Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Tyran wrote:
Because Spider-man was in high school in its original incarnation and is at its hearth a coming of age story.

Spiderverse works because it is a Miles Morales story, not a Peter Parker one.

except as others have noted. spider-man hasn't in the comics been a teenager since the 70s. Most people of the "millenial generation" grew up with spider-man as a young adult dealing with the problems inherant in being a young adult

 Tyran wrote:
Because Spider-man was in high school in its original incarnation and is at its hearth a coming of age story.

Spiderverse works because it is a Miles Morales story, not a Peter Parker one.

Eh? Spiderverse and Morales in general is much more a coming of age story. It has all the insecurities, lack of any responsibilities beyond school, dealing with the world as teenager, not dealing well with other heroes who are more experienced, etc.

Peter as Spiderman... doesn't really have that. For a long, long time, its been Get-Over-Ben-Already and start fighting crime while dealing a crappy job market, usually while in some way working for the villain of the arc (especially in the movie versions). Add in crappy marriages, worries about the health of an older relative, it is not in any real way a teen life experience. It very much settled into the 'not prepared to deal with real life experience' of Gen X.

If i remember, the Sam Raimi spiderman started with him in HS in the beginning of the first movie, then he was in College not to far later.
I think part of the reason is sometimes writers dont know how to write relatable adult problems, so they stick with "simple" teenage problems.
But my biggest problem with the new batch of spider movies is, spiderman in this incarnation isnt this scrappy guy who gets by with just his brains and an old celphone for parts. He is presented as smary yeah, but he is given all his toys (AND SUIT) by Tony. He doesnt want for anything, other than to prove himself. But i never remember "Proving Himself as a hero" as peters thing, Peter was always well respected among heros.

Voss wrote:

 Tyran wrote:
Because Spider-man was in high school in its original incarnation and is at its hearth a coming of age story.

Spiderverse works because it is a Miles Morales story, not a Peter Parker one.

Eh? Spiderverse and Morales in general is much more a coming of age story. It has all the insecurities, lack of any responsibilities beyond school, dealing with the world as teenager, not dealing well with other heroes who are more experienced, etc.

Peter as Spiderman... doesn't really have that. For a long, long time, its been Get-Over-Ben-Already and start fighting crime while dealing a crappy job market, usually while in some way working for the villain of the arc (especially in the movie versions). Add in crappy marriages, worries about the health of an older relative, it is not in any real way a teen life experience. It very much settled into the 'not prepared to deal with real life experience' of Gen X.

For a long time he has been that, but originally Peter Parker was a high school kid. It just that it has been decades since then, at least before Disney.

Fynn's character is IMO the victim of bad writing given to a mediocre actor. Fynn, as they decided to portray him with his chosen backstory was doomed to be a bad character from the start. Which is unfortunate because they could have so easily had him be a really pivotal awesome character with a lot of depth. Instead he starts out as a main character who rapidly devolves into a tertiary character.

Fynn would have been very compelling if he had been a grizzled veteran stormtrooper, who had an attack of conscience and decided he wasn't down with the First Order anymore. Make him someone with dirty hands and a dirty conscience, struggling with a warped moral compass due to decades of mental conditioning. He isn't aligned with the First Order, but he isn't quite yet a full Resistance sympathizer. Maybe he's an Empire traditionalist who is fed up with the radical ideals of the First Order, so he feels that the Resistance is the lesser of two evils to choose between. The Empire didn't, in his eyes, just mow down civilians left and right, the First Order isn't what he signed up for.

This backstory would actually make his plot contributions make sense. He knows where sensitive weakpoints are located and where important data is kept. He would also be a good action hero, because badass ex-stormtrooper. Better yet, make him an ex-Death Trooper. Really up his combat experience, capability, etc...

Instead, he is a Storm Trooper janitor who somehow made it through 10+ years of indoctrination and screening as an abject coward who somehow knows where all the weak spots and important data is. Sorry, he would not have made it past 10 years old before they found out and liquidated him.

Movie 2 could also have done something interesting with him. And I actually thought at first it was going to happen. When he wakes up from his injuries, he could have reverted to being a First Order loyal soldier. A mental failsafe maybe. Maybe a tracker in the brain leads the first order to the fleet and thats how they can track the fleet, rather than some convoluted hyperspace tracking. So we end up with a race to get rid of the tracker instead of them going to Space Vegas.

At first, I felt sorry for John Boyega getting shafted by bad writing decisions turning him into a joke character, but his subsequent whining has shown he is unworthy of any potential success he might been robbed of.

Batman and robin...



Oh lord, where do i even begin???

George Clooney is a guy i kinda like, haze zip against and might not mind being around for a while. That said, he is not batman material. I don't blame him, after the dark, brooding batmans brought to use by keaton, who looked less like batman but acted more like batman that clooney, and Kilmer who really had it down, the director wanted a more upbeat, relaxed batman.

Well, that's just not batman. Clooney gave the performance the director wanted, it just wasn't a batman performance.

Schwarzenegger. Again i have little against this actor. If we were stuck in an elevator for a few hours I like to think we could sit, talk and get along decently. And his Mr. Freeze, again which was what the director wanted, was utterly horrible. His ridiculous accent which was thicker than Ahnuld's natural one, his dialog ("Vatch ze numbers, batman, for zey count your doom! Vehn ze rahket reaches 40,000 feet your heart vill freeze in your chest, unt beat no moahr!") was was the definition of cringeworthy.

Uma thurman. No feelings towards her really at all, not a kill bill fan. Her laughable performance as mae West gone evil was just a factory for groans and sighs.

Everything else in that movie was a multi megaton clusterbomb of wrongness, so i can't say the actors performances ruined it all on their own.

 Matt Swain wrote:
Batman and robin...



Oh lord, where do i even begin???

George Clooney is a guy i kinda like, haze zip against and might not mind being around for a while. That said, he is not batman material. I don't blame him, after the dark, brooding batmans brought to use by keaton, who looked less like batman but acted more like batman that clooney, and Kilmer who really had it down, the director wanted a more upbeat, relaxed batman.

Well, that's just not batman. Clooney gave the performance the director wanted, it just wasn't a batman performance.

Schwarzenegger. Again i have little against this actor. If we were stuck in an elevator for a few hours I like to think we could sit, talk and get along decently. And his Mr. Freeze, again which was what the director wanted, was utterly horrible. His ridiculous accent which was thicker than Ahnuld's natural one, his dialog ("Vatch ze numbers, batman, for zey count your doom! Vehn ze rahket reaches 40,000 feet your heart vill freeze in your chest, unt beat no moahr!") was was the definition of cringeworthy.

Uma thurman. No feelings towards her really at all, not a kill bill fan. Her laughable performance as mae West gone evil was just a factory for groans and sighs.

Everything else in that movie was a multi megaton clusterbomb of wrongness, so i can't say the actors performances ruined it all on their own.

I think they were trying to go back to the 60’s campy Adam West batman, and just not hitting the mark. But I only saw the movie once. Was dragged to it by a group of friends. On the bright side, I used the fact that I was subjected to it to drag everyone to see a Godzilla flick on the big screen, so at least it had some value.

How many movies mentioned in this thread actually would have been exceptional without the characters that got under your skin...for whatever reasons?

The premise is different than saying 'better without X', and I honestly can't think of films that fit the bill for me personally. If there are genuine issues with a given character, the problems with the movie very likely extend beyond that single character. Frankly, I see a lot of mediocre or worse films being mentioned here, so...

 Compel wrote:
I'll get the easy answer out of the way.

"I don't like sand, it's coarse, it's rough, it's irritating and it gets everywhere."

Develop a movie trilogy, completely screw up the writing and dialogue for the most important character, throughout *two* different actors.

A lot of films would be just... better, if it weren't for random comic relief sidekick that got shoehorned in. I guess Shortround is possibly one of the biggest examples of this.

My GF named our dog Dr. Jones / Indy because of short round lol. Apparently he made the movie for her

 Grey Templar wrote:
Fynn's character is IMO the victim of bad writing given to a mediocre actor. Fynn, as they decided to portray him with his chosen backstory was doomed to be a bad character from the start. Which is unfortunate because they could have so easily had him be a really pivotal awesome character with a lot of depth. Instead he starts out as a main character who rapidly devolves into a tertiary character.

Fynn would have been very compelling if he had been a grizzled veteran stormtrooper, who had an attack of conscience and decided he wasn't down with the First Order anymore. Make him someone with dirty hands and a dirty conscience, struggling with a warped moral compass due to decades of mental conditioning. He isn't aligned with the First Order, but he isn't quite yet a full Resistance sympathizer. Maybe he's an Empire traditionalist who is fed up with the radical ideals of the First Order, so he feels that the Resistance is the lesser of two evils to choose between. The Empire didn't, in his eyes, just mow down civilians left and right, the First Order isn't what he signed up for.

This backstory would actually make his plot contributions make sense. He knows where sensitive weakpoints are located and where important data is kept. He would also be a good action hero, because badass ex-stormtrooper. Better yet, make him an ex-Death Trooper. Really up his combat experience, capability, etc...

Instead, he is a Storm Trooper janitor who somehow made it through 10+ years of indoctrination and screening as an abject coward who somehow knows where all the weak spots and important data is. Sorry, he would not have made it past 10 years old before they found out and liquidated him.

Movie 2 could also have done something interesting with him. And I actually thought at first it was going to happen. When he wakes up from his injuries, he could have reverted to being a First Order loyal soldier. A mental failsafe maybe. Maybe a tracker in the brain leads the first order to the fleet and thats how they can track the fleet, rather than some convoluted hyperspace tracking. So we end up with a race to get rid of the tracker instead of them going to Space Vegas.

At first, I felt sorry for John Boyega getting shafted by bad writing decisions turning him into a joke character, but his subsequent whining has shown he is unworthy of any potential success he might been robbed of.

Finn is by far the best character in the new (terrible) trilogy.

It's Kylo Ren that was a huge disappointment: the character is awful and you can predict his entire storyline since the first minute he appears on the screen, not to mention that the actor is too old for the role. Daisy Ridley, who also portrays a very bland character, looks like a child next to him.

To me the character that almost ruined a masterpiece is John Connor in T2. Movie is awesome on any possible level but I can't stand that kid, to the point that I wished for some director's cut in which the T1000 manages to kill him. It's also one of the main reasons why I loved Dark Fate, where the annoying character that almost ruined the movie was Sarah Connor instead. In that case the problem it's not the actress or the performance, it's the character that was poorly written and totally unnecessary for the plot.

The funny thing about Spiderman is that he's essentially had two origin stories. Night of the Goblin basically reboots the series with a new trauma while wiping out most of the existing supporting cast and significantly altering the motivation of the remaining characters. The movies like to focus on the first arcs of the character but many of us grew up only really knowing the second that Marvel hasn't fully known what to do with.

 Blackie wrote:

It's Kylo Ren that was a huge disappointment: the character is awful and you can predict his entire storyline since the first minute he appears on the screen, not to mention that the actor is too old for the role. Daisy Ridley, who also portrays a very bland character, looks like a child next to him.

I disagree on the second movie, I wasn't expecting that one.

But the first one and specially the third one? yeah extremely predictable.

Anything Johnny Depp has been in except Pirates would have been better with another actor.

I can't blame any of the prequel trilogy on the actors. You've got legit oscar winners in them left and right and the acting is terrible. That's directing/screen writing all the way.

Aladdin remake with Will Smith as the Genie. I just didn't like him int he role. Part of that is taking over for Williams but another part is he just didn't feel right.I like that movie otherwise.

TV show wise the whiny annoying kid in Cobrai Kai. Dude kills every scene he's in for me.

 Hulksmash wrote:
Anything Johnny Depp has been in except Pirates would have been better with another actor.

The original Nightmare on Elm Street was just fine with Depp in it.

YeH, he made a big splash in that movie.

 gorgon wrote:
How many movies mentioned in this thread actually would have been exceptional without the characters that got under your skin...for whatever reasons?

The premise is different than saying 'better without X', and I honestly can't think of films that fit the bill for me personally. If there are genuine issues with a given character, the problems with the movie very likely extend beyond that single character. Frankly, I see a lot of mediocre or worse films being mentioned here, so...

I actually enjoyed the cast in Batman vs Superman I liked Angry Batman, happy with Superman, Wonder Woman was awesome but Loopy Lex ruins every scene he is in.

Make him a dangerous, power hungry manipulator rather than manic capering idiot-child and it would have been a much much better film.

 Mr Morden wrote:

 gorgon wrote:
How many movies mentioned in this thread actually would have been exceptional without the characters that got under your skin...for whatever reasons?

The premise is different than saying 'better without X', and I honestly can't think of films that fit the bill for me personally. If there are genuine issues with a given character, the problems with the movie very likely extend beyond that single character. Frankly, I see a lot of mediocre or worse films being mentioned here, so...

I actually enjoyed the cast in Batman vs Superman I liked Angry Batman, happy with Superman, Wonder Woman was awesome but Loopy Lex ruins every scene he is in.

Make him a dangerous, power hungry manipulator rather than manic capering idiot-child and it would have been a much much better film.

They had so many other options for people who could have played this role well too. Bryan Cranston would have killed it.

I feel like Jennifer Lawrence's Mystique is a big one for me in the more recent X-Men movies, J-Law isn't a terrible actress, but she didn't seem like she was playing Mystique at all given her characterization. Also, it's kinda hard to follow up Rebecca Romijin's take, J-Law's face was something I couldn't take seriously in her blue form. Sophie Turner as Jean Grey is another bad cast, since she basically can't act outside of one emotional range of outside of constipated angst. If you did watch the newer movies, it was just for Michael Fassbender and James McAvoy.

Ed Norton in The Hulk.

I actually like the second marvel film. I think the abomination was perfect and even Liv Tyler is passable. And I do like Ed Norton in many of his other films (recently watched Motherless Brooklyn and its enjoyable). But Ed doesn't click with what's going on here and almost anyone would have been better.

 Mr Morden wrote:

 gorgon wrote:
How many movies mentioned in this thread actually would have been exceptional without the characters that got under your skin...for whatever reasons?

The premise is different than saying 'better without X', and I honestly can't think of films that fit the bill for me personally. If there are genuine issues with a given character, the problems with the movie very likely extend beyond that single character. Frankly, I see a lot of mediocre or worse films being mentioned here, so...

I actually enjoyed the cast in Batman vs Superman I liked Angry Batman, happy with Superman, Wonder Woman was awesome but Loopy Lex ruins every scene he is in.

Make him a dangerous, power hungry manipulator rather than manic capering idiot-child and it would have been a much much better film.

I don't like everything about the performance either, but I think I'd argue that the character was written that way and that it served the story. Which pushed that Bruce, Clark, and Lex were all formed by their experiences with their parents. This comes up in dialogue throughout the film ("I bet your parents taught you..." etc). The script also revealed that Lex had an abusive, domineering dad, which obviously warped his world view. Seems clear that the existence of a vastly superior being triggered his daddy issues after he'd worked so hard to surpass his father, etc.

So are the issues really about the performance or casting alone? If you lift out that variable, is the film 'fixed'? Or are there probably deeper issues?



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hulksmash wrote:
I can't blame any of the prequel trilogy on the actors. You've got legit oscar winners in them left and right and the acting is terrible. That's directing/screen writing all the way.

Also, maybe even the story concept of starting Anakin as a younger child. Lots to consider there beyond "Jake Lloyd sucks."

The BvS story would have been a lot better with a whole different lex luthor.

I'd have liked to see luthor as sort of a anti hero sharing batman's view that the world cannot trust its fate to one alien and who honestly be,lieved he and he alone due to his intellect was "The One" who could save humanity.

Maybe make lex's backstory that his parents were irresponsible idiots and he had to be the head of the house at an early age due to his superior intellect, and had developed a superiority complex that was in some ways justified.

It might have been enough to make batman have a realization about himself.

But make luthor sincere in his desire to protect humanity,but maybe for his own egotistical reasons and believe he is the only one who can do it, that would have been a more interesting character.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 gorgon wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

 gorgon wrote:
How many movies mentioned in this thread actually would have been exceptional without the characters that got under your skin...for whatever reasons?

The premise is different than saying 'better without X', and I honestly can't think of films that fit the bill for me personally. If there are genuine issues with a given character, the problems with the movie very likely extend beyond that single character. Frankly, I see a lot of mediocre or worse films being mentioned here, so...

I actually enjoyed the cast in Batman vs Superman I liked Angry Batman, happy with Superman, Wonder Woman was awesome but Loopy Lex ruins every scene he is in.

Make him a dangerous, power hungry manipulator rather than manic capering idiot-child and it would have been a much much better film.

I don't like everything about the performance either, but I think I'd argue that the character was written that way and that it served the story. Which pushed that Bruce, Clark, and Lex were all formed by their experiences with their parents. This comes up in dialogue throughout the film ("I bet your parents taught you..." etc). The script also revealed that Lex had an abusive, domineering dad, which obviously warped his world view. Seems clear that the existence of a vastly superior being triggered his daddy issues after he'd worked so hard to surpass his father, etc.

So are the issues really about the performance or casting alone? If you lift out that variable, is the film 'fixed'? Or are there probably deeper issues?



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hulksmash wrote:
I can't blame any of the prequel trilogy on the actors. You've got legit oscar winners in them left and right and the acting is terrible. That's directing/screen writing all the way.

Also, maybe even the story concept of starting Anakin as a younger child. Lots to consider there beyond "Jake Lloyd sucks."

Jake loyd was bullied and beaten by other kids for playing Anakin, he grew up with a lot of anger issues over the hate thrown at him over it, and is now an adult with serious mental, criminal and drug issues. I hope the "Let's hate Jake Loyd" crowd is proud of themselves.

 Grimskul wrote:
I feel like Jennifer Lawrence's Mystique is a big one for me in the more recent X-Men movies, J-Law isn't a terrible actress, but she didn't seem like she was playing Mystique at all given her characterization.

I don't think that's down to J-Law so much as just that the director chose to take the character in a very different direction to her comics incarnation, supposedly due to her popularity with the fans after the first movie.

Sophie Turner as Jean Grey is another bad cast, since she basically can't act outside of one emotional range of outside of constipated angst. If you did watch the newer movies, it was just for Michael Fassbender and James McAvoy.

I have no particular issue with Sophie Turner, but Jean Grey was always one of my least favourite characters anyway. It would certainly have been much less of an issue if they had chosen a different story arc that focused on other characters rather than wasting a movie rehashing the Dark Phoenix saga.

 Ahtman wrote:

 Hulksmash wrote:
Anything Johnny Depp has been in except Pirates would have been better with another actor.

The original Nightmare on Elm Street was just fine with Depp in it.

I think the first Pirates movie is the flip between mostly harmless Jonny and actively gak Jonny

I liked depp best in Ed Wood.

Yeah, prior to Pirates he was good in a lot of lower budget and indie films.

 insaniak wrote:
[
I have no particular issue with Sophie Turner, but Jean Grey was always one of my least favourite characters anyway. It would certainly have been much less of an issue if they had chosen a different story arc that focused on other characters rather than wasting a movie rehashing the Dark Phoenix saga.

That's a large part of why Dark Phoenix doesn't translate well to film (also getting the same guy to try the same stupid version of the story that didn't work the first time...) but I digress. I big part of why the original comic was a big deal was that Jean was boring. She was a nothing character that mostly served as a romantic interest/mother hen for the team. That's what made turning her into the villain such a huge moment in comics.

 Matt Swain wrote:
The BvS story would have been a lot better with a whole different lex luthor.

I'd have liked to see luthor as sort of a anti hero sharing batman's view that the world cannot trust its fate to one alien and who honestly be,lieved he and he alone due to his intellect was "The One" who could save humanity.

Maybe make lex's backstory that his parents were irresponsible idiots and he had to be the head of the house at an early age due to his superior intellect, and had developed a superiority complex that was in some ways justified.

It might have been enough to make batman have a realization about himself.

But make luthor sincere in his desire to protect humanity,but maybe for his own egotistical reasons and believe he is the only one who can do it, that would have been a more interesting character.

Fine, but would that actually change the way the film was received by critics or audiences?

Personally I think the issues started at conception, when they decided on the 'V' in BvS, and gave Snyder full control to treat it like his passion project. The decision to feature good guys beating each others' brains just created hurdles, and arguably dictated Lex's role to some degree.

I just don't see individual characters in films as existing in vacuums often...if ever. If there are significant problems with a given actor or character, then there are probably other problems with the direction, script, story, etc.

 gorgon wrote:

 Matt Swain wrote:
The BvS story would have been a lot better with a whole different lex luthor.

I'd have liked to see luthor as sort of a anti hero sharing batman's view that the world cannot trust its fate to one alien and who honestly be,lieved he and he alone due to his intellect was "The One" who could save humanity.

Maybe make lex's backstory that his parents were irresponsible idiots and he had to be the head of the house at an early age due to his superior intellect, and had developed a superiority complex that was in some ways justified.

It might have been enough to make batman have a realization about himself.

But make luthor sincere in his desire to protect humanity,but maybe for his own egotistical reasons and believe he is the only one who can do it, that would have been a more interesting character.

Fine, but would that actually change the way the film was received by critics or audiences?

Personally I think the issues started at conception, when they decided on the 'V' in BvS, and gave Snyder full control to treat it like his passion project. The decision to feature good guys beating each others' brains just created hurdles, and arguably dictated Lex's role to some degree.

I just don't see individual characters in films as existing in vacuums often...if ever. If there are significant problems with a given actor or character, then there are probably other problems with the direction, script, story, etc.

With a Luthor that is as described before by matt swain - each scene with the current Loopy Lex would have been very different and would have changed the film dramatically IMO for all who saw it.

Although alot of the blame for how shockingly bad this portrayal was lies with the actor who apparently was given complete freedom - much aslo needs to be laid at the feet of the Director who presumably directed the scenes with a capering idiotic and nonsensical character and said "yep thats what I wanted".

The problem has always been that Snyder is a fan of the deconstructionist super hero stories but not of the stories they deconstruct. His work has passion and talent for what he's adapting but without reverence for the core ideas, he lacks an understanding of what there is to subvert and ends up creating something that feels more like a means spirited parody.

 LunarSol wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
[
I have no particular issue with Sophie Turner, but Jean Grey was always one of my least favourite characters anyway. It would certainly have been much less of an issue if they had chosen a different story arc that focused on other characters rather than wasting a movie rehashing the Dark Phoenix saga.

That's a large part of why Dark Phoenix doesn't translate well to film (also getting the same guy to try the same stupid version of the story that didn't work the first time...) but I digress. I big part of why the original comic was a big deal was that Jean was boring. She was a nothing character that mostly served as a romantic interest/mother hen for the team. That's what made turning her into the villain such a huge moment in comics.

Well partly that* but also the years of build-up. Her 'turn' is after multiple years of background buildup (psychic seduction/manipulation), and her villain arc is 10 months of comics. You can't replicate that in a single film... though they could have at least tried something other than the director's terrible option. An innate 'dark side' imprisoned by Xavier is all sorts of levels of squick.

*which is mostly 1970s inability to do much with female characters, both from culture and censorship.

Voss wrote:

*which is mostly 1970s inability to do much with female characters, both from culture and censorship.

Something that remains problematic in the original comic arc too where "female empowerment" basically means dress in bondage gear and become evil.