwoman, Hawkfire/Flamebird, Catwoman (Antihero), Starling, Stargirl, Katana, Power Girl, Hawkgirl, Thunder, Ice, Power Girl, Saturn Girl, Dove, Liberty Belle, Jesse Quick/Chambers, Red Beetle, Phantom Lady, Dawnstar etc etc. DC have the biggest selling female superheroes along with Image Comics, IDW. Event Comics and Dynamite Comics. If you want a good example Witchblade has outsold every female lead comic book series by Marvel and Witchblade, Darkchylde and Painkiller Jane were beating Batman, Superman, Spider-Man and X Men on a monthly basis during their peak. Marvel had Red Sonja for a while but then they dropped and her biggest sales were under Dynamite Comics with the Gail Simone run being the most praised. What Marvel have done with Angela since they got a hold of the character after Todd McFarlane and Neil Gaiman had a falling out when Todd had big plans for her in Spawn and another solo series is a good example of how good Marvel are with female characters in general.
Marvel suck with female superheroes and while they have had some good ones Image Comics and Dynamite Comics are far more well known than their biggest selling ones and in less than a decade DC already have Wonder Woman, Batgirl and Gotham City Sirens in development, a Birds of Prey movie is rumoured and Supergirl is heavily rumoured to debut in 'Man of Steel 2' which will most likely launch a Supergirl movie meanwhile Marvel couldn't even be bothered to make a Black Widow movie, they chose Black Widow as their first female superhero over their biggest selling female superhero, Ms Marvel 'cause she was too powerful to downgrade into a side character, they can't be bothered to make a Spider-Woman movie or add Jessica Drew to the movies when she was a member of Hydra and SHIELD and an Avenger and the actual Spider-Woman graphic novels say she is Marvel's second biggest selling female superhero and movies like Captain Marvel and Black Cat are only happening now 'cause DC announced they were making Wonder Woman.
Both companies have had their share of sexism over the years and the fact it has taken them this long to make a Wonder Woman movie when the 1970s TV series with Lynda Carter was very successful is an absolute joke but the fact DC/Warner Bros are making these movies now and we have Painkiller Jane, Avengelyne and Witchblade movies in development along with new TV shows of Witchblade and Hack/Slash and Marvel only have one female superhero movie in development (Still no Black Widow movie and Black Cat is being developed by Sony) goes to show where the problem lies. I am guessing we will have Darkchylde, Red Sonja, Fallen Angel, Monstress, Aphrodite IX, Fathom, The Magdalena, Vampirella, Swords of Sorrow, Sunstone, Warrior Nun Areala, Danger Girl and Tarot Witch of the Black Rose movies out LONG before Marvel ever makes Spider-Woman or Shanna the She Devil movies.
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on May 5, 2017 12:52:42 GMT
If you make the story about the villain, all you're proving is that you didn't care about the hero.
And don't bring up "A hero is only as good as the villain", that's a BS argument used to justify lazy writing. You go to a CBM for the villain and only the villain, you just show you don't care about the hero at all.
If your hero is interesting enough on their own to explore and has internal conflict with their allies and friends, then there's no problem with the villain just being a plot device/obstacle.
DC doesn't really get this, because for decades they made the villains the focus of the story because they didn't think their heroes COULD carry the story on their own. It wasn't until Marvel showed them that the hero could be enough that they took notice.
|
|
|
Post by coldenhaulfield on May 5, 2017 13:47:55 GMT
If you make the story about the villain, all you're proving is that you didn't care about the hero. And don't bring up "A hero is only as good as the villain", that's a BS argument used to justify lazy writing. You go to a CBM for the villain and only the villain, you just show you don't care about the hero at all. If your hero is interesting enough on their own to explore and has internal conflict with their allies and friends, then there's no problem with the villain just being a plot device/obstacle. DC doesn't really get this, because for decades they made the villains the focus of the story because they didn't think their heroes COULD carry the story on their own. It wasn't until Marvel showed them that the hero could be enough that they took notice. TL; DR: you're a dumbass.
|
|
|
Post by Tristan's Journal on May 5, 2017 13:57:41 GMT
The one big advantage DC have always had over Marvel is female superheroes.... This is actually a well formulated and informative post. Obviously, I do not agree that this is the only DC advantage, and your subject matter discussed is blatantly beside the point. You should open a separate thread on this subject.
Analogously, your avatar pic is easy on the eye, but your font color is not! You should not open a separate thread on this subject.
|
|
|
Post by Tristan's Journal on May 5, 2017 14:13:31 GMT
If you make the story about the villain, all you're proving is that you didn't care about the hero. And don't bring up "A hero is only as good as the villain", that's a BS argument used to justify lazy writing. You go to a CBM for the villain and only the villain, you just show you don't care about the hero at all. If your hero is interesting enough on their own to explore and has internal conflict with their allies and friends, then there's no problem with the villain just being a plot device/obstacle. DC doesn't really get this, because for decades they made the villains the focus of the story because they didn't think their heroes COULD carry the story on their own. It wasn't until Marvel showed them that the hero could be enough that they took notice. thanks dude. This is actually a beautiful example of begging the question, false dilemma and personal incredulity fallacies. Also, by making up opinionated absolutes you are actually conceding the point about the quality of Marvel villains (or the mentioned second tier DC villains).
Also, I am impressed at you profound insight into DC artistic thinking processes and anxieties about Bats and Supes not being unable to carry their stories alone...did they tell you that personally, or did you just project a little straw man...?
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on May 5, 2017 14:20:04 GMT
If you make the story about the villain, all you're proving is that you didn't care about the hero. And don't bring up "A hero is only as good as the villain", that's a BS argument used to justify lazy writing. You go to a CBM for the villain and only the villain, you just show you don't care about the hero at all. If your hero is interesting enough on their own to explore and has internal conflict with their allies and friends, then there's no problem with the villain just being a plot device/obstacle. DC doesn't really get this, because for decades they made the villains the focus of the story because they didn't think their heroes COULD carry the story on their own. It wasn't until Marvel showed them that the hero could be enough that they took notice. thanks dude. This is actually a beautiful example of begging the question, false dilemma and personal incredulity fallacies. Also, by making up opinionated absolutes you are actually conceding the point about the quality of Marvel villains (or the mentioned second tier DC villains).
Also, I am impressed at you profound insight into DC artistic thinking processes and anxieties about Bats and Supes not being unable to carry their stories alone...did they tell you that personally, or did you just project a little straw man...?
No, I just don't think that the villain needs to steal the show and the story should be about the hero. It's why I never liked Nolan's Batman that much. Then I found out people actually WANTED the movies to be about the villains. I got it from reading the older comics.
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on May 5, 2017 14:20:47 GMT
If you make the story about the villain, all you're proving is that you didn't care about the hero. And don't bring up "A hero is only as good as the villain", that's a BS argument used to justify lazy writing. You go to a CBM for the villain and only the villain, you just show you don't care about the hero at all. If your hero is interesting enough on their own to explore and has internal conflict with their allies and friends, then there's no problem with the villain just being a plot device/obstacle. DC doesn't really get this, because for decades they made the villains the focus of the story because they didn't think their heroes COULD carry the story on their own. It wasn't until Marvel showed them that the hero could be enough that they took notice. TL; DR: you're not towing the DC line. Fixed.
|
|
|
Post by Tristan's Journal on May 5, 2017 14:43:50 GMT
thanks dude. This is actually a beautiful example of begging the question, false dilemma and personal incredulity fallacies. Also, by making up opinionated absolutes you are actually conceding the point about the quality of Marvel villains (or the mentioned second tier DC villains).
Also, I am impressed at you profound insight into DC artistic thinking processes and anxieties about Bats and Supes not being unable to carry their stories alone...did they tell you that personally, or did you just project a little straw man...?
No, I just don't think that the villain needs to steal the show and the story should be about the hero. It's why I never liked Nolan's Batman that much. Then I found out people actually WANTED the movies to be about the villains. I got it from reading the older comics. Fair enough, that sounds more convincing, and your personal preference is likely why you are more of a Marvel fan than DC (I assume). Which is circular reasoning, but it's still valid as a personal opinion.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 5, 2017 15:49:35 GMT
Mads Mikkelsen as Kaecilius from Dr. Strange alone blows anything the DCEU has brought to the board out of the water. Never saw it. Prolly the best looking MCU movie in 3-4 years if the trailers are any indication, to say nothing of Cumberbatch's general standard of absolute excellence in everything he's in. I've no particular knowledge or opinion of the character either and know nothing about Kaecilius, although I will say that the name itself sounds a little like a venereal disease and lacks the panache of, say, "The Riddler." Basically, Kaecilius is a well-intentioned extremist who thinks he's doing the right thing. He is, unfortunately, ignorant of the full ramifications of his actions like any zealot, and will not be reasoned with.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 5, 2017 15:52:02 GMT
lol, yeah it is, but only the usual bummer! From a more nuanced and unbiased perspective than DC-fan or the MarvelousRaptor:
The film is another typical and mediocre (not bad!) entry, painting the Marvel formula by numbers (Thor/Ironman-like Jerk becomes good guy, learns craft, loses mentor, defeats the paper-tiger villains, there is a romantic interest, tone is bright and quippy, with a lot of pop culture references etc).
It (needlessly) infuses some drippy Matrix/Inception CGI elements (bending town and surrounding) for show; and composer Michael Giaccino reused his Star Trek theme Hindu style.
The villains were per usual unremarkable (had to look them up again): a cardboard mid-level villain, and a Tron/StarTrek end-boss villain with a deus ex machina (SciFi) resolution to beat him (cf reused ST theme). Interestingly, IMO there was some bad acting from normally solid actors (not Cumberbutch, he was ok).
Oh, and there was an annoying amount of lowbrow pop culture references to pop singers (cringe!, always a sign of a classic and of solid writing, eh?)
6/10 - serviceable warmed-up junk fodder, but instantly forgettable.
You're an idiot if you think Dr. Strange ripped off The Matrix and Inception. The imagery presented in the film is straight out of the Dr. Strange comics. Get a clue.
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on May 5, 2017 16:01:46 GMT
lol, yeah it is, but only the usual bummer! From a more nuanced and unbiased perspective than DC-fan or the MarvelousRaptor:
The film is another typical and mediocre (not bad!) entry, painting the Marvel formula by numbers (Thor/Ironman-like Jerk becomes good guy, learns craft, loses mentor, defeats the paper-tiger villains, there is a romantic interest, tone is bright and quippy, with a lot of pop culture references etc).
It (needlessly) infuses some drippy Matrix/Inception CGI elements (bending town and surrounding) for show; and composer Michael Giaccino reused his Star Trek theme Hindu style.
The villains were per usual unremarkable (had to look them up again): a cardboard mid-level villain, and a Tron/StarTrek end-boss villain with a deus ex machina (SciFi) resolution to beat him (cf reused ST theme). Interestingly, IMO there was some bad acting from normally solid actors (not Cumberbutch, he was ok).
Oh, and there was an annoying amount of lowbrow pop culture references to pop singers (cringe!, always a sign of a classic and of solid writing, eh?)
6/10 - serviceable warmed-up junk fodder, but instantly forgettable.
You're an idiot if you think Dr. Strange ripped off The Matrix and Inception. The imagery presented in the film is straight out of the Dr. Strange comics. Get a clue. These are the same people who think Dr Strange ripped off Batman because Strange had a beard and went to some Asian country to be trained.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 5, 2017 16:03:40 GMT
You're an idiot if you think Dr. Strange ripped off The Matrix and Inception. The imagery presented in the film is straight out of the Dr. Strange comics. Get a clue. These are the same people who think Dr Strange ripped off Batman because Strange had a beard and went to some Asian country to be trained. They're also blissfully unaware that the Batman Begins script started as a draft for a Doctor Strange script, but got changed when the latter film didn't happen at that time. Typical Goyer taking short takes.
|
|
zoilus
Junior Member
@zoilus
Posts: 2,831
Likes: 1,683
|
Post by zoilus on May 5, 2017 16:37:36 GMT
Typical Goyer taking short takes. He also didn't do adequate research on how to pronounce Ra's al Ghul.
|
|
|
Post by Tristan's Journal on May 5, 2017 17:59:23 GMT
lol, yeah it is, but only the usual bummer! From a more nuanced and unbiased perspective than DC-fan or the MarvelousRaptor:
The film is another typical and mediocre (not bad!) entry, painting the Marvel formula by numbers (Thor/Ironman-like Jerk becomes good guy, learns craft, loses mentor, defeats the paper-tiger villains, there is a romantic interest, tone is bright and quippy, with a lot of pop culture references etc).
It (needlessly) infuses some drippy Matrix/Inception CGI elements (bending town and surrounding) for show; and composer Michael Giaccino reused his Star Trek theme Hindu style.
The villains were per usual unremarkable (had to look them up again): a cardboard mid-level villain, and a Tron/StarTrek end-boss villain with a deus ex machina (SciFi) resolution to beat him (cf reused ST theme). Interestingly, IMO there was some bad acting from normally solid actors (not Cumberbutch, he was ok).
Oh, and there was an annoying amount of lowbrow pop culture references to pop singers (cringe!, always a sign of a classic and of solid writing, eh?)
6/10 - serviceable warmed-up junk fodder, but instantly forgettable.
You're an idiot if you think Dr. Strange ripped off The Matrix and Inception. The imagery presented in the film is straight out of the Dr. Strange comics. Get a clue. well, good then that I never said something about ripping off Matrix/Inception, isn't it? And even better that you did not claim that I actually did, or you would have engaged in your usual straw man and adhom ramblings, and I would have been obliged to ask you to get help for your emotional and intellectual issues, dear Raptor. I see you finally got a bit of clue regarding basic debating skills, or was it just a fluke based on your bad command of language?
|
|
|
Post by coldenhaulfield on May 5, 2017 19:24:04 GMT
Typical Goyer taking short takes. He also didn't do adequate research on how to pronounce Ra's al Ghul. Oh, FFS, not this again. "Raysh" or whatever sounds stupid regardless! Let it go, brah.
|
|
|
Post by coldenhaulfield on May 5, 2017 19:25:20 GMT
TL; DR: you're not towing the DC line. Fixed. You're just jealous because DCEU makes movies that are wondrous, focus on the heros, and aren't ashamed.
|
|