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.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Not sure Marvel will have quite the same problem.

Superman, Batman and Wonder Woman are individuals.

Iron Man, Captain America etc are arguably more ideals. Anyone can Wield the Shield. Anyone can don Iron Man's armour - and then, to all intents and purposes, they become that hero.

That's something they can work with. And if handled well, do a Doctor Who and keep on recasting without resetting.

Disagree,

Iron Man's armour is just a suit the person wears - thats been a major part of the story througout the MCU movies and even into the spiderman movie. Tony and Rody are not the same even when they wear basically the same suit - same with pepper when she wears it. Its just a tool.

If you're nothing without the suit, then you shouldn't have it

Thor is Thor - not because he has a magic hammer. - see his most recent film.

 LunarSol wrote:
The primary problem with the GL movie though was just that it was in a hurry to get to the Sinestro Corp War, which is the story that gave the series enough credibility to be worth making a movie for in the first place. Trying to get there in the second movie was disastrous and I'm curious if they actually were hoping to get to Blackest Night for a trilogy. Again, its an issue with rushing things. I think if the first movie had focused on a more direct story; Abin Sur's ship crashes transporting Atrocitus or some other evil alien threat (Parallax is actually not a bad call but he needs to be vastly different). Hal gets the ring, learns to use it just enough to stop the bad guy and at the end the Corps arrives to see what the rookie accomplished. Movie 2 is training day in space focused on Sinestro training Hal ending with Hal realizing the tyranny in which Sinestro keeps order and ends with Sinestro going rogue. Trilogy ends with Sinestro Corp War and if we're still ticking along we can discuss an actual War of Light. In any case, the problem with the movie is just that it forgets that much of the strength of great GL stories comes from the history they mine. Trying to tell them without making us care about the characters misses a large part of why it all works.

While I think that they *may* have mishandled Sinestro, we don't know exactly what would have happened in the follow-up. The post-credits scene doesn't have to be taken a literal thing -- i.e., that as of the beginning of the second movie, Sinestro is already wearing yellow. I agree that the story needed to be simpler and less rushed overall.

I'm not sure if I'd like Tom Cruise as Hal or not, but it's interesting that Christopher McQuarrie's name has been going around as a potential director for the GL Corps film, which will apparently be Training Day in space.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mr Morden wrote:
Thor is Thor - not because he has a magic hammer. - see his most recent film.

The history in the comics is of course much more complicated than that.

 gorgon wrote:

Superman is very powerful, but just how powerful depends on the era you're talking about. And he's had plenty of very powerful villains. Darkseid, Doomsday, Zod, Imperiex, Bizarro, Cyborg Superman, Lobo and Mongul all have the ability to go toe-to-toe with him.

That's called power creep. Power creep where your hero stands atop the tower and can't be kicked off because his status is a core component of your brand. Superman can't lose because of something better than plot armor: brand armor.

Also: Doomsday is a being that was forged on Krypton, Zod is a Kryptonian with armor, Bizzaro is a bad clone, and Cyborg Superman...is Superman with machine parts. So everyone that can stand up to Superman is some variation of Superman. Except Batman because he has a deus ex machina.


Lobo doesn't count because he's basically DC Deadpool...I have no idea who Imperiax or Mongul are.

@ gorgon

Training Day in space sounds pretty cool.

@ dogma

I got to agree. If I remember correctly, in the beginning Superman was basically just Mr. Incredible; super strong (as in lifting up a car, not moving planets) and super tough (as in immune to bullets, not completely indestructible) and that’s that. He couldn’t even fly. He could just jump really high. The flying, eye beams, freeze breath and all that stuff came later during the wacky Silver Age. It was literally new powers as the plot demanded, and they went wild with it.

Also, you know the way DC have multiple people being the same character (there’s what, 3 Robins, 3 Flashes and 3-4 Green Lanterns)? Do marvel do that? Again my knowledge of comics is very superficial.

 Mr Morden wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
MCU works because recent action, sci-fi adventure and fantasy movies are usually pure garbage... now, I consider all the MCU episodes mediocre or decent at most but the lack of competitive opponents is the key of their success.

Seen plenty of action and superhero films recently that I enjoyed - but different strokes

case in point looking at your avatar - did you really like La La Land ? I did not.

Yeah, I enjoy going to the cinema with friends and I watch pretty much every dumb fantasy-sci fi movie that is released, if I miss something I watch it on bluray at home... in the last 10 years I think I really liked a lot only Mad Max Fury Road, X-Men Days of Future Past and the two Pacific Rim movies. I'm fond of tons of 80s and 90s action movies, not these recent things, which are usually fun enough to see but nothing special. MCU films have one huge quality: they're never pure gargabe like some episodes (or even all of them) of other franchises. And sadly pretty much every movie that belongs to this category is part of a franchise now.

About La La Land, you're right, not only I liked it but it's already become one of my favorite movies of all times and I've watched it 4 times so far. But this is said by someone that absolute adores musicals from the 30s, 40s and 50s with actors and actresses like Judy Garland, Gene Kelly, Frank Sinatra, Fred & Ginger, etc...

gorgon wrote:I'm not sure if I'd like Tom Cruise as Hal or not, but it's interesting that Christopher McQuarrie's name has been going around as a potential director for the GL Corps film, which will apparently be Training Day in space.

Michael Weatherly, even though he's a touch old.. Would make a perfect Hal Jordan.

 Mr Morden wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Not sure Marvel will have quite the same problem.

Superman, Batman and Wonder Woman are individuals.

Iron Man, Captain America etc are arguably more ideals. Anyone can Wield the Shield. Anyone can don Iron Man's armour - and then, to all intents and purposes, they become that hero.

That's something they can work with. And if handled well, do a Doctor Who and keep on recasting without resetting.

Disagree,

Iron Man's armour is just a suit the person wears - thats been a major part of the story througout the MCU movies and even into the spiderman movie. Tony and Rody are not the same even when they wear basically the same suit - same with pepper when she wears it. Its just a tool.

If you're nothing without the suit, then you shouldn't have it

Thor is Thor - not because he has a magic hammer. - see his most recent film.

Except bucky, falcon, and like 3 other people have been captain america. Miles morales is a great spiderman. Iron heart is a good ironman. And lady thor is she who wield the hammer best.

Also rhody has been iron man before. When tony faked his death rhody wasnt warmachine, he carried on the ironman mantle. It wasnt until tony came back that he continued as warmachine.

There has also been like 4 captain marvels. Like 7 versions of the fantastic 4.

 Mr Morden wrote:

Thor is Thor - not because he has a magic hammer. - see his most recent film.

Odin gave Thor the Odin Force upon his "death" and, being less an eye, Thor is just Odin now.

The Asgardians use the same magic Doctor Strange uses yes? Mixing it with really advanced technology too yes?

 Lance845 wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Not sure Marvel will have quite the same problem.

Superman, Batman and Wonder Woman are individuals.

Iron Man, Captain America etc are arguably more ideals. Anyone can Wield the Shield. Anyone can don Iron Man's armour - and then, to all intents and purposes, they become that hero.

That's something they can work with. And if handled well, do a Doctor Who and keep on recasting without resetting.

Disagree,

Iron Man's armour is just a suit the person wears - thats been a major part of the story througout the MCU movies and even into the spiderman movie. Tony and Rody are not the same even when they wear basically the same suit - same with pepper when she wears it. Its just a tool.

If you're nothing without the suit, then you shouldn't have it

Thor is Thor - not because he has a magic hammer. - see his most recent film.

Except bucky, falcon, and like 3 other people have been captain america. Miles morales is a great spiderman. Iron heart is a good ironman. And lady thor is she who wield the hammer best.

Also rhody has been iron man before. When tony faked his death rhody wasnt warmachine, he carried on the ironman mantle. It wasnt until tony came back that he continued as warmachine.

There has also been like 4 captain marvels. Like 7 versions of the fantastic 4.

I am really talking comics not films as not very fmailiar with these characters in the comics

Tony Stark wears various suits of armour but he is still Tony Stark wearing some armour, Thor is Thor in the films with or without his hammer, Peter Parker is not all about the suit. I see this as a central tennent of the MCu films?

In the films when Rhddy wears the Suit he does not suddenly become Iron man, nor does Pepper.

 dogma wrote:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

It'll definitely be a problem for Marvel 20-30 years from now.

At which point The Mouse will have made it's money.

Just wait, in 25 years when we're all grumpy old farts (or grumpier older farts, for some of us already there now) and Marvel starts a new series of superhero films, we'll all be complaining about how these new heroes aren't RDJ, Chris Pratt, or Hugh Jackman, and so on.

 dogma wrote:

 gorgon wrote:

Superman is very powerful, but just how powerful depends on the era you're talking about. And he's had plenty of very powerful villains. Darkseid, Doomsday, Zod, Imperiex, Bizarro, Cyborg Superman, Lobo and Mongul all have the ability to go toe-to-toe with him.

That's called power creep. Power creep where your hero stands atop the tower and can't be kicked off because his status is a core component of your brand. Superman can't lose because of something better than plot armor: brand armor.

His power peaked 40-50 years ago in the Silver and early Bronze Age though, and he's been at a tiny fraction of that power level since the Crisis in the comics. The DCEU Superman's power level seems to be lower than the current comics. In the animated series from the '90s, he was even lower...probably at a late Bronze Age level. So it's really hard to say that his power level is a problem when it's been so different at different times and in different mediums. And it's not like Marvel doesn't have heroes at a cosmic power level. I guess you think Captain Marvel can't work for the MCU? She's basically Marvel's answer to Green Lantern.

Besides, all mainstream superheroes have healthy amounts of plot armor. All of them always win, because you couldn't continue their books into infinity if they didn't.

Also: Doomsday is a being that was forged on Krypton, Zod is a Kryptonian with armor, Bizzaro is a bad clone, and Cyborg Superman...is Superman with machine parts. So everyone that can stand up to Superman is some variation of Superman. Except Batman because he has a deus ex machina.

Lobo doesn't count because he's basically DC Deadpool...I have no idea who Imperiax or Mongul are.

Villains having some Kryptonian connection or not has nothing do with the point that there are plenty of characters that can oppose Superman in the DC universe. And Lobo and Mongul count whether you think they're relevant or not.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blackie wrote:
About La La Land, you're right, not only I liked it but it's already become one of my favorite movies of all times and I've watched it 4 times so far. But this is said by someone that absolute adores musicals from the 30s, 40s and 50s with actors and actresses like Judy Garland, Gene Kelly, Frank Sinatra, Fred & Ginger, etc...

You don't have to apologize for liking a terrific film that was up for 800 Academy Awards and received sparkling reviews from critics and audiences.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
The Asgardians use the same magic Doctor Strange uses yes? Mixing it with really advanced technology too yes?

No?

 gorgon wrote:

His power peaked 40-50 years ago in the Silver and early Bronze Age though, and he's been at a tiny fraction of that power level since the Crisis in the comics.

He kills multiple, really powerful, superheroes in the Injustice comics., and the whole point is "Only Batman can stop him!"

 gorgon wrote:

Villains having some Kryptonian connection or not has nothing do with the point that there are plenty of characters that can oppose Superman in the DC universe.

Yes, it does. When one of your flagship characters can only be opposed by a character genetically connected to your flagship character, or your other flagship character; there is a problem.

 gorgon wrote:

And Lobo and Mongul count whether you think they're relevant or not.

I know who Lobo is, I even compared him to Deadpool. I still don't who Mongul or Imperiax are.

received sparkling reviews from critics

Just like the steaming pile of excrement that is the Last Jedi - I didn't enjoy La La Land, but it wasn't as bad as that film, can't think of a worse film I have watched in the last few years.

Just wait, in 25 years when we're all grumpy old farts (or grumpier older farts, for some of us already there now) and Marvel starts a new series of superhero films, we'll all be complaining about how these new heroes aren't RDJ, Chris Pratt, or Hugh Jackman, and so on.

Old and tired now :(

Gotta say, love musicals and musical theatre and couldn't get thru LaLa Land. But Greatest Showman on the other hand I've already watched twice since we bought it last week and watched all the extras.

On topic though I still stick with what I said earlier and add in just no movies that I came out of going "Christ, that could have been 30 minutes shorters".

 dogma wrote:

 gorgon wrote:

His power peaked 40-50 years ago in the Silver and early Bronze Age though, and he's been at a tiny fraction of that power level since the Crisis in the comics.

He kills multiple, really powerful, superheroes in the Injustice comics., and the whole point is "Only Batman can stop him!"

Okay...so that issue in some alternate reality comics matters for all other comics and media how, exactly?

 gorgon wrote:

Villains having some Kryptonian connection or not has nothing do with the point that there are plenty of characters that can oppose Superman in the DC universe.

Yes, it does. When one of your flagship characters can only be opposed by a character genetically connected to your flagship character, or your other flagship character; there is a problem.

 gorgon wrote:

And Lobo and Mongul count whether you think they're relevant or not.

I know who Lobo is, I even compared him to Deadpool. I still don't who Mongul or Imperiax are.

Superman is probably the character that suffers the most from the migration of comics from self contained city universes to singular, crossover driven worlds. The more that happens, the more comics build up character dynamics between heroes and their super powered peers and the more supporting ordinary people drop out of the spotlight.

This is part of the reason for Batman's success. It's long been established that Bruce Wayne and by extension, any of his relationships are largely a mask and Batman is the real character. That means that most of his meaningful relationships are actually with his villains who have similarly lost themselves in their alter egos and the children he teaches to follow the same path. It's relatively easy to tell stories about fighting crime driven by real characters when all the character is in the crime.

For others though? They need to be about the character under the mask. Superman is boring, but Clark sure isn't. Part of the reason I find MoS's Smallville disastrous is that it makes Clarke as boring and cliche as his alter ego. Clarke needs to be driven by human desires. He needs to be a little awkward and afraid of rejection, particularly from the worldly reporter he's infatuated with that sees him as a sheltered kid with a small view of the world around him.

Hal's got similar problems. The more you focus on him being a space cop, the more you lose the ability to explore things like how his father's death and subsequent loss of familial ties leaves him fairly wreckless and unable to build for the future. These things really matter, because when it comes time to punch the all powerful badguy in the face, you don't have any motivation or stakes outside of "the world" which has been thrown on the table far too many times to have any meaning at this point.

Marvel loses sight of this from time to time as well, though its characters are a little more grounded and capable of existing in a pretty closed social circle. That said, there's a reason that Civil War was such a huge event and it wasn't for the novelty of heroes fighting each other; it was because what they were fighting for mattered to the audience and to some degree, its probably the last big even that felt like the outcome mattered. DC really needs stakes to make its characters work, even more than Marvel, but they really do better when those stakes are rooted in the human underneath over the powers they wear.

 gorgon wrote:

If you don't know who Mongul is -- a villain that's been around for 35(?) years and involved in some very big DC stories -- then it's pretty hard to take your assessment of the DC universe seriously.

Just help him out already!

I don't know if Mongul should be the basis of anyone's reasonable power level. I mean, no one can stop the Mongurians.

Goddamn Mongurians.

@ LunarSol

Excellent anyalis. Incidentally, that’s precisely why I like plastic man so much. Former criminal trying to go straight, estranged from his family, worried that he’s not really human anymore...and he’s funny too. He’s got that character that humanises him.

 gorgon wrote:

Okay...so that issue in some alternate reality comics matters for all other comics and media how, exactly?

The Injustice games, and associated comics, are the only good things DC has going right now.

They are important to the franchise by virtue of success, the same way Tony Stark has looked like Robert Downey Jr. since 2008.

 gorgon wrote:

If you don't know who Mongul is -- a villain that's been around for 35(?) years and involved in some very big DC stories -- then it's pretty hard to take your assessment of the DC universe seriously.

I know who Mongul is, I have an internet connection. The point I'm trying to make is that Mongul isn't a name you can drop to a layperson in the course of selling a movie.

If I hear Mongul I think Ghenghis Khan, not Superman villain.

 LunarSol wrote:
Superman is probably the character that suffers the most from the migration of comics from self contained city universes to singular, crossover driven worlds. The more that happens, the more comics build up character dynamics between heroes and their super powered peers and the more supporting ordinary people drop out of the spotlight.

There's a whole arc in the Injustice comics about exactly that.

This more thread as wandered enough off topic that it has me interested in reading the INJUSTICE story-line.

Worth it?

Easy to do via trades?

 Mysterio wrote:
This more thread as wandered enough off topic that it has me interested in reading the INJUSTICE story-line.

Worth it?

Easy to do via trades?

Yes to both. It's one of the finest Elseworlds-type things DC have done, and while it ultimately leads up to the story of the first (and then second) Injustice video games, it goes some really unexpected places on the way. It really is a recreation of the whole DC universe, with one event that changes everything, which has to be done well and in this case it is. The artwork and writing is also consistently top notch, and the storyline thick with clever and unexpected twists and turns as the new world order falls into place.

The Trades are sold in 'Years', with 2 Volumes to a Year, though you can get both Volumes collected in one for at least the first couple of years. There are 5 years (10 Volumes) leading up to the first game, then a new run that continues from where that leaves off and will presumably cover the gap between the games. I'm not sure if the events of the game itself are covered in the books, or whether you'll have to look for that elsewhere (though if you like fighting games, they are really worth playing anyway), but in any case, definitely worth a look if you want a very different, consitent and self-contained look at an alternate version of DC's universe.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
Goddamn Mongurians.

@ LunarSol

Excellent anyalis. Incidentally, that’s precisely why I like plastic man so much. Former criminal trying to go straight, estranged from his family, worried that he’s not really human anymore...and he’s funny too. He’s got that character that humanises him.

Its why the tedd kord blue beetle was also great. The new one is pretty good too. Because its not HIM thats powerful and the scarab causes issues. Also the whole bat family. Their all human with human problems.

So it looks like Steven Spielberg will be doing a Blackhawk film.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/18/entertainment/steven-spielberg-blackhawk-dc/index.html

That seems like a good pairing of director and material. Sure wish we could have seen a Spielberg-directed Captain America movie.

 gorgon wrote:
So it looks like Steven Spielberg will be doing a Blackhawk film.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/18/entertainment/steven-spielberg-blackhawk-dc/index.html

That seems like a good pairing of director and material. Sure wish we could have seen a Spielberg-directed Captain America movie.

I won't lie. I am very interested in this.

 gorgon wrote:
So it looks like Steven Spielberg will be doing a Blackhawk film.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/18/entertainment/steven-spielberg-blackhawk-dc/index.html

That seems like a good pairing of director and material. Sure wish we could have seen a Spielberg-directed Captain America movie.

Spielberg doing a "Metal" tie-in with Blackhawks would be freaking amazing.

If DC wants to play in the big leagues with movies, they need to pull their heads out of their butts and set up a multi-franchise story arc like Marvel did with Avengers 3. Everything has been leading up to the meeting with Thanos. Years and years of work. There have got to be some directors out there just chomping at the bit for this kind of action in DC.

The sad part, DC has fantastic story lines they can work with. What I wouldn't give for a Darkest Night/Brightest Day story arc. Cmoooooon. Lets see some of that! Need some fresh new Superman villains for the big screen? Bring in Superboy Prime and lets do Crisis on Infinite Earths!

DC has so much to work with and honestly at this point, I have no hope they will every do it.

Crisis on inifinite earths would be a good story to bring to the screen. Eventually, once they set the rest up correctly. Because one thing I think we can all agree on is that what marvel did right (and what dc are doing wrong) is learning to walk before learning to run. Marvel went slow and steady and focused on the characters to begin with. DC has come out running and almost immediately tripped and fell flat on their faces.

Gave the thread a name change to better reflect the change in discussion - which has been organic, rather than OT nonsense!

I think DC need to delve into their C-List the way Marvel did. Audiences already know what to expect from Superman and Batman. Yes, they're cash cows, but they need a rest.

Nightwing could be of interest. I know the tiniest modicum of him - former Robin, all grown up, not necessarily taken on board all that Batman taught him? Probably wrong, but that's my understanding.

I can't rightly think of others - but then, that's the whole point. The less I know about a given character, the lower my expectations. I think this was writ large when I went to see Guardians of the Galaxy. I was lucky enough to get into a press screening. I knew nowt, other than Dan Abnett had some level of involvement. I was really expecting that to be the straw that broke Marvel's back. Too leftfield. No obvious connection to the ongoing plot. I loved it. Seriously, seriously loved it, and I still do. I didn't know what to expect, and was blown away by it.

Take Universal's Dark Universe. Sure, couple of Tent Pole names to trundle it out at first, but then how about lesser known gribblies? Invent new ones, if you must. Deity Of Your Choice knows the world is replete with Tales To Chill The Blood.

Then there's the other, much more maligned comic approach.....The Anthology. Been watching Tales From the Darkside recently. Absolutely love that sort of stuff. Twilight Zone, Outer Limits I'll watch it all. Fun, often silly, occasionally gruesome moral tales in fairly bite sized chunks. The bread and butter of many a World of Darkness campaign too. Why make it a movie, when you could bring something updated to the small screen? I know one network turned down a remake of Tales From the Darkside, which is a shame. But that could simply be because what was pitched was crap, rather than a lack of faith in the format.

Indeed, I'd argue that the modern preference for season long story arcs is very much suited to intertwining vignettes. Imagine if Fear The Walking Dead hadn't focussed on just one group, but instead showed the fall all over the world. Lots of different groups, some of whom may bump into each other in time. If they'd done that, I'd probably have perceived beyond the first season and a half (and not have had to put up with Junkie O'Useless' god awful acting)