I don't always post on the off-topic forum, but when I do it's because no one else I know in real life knows who the Guardians of the Galaxy are. Thoughts on the trailer?
Looks like fun. I'm glad they went with the "intro to the characters" style of trailer, given that most people have no freaking idea who these people are.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Looks like fun. I'm glad they went with the "intro to the characters" style of trailer, given that most people have no freaking idea who these people are.
The first time I saw a Guardians of the Galaxy comic I thought it was some form of Green Lantern spin off...
Could've sworn I posted in this thread not 10 minutes ago. Apparently not.
I said over in the other Marvel thread that this is going to be great if they don't take it too seriously, and seeing this trailer? Yep, they've cracked it.
At the GOTG conference at the last Comi-Con, Karen Gillan walked out with red hair, and then halfway through shocked the audience by taking her hair off, revealing it to be a wig.
So yeah, she shaved her head for this. That's dedication.
I like Pratt's "come on, man" humor but everything else seems generic and could easily have been taken from the trailer for any given recent sci fi picture.
Overall I'm rather "meh" about this. I'd never even heard of this group until they started talking about the movie, and honestly when I saw one of the characters was a raccoon, they kinda lost me.
I'm sure it'll be a decent flick, Marvel has been doing a great job lately, but I've got no excitement at all about it.
I think Starlord Is gonna be my favorite.
Still, im wondering how this will fit into continuity? Are they humans? Aliens that look like humans? Post humans?
hotsauceman1 wrote: I think Starlord Is gonna be my favorite.
Still, im wondering how this will fit into continuity? Are they humans? Aliens that look like humans? Post humans?
Starlord is human/Terran(it even notes that on his holo-rap sheet). The rest are mostly human-looking aliens(there's a LOT of those in Marvel), although there are more Terrans than you'd think out amongst the stars.
That use human words and obsecene gestures....? Oh well, I guess some liberty is allowed. Oh, I just remembered, All of Thors people are human in a way aswell, well the ones from other planets
motyak wrote: I've never been to big into comics, when is this set? In relation to the current movie universe of Marvel (avengers 1, Iron Man, Thor, etc)?
hotsauceman1 wrote: That use human words and obsecene gestures....? Oh well, I guess some liberty is allowed. Oh, I just remembered, All of Thors people are human in a way aswell, well the ones from other planets
The Obscene Gesture thing is for the Trailer(remember, they edit those for all audiences), the Comicon version of the scene didn't have that block.
As for using human words, everything is seen as being filtered through a Universal Translator(the trailer establishes that Starlord has one implanted in his neck).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
motyak wrote: Ah. I haven't seen that yet, does it explain how humans have expanded across the universe as you said?
I never said that. I said that there were more humans than you'd think out there(the Summers' dad leading the Star Jammers, the Terran member of NovaCorps, etc.). They haven't expanded, there are member's of the Terran race that are actively in the larger galactic community for various reasons. It's still less than 100, IIRC, but it's more than the 0-5 you'd expect.
Let me get this straight. One of the characters is a talking raccoon, but in the trailer all he does is hawk a loogie? C'mon!!! Otherwise I cannot wait for this movie.
warpcrafter wrote: Let me get this straight. One of the characters is a talking raccoon, but in the trailer all he does is hawk a loogie? C'mon!!! Otherwise I cannot wait for this movie.
Voiced by Bradley Cooper no less....
BOO-Tista looks alright, it will be interesting to see his acting chops in this one.
Manchu wrote: I like Pratt's "come on, man" humor but everything else seems generic and could easily have been taken from the trailer for any given recent sci fi picture.
Frazzled wrote: A racoon? Is this a kid's movie? I thought it was a comic. Please clarify.
He's an old joke character(like the Red Lantern Cat and Green Lantern Dogman) that got revived in the mid-2000's and used as the team's comedy relief BFG gun carrier. The movie version is a cyborg because of experiments.
Frazzled wrote: A racoon? Is this a kid's movie? I thought it was a comic. Please clarify.
A raccoon who shocks Tony Stark with his superior knowledge of science, has a ridiculous arsenal of unreasonably destructive weapons, and as a penchant for shouting "Bang! Murdered you!" As he's killing people.
He looks like he's a bit of a joke, but Rocket (don't use the R word) is surprisingly badass
Originating from Halfworld — and not Earth — Rocket is the product of a cybernetic/genetic experiment. His upgrades include a cybernetic skeleton, genetically augmented brain, and enhanced phalange and metacarpal bones. Who created him and for what purpose remains to be seen.
Frazzled wrote: A racoon? Is this a kid's movie? I thought it was a comic. Please clarify.
A raccoon who shocks Tony Stark with his superior knowledge of science, has a ridiculous arsenal of unreasonably destructive weapons, and as a penchant for shouting "Bang! Murdered you!" As he's killing people.
He looks like he's a bit of a joke, but Rocket (don't use the R word) is surprisingly badass
This is not a disney movie for children, this a marvel movie (owned by disney) that seems to be aimed primarily at the young male demographic with moments for younger and older audiences. I imagine it will be similar to the Avengers in that regard.
KamikazeCanuck wrote: Going to be a nerd hipster and say I was a fan of the GotG before they were cool/had a movie. So I'm quite excited. Rocket & Groot look awesome.
I was a Rocket R-word fan way before he was revamped and made a GotG member.
KamikazeCanuck wrote: Going to be a nerd hipster and say I was a fan of the GotG before they were cool/had a movie. So I'm quite excited. Rocket & Groot look awesome.
I was a Rocket R-word fan way before he was revamped and made a GotG member.
KamikazeCanuck wrote: Going to be a nerd hipster and say I was a fan of the GotG before they were cool/had a movie. So I'm quite excited. Rocket & Groot look awesome.
I was a Rocket R-word fan way before he was revamped and made a GotG member.
I know much of my excitement comes from it having Chris Pratt and Rocket in it, but I will agree, if I am honest, that the trailer is actually a bit hollow. I feel like they weren't quite ready to put a proper trailer together yet in post-production, but felt they needed to.
Frazzled wrote: I'd say Phantom Menace was definitely a kid's movie.
Yeah, the kids love all those scenes about tax-motivated trade blockades and parliamentarian procedural rules. Saying Phantom Menace is a kids' movie is just a way to insult children.
From the Hobbit to the RoboCop remake, that nicely sums up where we are with fantasy/sci fi. It's all serviceable enough, by the numbers, adequately "epic," and that's it.
KamikazeCanuck wrote: Going to be a nerd hipster and say I was a fan of the GotG before they were cool/had a movie. So I'm quite excited. Rocket & Groot look awesome.
I was a Rocket R-word fan way before he was revamped and made a GotG member.
I was a fan of GotG when this was their lineup.
I don't recognize a single one of these new guys other then Drax, who I know from the Infinity Guantlet among other things.
He's not kidding. Don't call him a R*****. He HATES it. Seriously, as I'm currently posting this, you're offline. So rather than assume you're asleep or at work, I figure Rocket has already silenced you with his BFG (well, one of 50, anyway). Alas, Hordini. We hardly knew ye.
Frazzled wrote: I take it back. I like the humor. Interest piqued. It needs a space wiener dog though.
....actually there is a space dog with telepathic super powers. Sadly, he is not of the wiener variety. He won't be in this movie though. Maybe one of the sequels.
Frazzled wrote: I take it back. I like the humor. Interest piqued. It needs a space wiener dog though.
....actually there is a space dog with telepathic super powers. Sadly, he is not of the Weiner variety. He won't be in this movie though. Maybe one of the sequels.
They have a space duck, a space tree, and a space R-Word. I think they're good. And seriously, if people don't recognize Howard the Duck, they need to just quit. Quit what? Well, life, I guess.
He's not kidding. Don't call him a R*****. He HATES it. Seriously, as I'm currently posting this, you're offline. So rather than assume you're asleep or at work, I figure Rocket has already silenced you with his BFG (well, one of 50, anyway). Alas, Hordini. We hardly knew ye.
I'm still alive! I feel like I dodged a bullet (er, rocket?)
He's not kidding. Don't call him a R*****. He HATES it. Seriously, as I'm currently posting this, you're offline. So rather than assume you're asleep or at work, I figure Rocket has already silenced you with his BFG (well, one of 50, anyway). Alas, Hordini. We hardly knew ye.
I'm still alive! I feel like I dodged a bullet (er, rocket?)
Although it gets ridiculous at times, check out the Ultimate Spider-Man cartoon, season 2, it's the Guardians of the Galaxy/Nova Corps episode. Rocket flips out any time Spidey calls him a Raccoon. It's considered a slur to him. Yes, Spider-Man is racist against raccoon (for any non-English speaker, that is the singular AND plural form of raccoon in our stupid language).
Wow... that comic cover has Yondu and a bunch of people I do not recognise.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
KamikazeCanuck wrote: ...actually there is a space dog with telepathic super powers. Sadly, he is not of the wiener variety. He won't be in this movie though. Maybe one of the sequels.
Lockjaw? Or am I thinking of a different space-dog.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Wow... that comic cover has Yondu and a bunch of people I do not recognise.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
KamikazeCanuck wrote: ...actually there is a space dog with telepathic super powers. Sadly, he is not of the wiener variety. He won't be in this movie though. Maybe one of the sequels.
Lockjaw? Or am I thinking of a different space-dog.
[EDIT]: Nope, looked it up. It's Cosmo.
Isn't Lockjaw a teleporter? (I say this from an instance of him teleporting to another plane during Infinity; I cannot remember if it was him teleporting or being teleported)
Ouze wrote: If I wanted to start reading the comics for this lineup, where would I start?
'Annihilation: Conquest', and then 'Guardians of the Galaxy' 2008. Though you might want to read 'Annihilation' first, and then go into 'Annihilation: Conquest', as it sets up a few things for modern Cosmic Marvel.
is the 1st collected trade of the series that spun out of the events mentioned above.
Got Abnett's sig on vols 1-4 just here in fact
The GotG series starts with them already as a team, the Annihilation series build up to that and give everyone a nice time to shine/plus introduce everyone.
A YouTube video with relevant comments? What the deuce?
Marvel: What's that, DC? You're struggling to make a Wonder Woman movie? Tough break. We're just gonna release a movie with a talking Raccoon whose best friend is a sentient tree.
In regards to the lack of a Wonder Woman and her alleged appearance in the sequel to Man of Steel.
Yeah but they're reportedly making huge changes to her character to make her more "accessible" to "general audiences" who would be too confused by her mythological origins. Despite Thor being a hugely popular character for Marvel. I hope the rumors of her being some Kryptonian woman from a secret island of Kryptonians on earth are completely false or I've already lost any hope in them doing her justice. Meanwhile Marvel is giving us Guardians of the Galaxy and not fudging up the characters at all. Not to mention Wonder Woman will be on the level of Black Widow in Iron Man 2 whereas this is not Iron Man 4 featuring a GOTG cameo but a full movie starring the GOTG.
Bolded part was based on speculation, not an actual rumor.
I am really looking forward to GOTG and have been since the first rumors of the film hit the internet. The character designs look great and Chris Pratt is an added bonus.
The lineup thing is obvious theft from The Usual Suspects.
I don't know if I found the trailer "hollow." I'd describe most of the Marvel films as "workmanlike," and I think this film looks to be in similar territory. Which isn't to say that it won't be fun.
Yeah but they're reportedly making huge changes to her character to make her more "accessible" to "general audiences" who would be too confused by her mythological origins. Despite Thor being a hugely popular character for Marvel. I hope the rumors of her being some Kryptonian woman from a secret island of Kryptonians on earth are completely false or I've already lost any hope in them doing her justice. Meanwhile Marvel is giving us Guardians of the Galaxy and not fudging up the characters at all. Not to mention Wonder Woman will be on the level of Black Widow in Iron Man 2 whereas this is not Iron Man 4 featuring a GOTG cameo but a full movie starring the GOTG.
Bolded part was based on speculation, not an actual rumor.
Yeah, you gotta love how one guy with a blog types "one way they could do it is..." and suddenly the internetz explode in nerdrage. Snyder, you suck!
gorgon wrote: The lineup thing is obvious theft from The Usual Suspects.
Theft is a pretty strong word to use. It's a reference, if anything, but I wouldn't call it theft. The Usual Suspects isn't the only film to use a lineup, in any case.
gorgon wrote: The lineup thing is obvious theft from The Usual Suspects.
Theft is a pretty strong word to use. It's a reference, if anything, but I wouldn't call it theft. The Usual Suspects isn't the only film to use a lineup, in any case.
Since Benicio Del Toro is in both movies, it's cool.
I am so excited for this movie. And I didn't even know the Guardians until a year ago or so, when I read on Dakka, that Dan Abnett wrote them once. This is going to be so much fun!
Ouze wrote: If I wanted to start reading the comics for this lineup, where would I start?
The current series is really good, and has some pretty amazing artwork, but only kinda explains who the different guardians are; so you get a bit with Drax destroying stuff, a bit where Groot gets disintegrated and regrows from a slither of wood, and a *lot* of bickering with Star-Lord's dad. There's a hefty chunk of space politics, but it does also introduce Angela from Spawn as a character, and she's pretty badass.
chromedog wrote: I have no idea whom any of these characters are, and even less of a desire to find out.
The last crop of superhero movies to come out bored me - haven't seen a good one since Nolan's Batman Begins (TDKR and TDK were pretty bad).
I think that last bit there was where you went too far.
Yeah, they're some of highest rated superhero movies of all time by fans, general audiences and critics.
I thought the second one was so bad that I ddi not bother with the third one - massively over long, rubbish plot (what there was of it) heartless and style over substance...........but then we all see things differently................
back On Topic - Zoe Saldana always looks good and looking forward to her once again in a action role.
chromedog wrote: I have no idea whom any of these characters are, and even less of a desire to find out.
The last crop of superhero movies to come out bored me - haven't seen a good one since Nolan's Batman Begins (TDKR and TDK were pretty bad).
But I'm neither a superherocomicbook fanboy who eats this stuff up, nor interested in becoming one.
I'd rather watch manborg - or the remake of robocop.
Did you just say The Dark Knight and Avengers were bad movies? God, I thought I was cynical. The only comics I've read are The Killing Joke, The Watchmen, V for Vendetta, and From Hell. I am far from being a fanboy and I still go watch 75% of the comic movies. At worst they are silly fun and at best they are strong films with excellent dialogue, storytelling and acting (TDK and Watchmen). I don't really think of Dredd as being a superhero, but the recent film was excellent.
chromedog wrote: I have no idea whom any of these characters are, and even less of a desire to find out.
The last crop of superhero movies to come out bored me - haven't seen a good one since Nolan's Batman Begins (TDKR and TDK were pretty bad).
I think that last bit there was where you went too far.
Yeah, they're some of highest rated superhero movies of all time by fans, general audiences and critics.
I thought the second one was so bad that I ddi not bother with the third one - massively over long, rubbish plot (what there was of it) heartless and style over substance...........but then we all see things differently................
back On Topic - Zoe Saldana always looks good and looking forward to her once again in a action role.
The length was fine the characters, setting and plot were engrossing enough that I didn't even notice the long length of the film, what was wrong with the plot you didn't find the the clash of the two ideologies interesting (chaos vs order)? There was substance in the film such as ethics
behind being able to monitor the activities of a whole city, a compare/contrast of the morality of citizens and criminals, the value of money and production, nihilism, order vs chaos, betrayal, sacrifice, etc. We're you watching a different movie?
chromedog wrote: I have no idea whom any of these characters are, and even less of a desire to find out.
The last crop of superhero movies to come out bored me - haven't seen a good one since Nolan's Batman Begins (TDKR and TDK were pretty bad).
I think that last bit there was where you went too far.
Yeah, they're some of highest rated superhero movies of all time by fans, general audiences and critics.
I thought the second one was so bad that I ddi not bother with the third one - massively over long, rubbish plot (what there was of it) heartless and style over substance...........but then we all see things differently................
back On Topic - Zoe Saldana always looks good and looking forward to her once again in a action role.
The length was fine the characters, setting and plot were engrossing enough that I didn't even notice the long length of the film, what was wrong with the plot you didn't find the the clash of the two ideologies interesting (chaos vs order)? There was substance in the film such as ethics
behind being able to monitor the activities of a whole city, a compare/contrast of the morality of citizens and criminals, the value of money and production, nihilism, order vs chaos, betrayal, sacrifice, etc. We're you watching a different movie?
Hello - I'll put my reponse is spoilers so as not to bore people who are not interested
Spoiler:
The length for you might have been fine - for me the opposite: - it was laboured, lurching from set piece ot set peice with some of the worst plot armour I have ever seen in a film for the Joker. Then we had the completely uneeded bit with Two Face which meandered off on a pointless subplot which should have been a different film and wasted an extra half an hour.
Chaos versus order is a great story/concept/theme - from ancient history, throuhg Moorcock to the Vorlons and shadows of Babylon 5.The 2nd batman film wasn't about this - it was primary an excuse to have a few big scenes that dragged on and on......
The Joker is just not a force of Chaos - Jack Nicolsons version is and a much better version - he is actually insane and it shows in his actions and the sheer horrific death toll - he was happy to kill an entire muesuem for a people just to see the female lead. If that had been Mr Nolens Joker -he would have 16 flawless and layered plots to get him to the same place - and wasted an extra hour doing so. The Nolen version of the Joker is all about (unfeasable levels of ) planning and detail - in fact much more order orientated than Chaos......
Whilst Heath Ledger did great with the material he was given - the Joker was a horibly Mary Sue character who only worked becuase the plot said he had to be able to predict every possible outcome and have a contingency for it - he was never chaotic - or even especailly scary - he managed to kill a few gangsters and blow up a empty hospital - oh and batmans girlfirend - not that anyone cared as the director never bothered to try and make anyonehave a personaility or be human or create anyone I could actually care about. But thats Nolan for you - never seen a film of his I liked or an actual person in any one of them...............
Where as (for me) the Avengers or the recent Thor II film had humour, style, substance and above all Heart - the modern Batman films are darkly glittering style - I can find nothing else within them - IMO of course
That's an interesting point you raise but is the Joker really about "order" if all his plans (I can't remember if they're actually planned or spur of other moment ideas in the film) involve destroying everything people value such as wealth (burning of the large sums of money), health (destruction
of hospital), love (batman's girlfriend's death), justice (Harvey Dent becoming Two-Face), people's safety (loading a bomb on the ship full of citizens)? Also those come across as motives of an insane person like someone who has serious social issues.
The length for you might have been fine - for me the opposite: - it was laboured, lurching from set piece ot set peice with some of the worst plot armour I have ever seen in a film for the Joker. Then we had the completely uneeded bit with Two Face which meandered off on a pointless subplot which should have been a different film and wasted an extra half an hour.
Chaos versus order is a great story/concept/theme - from ancient history, throuhg Moorcock to the Vorlons and shadows of Babylon 5.The 2nd batman film wasn't about this - it was primary an excuse to have a few big scenes that dragged on and on......
The Joker is just not a force of Chaos - Jack Nicolsons version is and a much better version - he is actually insane and it shows in his actions and the sheer horrific death toll - he was happy to kill an entire muesuem for a people just to see the female lead. If that had been Mr Nolens Joker -he would have 16 flawless and layered plots to get him to the same place - and wasted an extra hour doing so. The Nolen version of the Joker is all about (unfeasable levels of ) planning and detail - in fact much more order orientated than Chaos......
Whilst Heath Ledger did great with the material he was given - the Joker was a horibly Mary Sue character who only worked becuase the plot said he had to be able to predict every possible outcome and have a contingency for it - he was never chaotic - or even especailly scary - he managed to kill a few gangsters and blow up a empty hospital - oh and batmans girlfirend - not that anyone cared as the director never bothered to try and make anyonehave a personaility or be human or create anyone I could actually care about. But thats Nolan for you - never seen a film of his I liked or an actual person in any one of them...............
Where as (for me) the Avengers or the recent Thor II film had humour, style, substance and above all Heart - the modern Batman films are darkly glittering style - I can find nothing else within them - IMO of course
I seriously can't exalt this enough, spot on as far as I'm concerned. Sad that the best film related Joker in recent memory was voice acted by Luke Skywalker.
Regarding Guardians, I am.. not 100% but I have hope and I think if its awesome, it will be bloody awesome.
Cheesecat wrote: That's an interesting point you raise but is the Joker really about "order" if all his plans (I can't remember if they're actually planned or spur of other moment ideas in the film) involve destroying everything people value such as wealth (burning of the large sums of money), health (destruction
of hospital), love (batman's girlfriend's death), justice (Harvey Dent becoming Two-Face), people's safety (loading a bomb on the ship full of citizens)? Also those come across as motives of an insane person like someone who has serious social issues.
my ramberlings in Spoilers again
Spoiler:
"Law" is no more good than "Chaos" is evil - A totally committed servant of "Law" will do absolutely anything to achieve his goals - whatever they may be. The Jokers actions all appear to be incredably well planned with mutiple fail safes... It was never (for me) totally clear what the Jokers motivation was or driving force - but Chaos was dubious. He may have appeared (to us) to be insane but he may have considered his actions perfectly logical and sane - the response to a choatic world may be to destory it and make a new better one.
Aagain I would say the Joker in Batman was a insane force of pure Chaos where as the Nolan version was perhaps a dark force of "Law" - insane in a different way.
I just did not think the film worked for me in any way for reasons in previous post
Cheesecat wrote: That's an interesting point you raise but is the Joker really about "order" if all his plans (I can't remember if they're actually planned or spur of other moment ideas in the film) involve destroying everything people value such as wealth (burning of the large sums of money), health (destruction
of hospital), love (batman's girlfriend's death), justice (Harvey Dent becoming Two-Face), people's safety (loading a bomb on the ship full of citizens)? Also those come across as motives of an insane person like someone who has serious social issues.
my ramberlings in Spoilers again
Spoiler:
"Law" is no more good than "Chaos" is evil - A totally committed servant of "Law" will do absolutely anything to achieve his goals - whatever they may be. The Jokers actions all appear to be incredably well planned with mutiple fail safes... It was never (for me) totally clear what the Jokers motivation was or driving force - but Chaos was dubious. He may have appeared (to us) to be insane but he may have considered his actions perfectly logical and sane - the response to a choatic world may be to destory it and make a new better one.
Aagain I would say the Joker in Batman was a insane force of pure Chaos wheras the Nolan version was perhaps a dark force of "Law" - insane in a different way. I just did not think the film worked for me in any way for reasons in previous post
But Nolan's Joker has nothing to do with law (imo) as he frequently disobeys it and his motives are nihilistic in nature not someone/something reinforcing new rules on people. Also I don't know much about insanity but weren't many famous serial killers capable of creating convoluted
plans? I don't think the Joker was responding to a chaotic world I think he was responding to a world that was full of order (police, laws, daily routine, etc) and wanted to destroy (or at least change it) that.
Arguably Insanity is perhaps just a different view of the world / universe etc
Nolans Joker does not just make a or even a few plans - he makes a complex and infalliable web of plans that rely on specific interactions and even the "failure" of other plans.
Have you watched Dexter? if not its awesome.....
Many serial killers actively hate disorder and "Chaos" and seek to put the world or elements of it in into their own approved form of "order".
A society or rule based on nothing but Law/Order is an evil and insane sitatuion / society same as Total Choas.....
Mr Morden wrote: Arguably Insanity is perhaps just a different view of the world / universe etc
Nolans Joker does not just make a or even a few plans - he makes a complex and infalliable web of plans that rely on specific interactions and even the "failure" of other plans.
But if his plan's purpose don't go any further than destroying things of value how can one claim his motives are about about "order"? I mean maybe the process to get there uses a lot of planning and organization but the end is result is supposed to be "chaos". As far as I can tell as the Joker
doesn't seem to have any desire to introduce new laws or things of value to society.
Did you just say The Dark Knight and Avengers were bad movies? God, I thought I was cynical. The only comics I've read are The Killing Joke, The Watchmen, V for Vendetta, and From Hell. I am far from being a fanboy and I still go watch 75% of the comic movies. At worst they are silly fun and at best they are strong films with excellent dialogue, storytelling and acting (TDK and Watchmen). I don't really think of Dredd as being a superhero, but the recent film was excellent.
Lighten up mate.
I've got Killing joke and TDKR (comic). The only two batman comics I've ever read.
Yes, I called the avengers a bad movie. It was superhero x-beats up superhero y for the first bit and boring as batgak. I've read a grand total of 2 marvel superhero comics in my life. Both in the early 80s. Didn't make me want to read more. Marvel also made me stop reading star wars (the comics WERE that bad).
TDK was over-rated. The joker was sooooo OTT that teethmarks were left in the scenery. The microwave weapon thing made no sense either (if you can boil water from that distance, then the people UNDER the monorail would be just as cooked.).
Dredd was a farcry from the comics, too. Way too "J-burg 20 minutes into the future" and not enough of "megalopolis now".
Didn't think that much of the watchmen, either. Even if a mate of mine DID cut that trailer together.
Lighten up?
I'll have you know I take the piss out of myself better than anyone else I know. If I was any lighter, I'd be an aerogel.
But if his plan's purpose don't go any further than destroying things of value how can one claim his motives are about about "order"?
You keep harping on this "destroying things of value is chaotic" and it makes no sense. Destroying things of value is more about breaking a person or society, which makes it easier to impose your own brand of order over them.
DKR Joker is doing nothing but trying to prove a point to Batman: Deep down, people are terrible, panicky, murderous animals. He's not chaotic in anyway, he's meticulous, precise, and exacting in how he attains his goal. Everything he did was to steer things towards his final confrontation with the Bat so they could watch the situation on the ships and prove himself right to Batman. Hell, forcing Batman to go all Big Brother on the city to find him further reinforces what he's all about: Batman has to go to the most logical extreme of his method and violate people's rights to find him.
Exposing Dent as the same sort of beast was just the icing to his People are gak cake.
But if his plan's purpose don't go any further than destroying things of value how can one claim his motives are about about "order"?
You keep harping on this "destroying things of value is chaotic" and it makes no sense. Destroying things of value is more about breaking a person or society, which makes it easier to impose your own brand of order over them.
DKR Joker is doing nothing but trying to prove a point to Batman: Deep down, people are terrible, panicky, murderous animals. He's not chaotic in anyway, he's meticulous, precise, and exacting in how he attains his goal. Everything he did was to steer things towards his final confrontation with the Bat so they could watch the situation on the ships and prove himself right to Batman. Hell, forcing Batman to go all Big Brother on the city to find him further reinforces what he's all about: Batman has to go to the most logical extreme of his method and violate people's rights to find him.
Exposing Dent as the same sort of beast was just the icing to his People are gak cake.
I guess, it's been a while since I've seen the movie so would the main theme be whether people are inherently horrible or not?
But if his plan's purpose don't go any further than destroying things of value how can one claim his motives are about about "order"?
You keep harping on this "destroying things of value is chaotic" and it makes no sense. Destroying things of value is more about breaking a person or society, which makes it easier to impose your own brand of order over them.
DKR Joker is doing nothing but trying to prove a point to Batman: Deep down, people are terrible, panicky, murderous animals. He's not chaotic in anyway, he's meticulous, precise, and exacting in how he attains his goal. Everything he did was to steer things towards his final confrontation with the Bat so they could watch the situation on the ships and prove himself right to Batman. Hell, forcing Batman to go all Big Brother on the city to find him further reinforces what he's all about: Batman has to go to the most logical extreme of his method and violate people's rights to find him.
Exposing Dent as the same sort of beast was just the icing to his People are gak cake.
I guess, it's been a while since I've seen the movie so would the main theme be whether people are inherently horrible or not?
I think the theme was that people are inherently not.
The Joker was trying to prove that they were, but failed.
OK, I stand corrected then. But one question though would it be safe to say that the Joker rejects authority from others (money, police, laws, batman, social norms, etc)?
A Mary Sue is a idealized self insert into a story by an author, so I have to wonder why you think that David Goyer views The Joker as an idealized version of himself.
As far as I am concerned it's very simple. If someone tells you they hate all super hero movies, then you don't bother listening to their opinion on the newest super hero movie.
AduroT wrote: As far as I am concerned it's very simple. If someone tells you they hate all super hero movies, then you don't bother listening to their opinion on the newest super hero movie.
AduroT wrote: As far as I am concerned it's very simple. If someone tells you they hate all super hero movies, then you don't bother listening to their opinion on the newest super hero movie.
AduroT wrote: As far as I am concerned it's very simple. If someone tells you they hate all super hero movies, then you don't bother listening to their opinion on the newest super hero movie.
And calling Avengers bad? I mean, there's hating on things that are popular, and then there's just being intentionally obtuse.
I rewatched the Avengers today (only the third time I've watched it) and it just awed me that Marvel managed to pull off such a brilliant film. The dialogue is OTT, but it works because the movie doesn't take itself excessively seriously at any point. All of the casting is spot on. The fact they managed to convert outlandish comic book super heroes in spandex into accessible characters for a mainstream audience without sacrificing or cheapening them is just amazing.
And calling Avengers bad? I mean, there's hating on things that are popular, and then there's just being intentionally obtuse.
I rewatched the Avengers today (only the third time I've watched it) and it just awed me that Marvel managed to pull off such a brilliant film. The dialogue is OTT, but it works because the movie doesn't take itself excessively seriously at any point. All of the casting is spot on. The fact they managed to convert outlandish comic book super heroes in spandex into accessible characters for a mainstream audience without sacrificing or cheapening them is just amazing.
The Avengers is a fantastic film on all levels - if the Guardians film is anything like it will be awesome.............
On chromedogs opinion, i disagree and i don't need to elaborate.
A few weeks ago i watched the new Thor movie (yeah, Japan is always late with movie releases) the extra stuff after the movie implies something happening with the infinity gems, don't know that whole story-line. I interested if this will happen in this movie.
I'm NOT the core marketing demographic for the movies. Naturally, there's going to be some bias there. The main one being this one:
I'm not a superhero comic reader. I try not to read them if I can avoid them. I don't generally even read comics anymore. I used to read Sandman and Hellblazer.
I've read 4 superhero comics in my life (ok, 2 are graphic novels). The Dark Knight Returns, The Killing Joke, a random spiderman and random Captain America. The first two I rather like. These last 2 were in the early 80s and though I remember them still, they didn't exacltly inspire me to want to read more. Spidey featured a rather tedious bad guy called "the thinker" (an incarcerated felon who controlled humanoid robots by the power of his mind who had it bad for spidey). The other one featured a black hat called "angron" - an energy creature from earth's far future, where the sun was in its red-giant stage and organic life was a thing of history. Also featured a black superhero called "falcon".
I don't read many comics at all these days. I used to read Judge dredd when I was younger, but haven't seen a prog in over a decade.
The movies aren't targeted at me. I get this. I was curious about Avengers because all my gaming mates raved about it (admittedly, most are 15 years younger than me) and I was swayed by a hot redhead (it's a weakness) and RDJ - who is a cool actor and nice bloke. I understand HIS Tony Stark. That sarky bastich resonates with me.
Mind you, they also raved about Pacific Rim ...
I stopped watching cheesy kaiju movies when I was 9. Cheesy SF was more fun.
At least they are a step up on one friend who recommended the works of Tarantino to me. He's dead to me now (but he's dead to everyone else, too. Really, really dead.).
Totally stoked! I was going to watch it because it had one of my favorite WWE stars. But the 'feeling' I get from the trailer has me totally wanting to see this.
(Never did get into Guardians of the Galaxy when I was collecting comics... but I may look into them now)
Jehan-reznor wrote: On chromedogs opinion, i disagree and i don't need to elaborate.
A few weeks ago i watched the new Thor movie (yeah, Japan is always late with movie releases) the extra stuff after the movie implies something happening with the infinity gems, don't know that whole story-line. I interested if this will happen in this movie.
The Guardians movie is supposed to have a tie in to the Infinity Gauntlet the Marvel movies have been working towards and is supposed to deal with finding one of the gems as well as having The Collector that you saw in the Thor credits in this movie as well.
Jehan-reznor wrote: On chromedogs opinion, i disagree and i don't need to elaborate.
A few weeks ago i watched the new Thor movie (yeah, Japan is always late with movie releases) the extra stuff after the movie implies something happening with the infinity gems, don't know that whole story-line. I interested if this will happen in this movie.
The Guardians movie is supposed to have a tie in to the Infinity Gauntlet the Marvel movies have been working towards and is supposed to deal with finding one of the gems as well as having The Collector that you saw in the Thor credits in this movie as well.
Chances are, we'll get Thanos in Avengers 3. Guardians introduces several characters related to or working for him.
chromedog wrote: I've read 4 superhero comics in my life (ok, 2 are graphic novels).
Then you've read more than me, and I love these movies (well, not Iron Man 3, that one was gak, and the first Captain America film was stupid and riddled with plot-holes). Suffice to say it, "I don't read comics" isn't really a good reason (or excuse) to decry these movies. Most people don't read the comics, yet these movies are successful anyway.
Jehan-reznor wrote: On chromedogs opinion, i disagree and i don't need to elaborate.
A few weeks ago i watched the new Thor movie (yeah, Japan is always late with movie releases) the extra stuff after the movie implies something happening with the infinity gems, don't know that whole story-line. I interested if this will happen in this movie.
The Guardians movie is supposed to have a tie in to the Infinity Gauntlet the Marvel movies have been working towards and is supposed to deal with finding one of the gems as well as having The Collector that you saw in the Thor credits in this movie as well.
Chances are, we'll get Thanos in Avengers 3. Guardians introduces several characters related to or working for him.
I'm fairly sure they've confirmed Thanos and the climatic finale of the Infinity Gauntlet story line in Avengers 3.
Guardians is confirmed to introduce the 3rd Infinity/Space Stone. I really wouldn't be surprised if The Winter Soldier mentioned them or featured one in some capacity. Iy.
Ahtman wrote: Chromedog, are you by any chance Armond White?
I'ma go with "no".
What's an Armond White?
Never heard of it. Whatever it is.
Iron man 3 was pretty crap. Didn't bother with Cap, Thor or any hulk movies post the Ang Lee one (which I only saw for Jennifer Connelly).
Iron man was OK. It explained backstory. It gave perspective.
The not reading comics reference was to illustrate that I have zero knowledge of the backstory and how/why the characters are supposed to fit together - so I must rely on the movie's story to get the gist of it. And the stories WEREN'T that good (cliche'd or they just didn't make any sense.)
Whatevs. I'm done justifying why I disliked stuff that you fanboys eat up. Perhaps it's also because I'm forty-freaking-five and have zero else in common with most gamers these days bar the small niche hobby we share.
Ahtman wrote: Chromedog, are you by any chance Armond White?
I'ma go with "no".
What's an Armond White?
Never heard of it. Whatever it is.
Iron man 3 was pretty crap. Didn't bother with Cap, Thor or any hulk movies post the Ang Lee one (which I only saw for Jennifer Connelly). Iron man was OK. It explained backstory. It gave perspective.
The not reading comics reference was to illustrate that I have zero knowledge of the backstory and how/why the characters are supposed to fit together - so I must rely on the movie's story to get the gist of it. And the stories WEREN'T that good (cliche'd or they just didn't make any sense.)
Whatevs. I'm done justifying why I disliked stuff that you fanboys eat up. Perhaps it's also because I'm forty-freaking-five and have zero else in common with most gamers these days bar the small niche hobby we share.
You're only 45? Jeez, I thought you were like 60!
I have friends' parents who are older than you and love the Marvel movies. Hell, my mom loves them, and she's 54. She didn't read the comics, but she grew up watching Adam West's Batman and the classic Wonder Woman and Flash shows. "Iron man was OK"?? Dem's fighting words in this neck of the woods. Robert Downey Jr. redefined the character so much that Marvel rebuilt the Iron Man personality around him. Until Avengers, it was the most well loved Marvel movie to date. Man, old timer, chug a Zima and get back to the theater.
Flashman wrote: Hmm... not sure I'd bother reading reviews written by someone who thinks that A.I. is the "greatest film of all time".
You don't read them for the review, but for the hilarity.
On Transformers 2
Bay is an ideal director to realize this peculiar genre which remakes the surfeit of adolescent commercial media as a means of multimedia gratification. These cars, trucks, motorcycles and planes metamorphose fast but their transfiguration is like the mechanical toy descriptions in E.T.A. Hoffman–fantastic and uncanny. Bay’s post-nuclear version of Hoffman’s The Nutcracker stirs emotion from our pop culture, industrial experience then connects to ancient spiritual myths (like Kingdom of the Crystal Skull). It’s too much the production of industrialization to be considered magic yet Bay’s sheer fascination with seeing is impressively communicated.
Ahtman wrote: Chromedog, are you by any chance Armond White?
I'ma go with "no".
What's an Armond White?
Never heard of it. Whatever it is.
Iron man 3 was pretty crap. Didn't bother with Cap, Thor or any hulk movies post the Ang Lee one (which I only saw for Jennifer Connelly).
Iron man was OK. It explained backstory. It gave perspective.
The not reading comics reference was to illustrate that I have zero knowledge of the backstory and how/why the characters are supposed to fit together - so I must rely on the movie's story to get the gist of it. And the stories WEREN'T that good (cliche'd or they just didn't make any sense.)
Whatevs. I'm done justifying why I disliked stuff that you fanboys eat up. Perhaps it's also because I'm forty-freaking-five and have zero else in common with most gamers these days bar the small niche hobby we share.
Fair points. The only comic I've read was a Gozilla comic taking out Vegas. My experience is movies and the X Men TV show and Adam West Batman from ancient times, so I don't understand this or that, and can't get around guys with pointy sticks fighting aliens with ray guns.
I liked TDK and the Heath Ledger's Manson character, but he was playing Manson, not a Joker guy.
This is the truth of it. Although with my white hair, you would probably think me older. Especially if I let it grow and it goes all Warhol on me.
I just don't 'get' superhero comics. I really don't like 'camp' (lost in space's Dr Smith as played by Jonathan Harris, or the Adam West batman series) for example. I didn't watch them.
I was also unaware that there was an Xmen tv series? Was it animated? Then it was on at a time when I was either on my way to work, on my way home, or whilst I was asleep - or it was on cable which I didn't have. I saw the first movie. It had promise. Never saw the others. Saw the wolverine origins movie and then wished I hadn't.
As for me calling Iron man an "ok" movie - that's actually a good rating from me. Equates to about a 6-7/10. I quite like RDJ as an actor and as a person (met him once.). I liked that he put so much of himself into the role and allowed it to pisstake his life.
"Not very good" is my 2/10 and "fellates dead goats" is my "do not even rent this".
Oh, and I hated AI. It had promise, it had good 'bones' as they say - but it was given to people prone to excessive schmalz.
But hey, I liked "Up". Maybe it's because I identified with the old guy (I've been told I do resemble him).
AduroT wrote: Dude, there have been Several X-men cartoon series.
Mhm.. theres 90's x-men, there's wolverine and x-men, x-men evolution... am I missing one?
Probably, I mean they're like weeds.
There was an attempt at an earlier show in 1989. Only a single episode exists: the pilot X-Men: Pryde of the X-men. I used to have it on VHS, actually. Wolverine was an Aussie, because Aussies were popular at the time(Crocodile Dundee, Mad Max) and it was planned in the comics, apparently, that it was going to be revealed that Wolverine was an expatriated Aussie(obviously, this didn't happen).
Batman was seriously number 1, X-men a reasonably close (okay, nothing is really "reasonably close" to Batman) second, Spider-Man was also really good. The rest of the 90's stuff was just okay. Earth's Mightiest Heroes definitely overtook 90's X-men, mostly because Storm ruined the show ("Power of lightning, piss off TTW85 every time I talk!"). Jubilee hurt it a lot too-why, oh WHY couldn't they have kept Shadowcat instead? EMH also brought in the GotG, and I'm hoping it's a reasonable jumping off point, as I haven't read any of the comics.
Frazzled wrote: The only comic I've read was a Gozilla comic taking out Vegas. .
I would recommend Godzilla Color Special. It's a single comic, with a very neat story (Godzilla fights a demon imprisoned in a statue that grows larger every time it is destroyed) and has terrific art by Art Adams, one of my favorite comic artists of all time. Also, it's a one-shot comic ans is readily available for $2 or less.
Batman Beyond was really good, as well as the whole of the Justice League series. Spider-Man was alright until the end where it started to get really weird, even for a comic book. Although that brand of really weird is starting to become the norm...
The sad thing is, the Spidey cartoon was a dumbed down version of what was happening in the comics. I couldn't follow the comics then, there was too much crap. The show helped a lot.
