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.
Yeah... looking at those, I don't think we can say the current incarnation is a reboot or remake of those films. Just starting fresh from the same source material. Honestly, the idea of reboot of something that's primarily literary or historical is complicated
I wouldn't say they were reboots any more than Kevin Costner's Robin Hood or Men in Tights are 'reboots' of the Errol Flynn version.
----
Superman I'll entirely disagree with you. Effects, sure (but whatever- the CGI bits are honestly dull), but for Superman films that actually get the point of Superman, the Reeves movies are far, far superior to the Cavill movies. It isn't even close. As Superman, Cavill looks bored out of his mind and completely uninterested in anything going on around him.
And I say that as someone who thinks Superman is a dreadful and boring character.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2020/05/15 05:10:20
Voss wrote: As Superman, Cavill looks bored out of his mind and completely uninterested in anything going on around him.
I feel like that's largely down to the directorial decision to make him moody and emo. When he gets to actually act, he sells it - the final scene with Zod,for example, was just an awesome, powerful, emotional moment. I dislike Superman with a passion as a character, and hate his presence in the Justice League, but I'm still sorry that Cavill didn't get to play him properly, because he seems a perfect fit for the role.
Manchu wrote: Nolan Batfilms, Craig Bond films, most of the MCU, Snyder’s Dawn of the Dead, the recent IT movies, Battlestar Galactica (TV but still), Coen Bros’ True Grit, Planet of the Apes; I mean we could go on and on.
I consider stuff like the Nolan Batman films and It to be more like contemporary adaptations of a literary work than a reboot of a remembered film. I don’t believe anyone considered the current MCU to be a reboot of Ang Lee’s Hulk or Salenger’s Cap. I’ll give you True Grit, Planet of the Apes, and partial credit for Dawn of the Dead, though. The less said about nBSG the better.
So while there are good reboots out there, I maintain that my own first reaction to the word reboot, as well as the reaction I see the most of on the internet, is distrust.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: I don’t believe anyone considered the current MCU to be a reboot of Ang Lee’s Hulk or Salenger’s Cap
I don't think many people were even aware of the existence of earlier Captain America, but there was some amount of grumbling when the Norton Hulk was announced, as it was specifically marketed as a reboot. I suspect the grumbling would have been louder if more people had actually liked Ang Lee's Hulk.
And at least they did the smart thing and didn't just make Norton's version another origin movie, cramming that into the opening credits instead.
timetowaste85 wrote: Then why was it necessary to replace the already existing characters with their opposite gender? Same argument can be made against the change.
Because the people making the film thought that these four women would be good in the roles. Which is the same reason that we ended up with the four male ghostbusters in the first film. And why we ended up with a female Ripley.
come on..do you really believe that? or are you just kidding yourself?
BobtheInquisitor wrote: How many well-received Movie reboots or remakes have there been in the last two decades? Fury Road is the only one I can think of.
Wait, so Fury Road was a reboot? Well, good I guess I can forgive it now. My wife still wont. She hates that he was basically little more than a side kick in a movie with his name on it.
I saw it more a a trend of Piss Max off he topples your society, the rest of the characters, thought having more "story" were just a means to an end.
Moral of the story, don't mess with max and don't jack his car.
Seriously there was so much wrong with the story of that movie that he surviving ladies were completely short sited. I imagine the survivors from the other towns toppled their newly liberated kingdom in a matter of months. Meanwhile max was like I can see where this is headed and I'm out.
Good special effects does not a good movie make. See Highlander 2 for an example.
The rewards of tolerance are treachery and betrayal.
Remember kids, Games Workshop needs you more than you need them.
warhead01 wrote: She hates that he was basically little more than a side kick in a movie with his name on it.
So... just like every Mad Max film but the first.
I mean, in The Road Warrior Max had 16 lines of dialogue. In Fury Road he has 52. So over 3 times more dialogue.
Max is not the main character in the stories he appears in past the first film. He is a wanderer, a legend, who travels from place to place, entering and leaving other peoples stories.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/05/15 15:02:01
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
Max is the main character in the films. He may come into other people's stories but it's about how he upends those stories and sets them in another direction. They talk in hushed tones about "the rude worriah", not about the old duffer in a WWII helmet, or the guy who mucked out the pigs. He might get his head kicked in and left for dead every so often, but he's not overshadowed.
And Arnie spoke all of five words to Sandahl Bergman in Conan the Barbarian, the love of his character's life. Sheer verbiage isn't the be-all, end-all.
Voss wrote: Yeah... looking at those, I don't think we can say the current incarnation is a reboot or remake of those films. Just starting fresh from the same source material. Honestly, the idea of reboot of something that's primarily literary or historical is complicated
I wouldn't say they were reboots any more than Kevin Costner's Robin Hood or Men in Tights are 'reboots' of the Errol Flynn version.
That's still easily the Robin Hood I like best though.
warhead01 wrote: She hates that he was basically little more than a side kick in a movie with his name on it.
So... just like every Mad Max film but the first.
I mean, in The Road Warrior Max had 16 lines of dialogue. In Fury Road he has 52. So over 3 times more dialogue.
Max is not the main character in the stories he appears in past the first film. He is a wanderer, a legend, who travels from place to place, entering and leaving other peoples stories.
You could take Max out of Fury road and the difference would hardly effect the story. Furiosa would just have to work a little harder and maybe have an inside warboy to work with to replace Max in a few scenes. They could have just called it Fury road in that case and we'd have been fine with that, it might have been even more entertaining.
The rewards of tolerance are treachery and betrayal.
Remember kids, Games Workshop needs you more than you need them.
warhead01 wrote: She hates that he was basically little more than a side kick in a movie with his name on it.
So... just like every Mad Max film but the first.
I mean, in The Road Warrior Max had 16 lines of dialogue. In Fury Road he has 52. So over 3 times more dialogue.
Max is not the main character in the stories he appears in past the first film. He is a wanderer, a legend, who travels from place to place, entering and leaving other peoples stories.
You could take Max out of Fury road and the difference would hardly effect the story. Furiosa would just have to work a little harder and maybe have an inside warboy to work with to replace Max in a few scenes. They could have just called it Fury road in that case and we'd have been fine with that, it might have been even more entertaining.
If you take Max out they all die trying to cross the salt and Joe remains in charge.
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: How many well-received Movie reboots or remakes have there been in the last two decades? Fury Road is the only one I can think of.
Nolans Batman films - I really really really dislike them but very highly regarded by most people
Mission Impossible films - what Bond films used to be
Daniel Craig Bond films - again some people like the new version
True Grit - so very different to the old one but both good
Battlestar G is and was very well received - I really enjoyed it
Sabrina The Teenage Witch
Nikita - The Maggie Q one for me
The new Lost in Space - very much a Family show - no guns etc.
Most of the Super hero movies in the last ten years!
There are alot
I AM A MARINE PLAYER
"Unimaginably ancient xenos artefact somewhere on the planet, hive fleet poised above our heads, hidden 'stealer broods making an early start....and now a bloody Chaos cult crawling out of the woodwork just in case we were bored. Welcome to my world, Ciaphas."
Inquisitor Amberley Vail, Ordo Xenos
"I will admit that some Primachs like Russ or Horus could have a chance against an unarmed 12 year old novice but, a full Battle Sister??!! One to one? In close combat? Perhaps three Primarchs fighting together... but just one Primarch?" da001
warhead01 wrote: She hates that he was basically little more than a side kick in a movie with his name on it.
So... just like every Mad Max film but the first.
I mean, in The Road Warrior Max had 16 lines of dialogue. In Fury Road he has 52. So over 3 times more dialogue.
Max is not the main character in the stories he appears in past the first film. He is a wanderer, a legend, who travels from place to place, entering and leaving other peoples stories.
You could take Max out of Fury road and the difference would hardly effect the story. Furiosa would just have to work a little harder and maybe have an inside warboy to work with to replace Max in a few scenes. They could have just called it Fury road in that case and we'd have been fine with that, it might have been even more entertaining.
If you take Max out they all die trying to cross the salt and Joe remains in charge.
I'd have payed to watch that. I liked Joe. Snappy dresser, cool truck.
Seems to have his life together aside from some family issues. A sitcom in the making.
Also, it almost sounds like you think those strong and empowered ladies from the wasteland need a man to save them...
If only we could get rid of that stupid guitar guy on the truck as well. A step in the right direction.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/05/15 21:23:30
The rewards of tolerance are treachery and betrayal.
Remember kids, Games Workshop needs you more than you need them.
It works for Fury Road, as MM Beyond Thunderdome was released 34-35 years ago (1985, didnt really look for month/day). . . . the 2009 Trek movie was the first featuring the Kirk era crew since the 80s as well.
The difference between both of these is kind of huge. . . In Fury Road, we have "another" Max film. . . It's simply another movie with the Road Warrior showing up.. . . It isn't resetting the franchise, giving us a new origin story or anything like that. It is simply continuing the legend of Max. Trek however, gave us a new "origin story" for the maiden flight of THAT particular crew on the Enterprise.
For me, the term reboot is odd because it is such a vague term. . .It can mean simply that there was a very long hiatus between films within a larger franchise, or it can mean a total reset and restart of a story (we see this with the Bale Bat-flicks) complete with origins/background type cinema.
'Reboot' would apply when the new movie is intended to stand completely separate from what came before. Fury Road isn't a reboot, just a different actor. Likewise, JJ Trek isn't technically a reboot, since it doesn't discard the previous material, just establishes a new continuity alongside it.
I kinda though Fury road ft in between road warrior and Thunderdome chronologically.
I really did like Joe and his war boys and the idea that there were 3 little kingdoms in a sort of ecosystem to each other. I would have loved to seen more about how they managed to even build those kingdoms from the wasteland.
I saw they are working on another Mad Max/fury road movie but it seems to have hit a snag. No idea what it's about yet.
The rewards of tolerance are treachery and betrayal.
Remember kids, Games Workshop needs you more than you need them.
The only bits about Fury Road which are somewhat odd are:
1) The few flashbacks of a young girl we see which, far as I recall, never get explained in the film (his child from the first film was a son).
2) The fact that he's not got his squeaky metal leg brace(I think).
Overall after the first film the story is very light on specific details. We know that the world went to bits even before the second film (in the first there are already echos of trouble as there's already road-gangs) and that after the second film its all a nuclear wasteland.
After that we don't really have any other specifics - no idea where in the world he really is; how far he's travelled; how the worlds geography has changed. We don't even have any date nor time references and his adventures are each only a few days long. Short snippet adventures rather than spanning months or years. So each adventure is a short window into his life roaming the wasteland.
About the only major story points are that we know the people who escape in the third film make it to a large city and become "The Great Northern Tribe" (If I recall right).
Fury Road works great as a sequel that reboots the series into life because it doesn't try to ret-con anything that came before. It also doesn't really change Max in vast ways either; he's still very much an enigma who fights to stay alive but who is also willing to sacrifice and fight for others in need.
It's an ideal way to restart a franchise setting because by not challenging the original material it acts as a nice bridge between the old and the new. It gives writers room to then start to change things and because we've already accepted the lead into this new series of films we are more likely to accept evolution of the character and setting.
warhead01 wrote: I kinda though Fury road ft in between road warrior and Thunderdome chronologically.
That was suggested initially before people had seen the movie, but the timing doesn't work out. While the exact timeline is somewhat iffy, the chronologies I've come across put it after Thunderdome.
warhead01 wrote: I kinda though Fury road ft in between road warrior and Thunderdome chronologically.
I really did like Joe and his war boys and the idea that there were 3 little kingdoms in a sort of ecosystem to each other. I would have loved to seen more about how they managed to even build those kingdoms from the wasteland.
I saw they are working on another Mad Max/fury road movie but it seems to have hit a snag. No idea what it's about yet.
There is a canon prequel comic that shows the beginning of the little society. Much like all things that exist only to explain how a cool thing got to be in a cool place and never explained in a good movie, it sucks absolute ass and is precisely as boring as every one of these little "fan theories" would be when you actually play them out as a story.
The funniest part of it is the climax, where a bunch of these disaffected military guys try to grapple into a base guarded by scientists, and all but Joe get shot. The next morning they wake up and get ready to leave, but joe appears at the top of the facility having killed all the scientists, and they all start chanting "Immortal Joe" and the actual MADLAD comic book author had them start to chant "Immortan" IN THE MIDDLE OF THE GOD DAMN CHANT.
That linguistic shift happened INSTANTLY. it wasn't the result of multiple generations of uneducated cancer-ridden warboys repeating a word rather than understanding it, they just start spontaneously chanting that after saying "Immortal" like 3 times. Because otherwise, it wouldn't have happened on screen in the prequel, and people would have said
"Gwarsh, so now we know why he's called Immortal Joe, but how does he become Immortan Joe? What's the story there? We should have a presequel to find out!"
Automatically Appended Next Post:
insaniak wrote: 'Reboot' would apply when the new movie is intended to stand completely separate from what came before. Fury Road isn't a reboot, just a different actor. Likewise, JJ Trek isn't technically a reboot, since it doesn't discard the previous material, just establishes a new continuity alongside it.
My working definition of Reboot/Remake would be
"Any newly released film that is not a direct sequel to an existing property but which traces all to a significant fraction of its marketability to people recognizing the source material from previously existing motion picture media."
Often, a very small amount of time and energy in a reboot is taken to establish it in relation to an existing film or series. The BSG remake is, technically, a sequel - they reference a previous conflict with the cylons a couple times in the first few episodes. And the star trek reboot is "an alternate timeline" which gets mentioned a couple of times in the first two films. The James Bond films, when they change out the actors, would definitely in my opinion be remakes/reboots, even if there is a flimsy and very subtextual continuity whereby we are all expected to believe that various character names are codenames that change hands and just happen to be given to shockingly similar individuals within the same organization each time.
The distinguishing element between a reboot and a sequel is how much the plot events within the previous film actually affect the sequel. Harrison Ford as Decker and the actions he took within the original Blade Runner are fairly important to the events of the new film. But in Spider Man: Into the Spider-Verse, the events of the Sam Raimi films are EXTREMELY briefly mentioned in a single flashback of a version of Spider-man who almost instantly gets killed by a villain who did not appear in the Raimi movies. Technically it's a sequel, but it's more accurate to call it a reboot or remake.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/05/18 17:21:53
"Got you, Yugi! Your Rubric Marines can't fall back because I have declared the tertiary kaptaris ka'tah stance two, after the secondary dacatarai ka'tah last turn!"
"So you think, Kaiba! I declared my Thousand Sons the cult of Duplicity, which means all my psykers have access to the Sorcerous Facade power! Furthermore I will spend 8 Cabal Points to invoke Cabbalistic Focus, causing the rubrics to appear behind your custodes! The Vengeance for the Wronged and Sorcerous Fullisade stratagems along with the Malefic Maelstrom infernal pact evoked earlier in the command phase allows me to double their firepower, letting me wound on 2s and 3s!"
"you think it is you who has gotten me, yugi, but it is I who have gotten you! I declare the ever-vigilant stratagem to attack your rubrics with my custodes' ranged weapons, which with the new codex are now DAMAGE 2!!"
"...which leads you straight into my trap, Kaiba, you see I now declare the stratagem Implacable Automata, reducing all damage from your attacks by 1 and triggering my All is Dust special rule!"
the_scotsman wrote: The James Bond films, when they change out the actors, would definitely in my opinion be remakes/reboots, even if there is a flimsy and very subtextual continuity whereby we are all expected to believe that various character names are codenames that change hands and just happen to be given to shockingly similar individuals within the same organization each time.
I would argue that we didnt have a single "reboot" in the Bond franchise until Casino Royale as it was probably the the first to have "recycled" material in terms of baddies and plot-points. . . They've generally all been what the SW universe is trying to do with R1 and Solo in that they are all stories of things that Bond has done, but they are not necessarily "sequels" (at least not when viewed as a whole, I'd argue that each actor has his own sequels until the next Bond actor takes the helm)
the_scotsman wrote: The James Bond films, when they change out the actors, would definitely in my opinion be remakes/reboots, even if there is a flimsy and very subtextual continuity whereby we are all expected to believe that various character names are codenames that change hands and just happen to be given to shockingly similar individuals within the same organization each time.
I would argue that we didnt have a single "reboot" in the Bond franchise until Casino Royale as it was probably the the first to have "recycled" material in terms of baddies and plot-points. . . They've generally all been what the SW universe is trying to do with R1 and Solo in that they are all stories of things that Bond has done, but they are not necessarily "sequels" (at least not when viewed as a whole, I'd argue that each actor has his own sequels until the next Bond actor takes the helm)
It's kind of splitting hairs, to be honest. Characters have come and gone, certain characters have stayed through a reshuffle (Judy Dench was still M for the previous Bond actor, for example) but the new films are definitely not the first time a plot point has been
"Remember Q? Gadgets!"
"Remember M?"
"Remember james bond fight on train?"
"Remember bond car?"
it just put its own sort of unique branding spin on it vis a vis the mid 2000s Gritty Realism craze.
Which I think I've actually lost some of my tolerance for. I recently watched a bunch of bond films, and barely got through Casino Royale and just flat out gave up on Solace. The campy bond films at least knew that their portrayal of technology would be laughable in a few years, so they kind of laughed with the viewer and kept it pretty silly, and it made them memorable. Casino royale might need a few years before I can get the nostalgia on and not be annoyed by old, stale, but not quite old and stale enough that they're funny in retrospect action movie tropes.
I'm sure one day I'll be laughing as riotously at the Bottomless Chair scene as I did during the weird vietnam movie inspired torture montage set to Madonna from Die Another Day, but it sure wasn't true now.
"Got you, Yugi! Your Rubric Marines can't fall back because I have declared the tertiary kaptaris ka'tah stance two, after the secondary dacatarai ka'tah last turn!"
"So you think, Kaiba! I declared my Thousand Sons the cult of Duplicity, which means all my psykers have access to the Sorcerous Facade power! Furthermore I will spend 8 Cabal Points to invoke Cabbalistic Focus, causing the rubrics to appear behind your custodes! The Vengeance for the Wronged and Sorcerous Fullisade stratagems along with the Malefic Maelstrom infernal pact evoked earlier in the command phase allows me to double their firepower, letting me wound on 2s and 3s!"
"you think it is you who has gotten me, yugi, but it is I who have gotten you! I declare the ever-vigilant stratagem to attack your rubrics with my custodes' ranged weapons, which with the new codex are now DAMAGE 2!!"
"...which leads you straight into my trap, Kaiba, you see I now declare the stratagem Implacable Automata, reducing all damage from your attacks by 1 and triggering my All is Dust special rule!"
Voss wrote: As Superman, Cavill looks bored out of his mind and completely uninterested in anything going on around him.
I feel like that's largely down to the directorial decision to make him moody and emo. When he gets to actually act, he sells it - the final scene with Zod,for example, was just an awesome, powerful, emotional moment. I dislike Superman with a passion as a character, and hate his presence in the Justice League, but I'm still sorry that Cavill didn't get to play him properly, because he seems a perfect fit for the role.
I've circled around on Man of Steel. Yeah, Justice League is still garbo, but there are some genuinely great moments in Man of Steel - I especially love the Russell Crowe speech about how he can save them, he can save all of them.
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
Voss wrote: As Superman, Cavill looks bored out of his mind and completely uninterested in anything going on around him.
I feel like that's largely down to the directorial decision to make him moody and emo. When he gets to actually act, he sells it - the final scene with Zod,for example, was just an awesome, powerful, emotional moment. I dislike Superman with a passion as a character, and hate his presence in the Justice League, but I'm still sorry that Cavill didn't get to play him properly, because he seems a perfect fit for the role.
I've circled around on Man of Steel. Yeah, Justice League is still garbo, but there are some genuinely great moments in Man of Steel - I especially love the Russell Crowe speech about how he can save them, he can save all of them.
I was on an airplane back from France at one point with 12 hours to kill, so I started searching through the movies they had on to see if I could find some that would be funny to watch in a french dub, and justice league did not disappoint for that purpose.
There is nothing like seeing henry cavill turn to camera and
"hon hon monseiur le sup sont comme un petit chou-fleur oui oui!" *disconcerting CGI mustache-flesh wobble*
"Got you, Yugi! Your Rubric Marines can't fall back because I have declared the tertiary kaptaris ka'tah stance two, after the secondary dacatarai ka'tah last turn!"
"So you think, Kaiba! I declared my Thousand Sons the cult of Duplicity, which means all my psykers have access to the Sorcerous Facade power! Furthermore I will spend 8 Cabal Points to invoke Cabbalistic Focus, causing the rubrics to appear behind your custodes! The Vengeance for the Wronged and Sorcerous Fullisade stratagems along with the Malefic Maelstrom infernal pact evoked earlier in the command phase allows me to double their firepower, letting me wound on 2s and 3s!"
"you think it is you who has gotten me, yugi, but it is I who have gotten you! I declare the ever-vigilant stratagem to attack your rubrics with my custodes' ranged weapons, which with the new codex are now DAMAGE 2!!"
"...which leads you straight into my trap, Kaiba, you see I now declare the stratagem Implacable Automata, reducing all damage from your attacks by 1 and triggering my All is Dust special rule!"
Voss wrote: As Superman, Cavill looks bored out of his mind and completely uninterested in anything going on around him.
I feel like that's largely down to the directorial decision to make him moody and emo. When he gets to actually act, he sells it - the final scene with Zod,for example, was just an awesome, powerful, emotional moment. I dislike Superman with a passion as a character, and hate his presence in the Justice League, but I'm still sorry that Cavill didn't get to play him properly, because he seems a perfect fit for the role.
I've circled around on Man of Steel. Yeah, Justice League is still garbo, but there are some genuinely great moments in Man of Steel - I especially love the Russell Crowe speech about how he can save them, he can save all of them.
I was on an airplane back from France at one point with 12 hours to kill, so I started searching through the movies they had on to see if I could find some that would be funny to watch in a french dub, and justice league did not disappoint for that purpose.
There is nothing like seeing henry cavill turn to camera and
"hon hon monseiur le sup sont comme un petit chou-fleur oui oui!" *disconcerting CGI mustache-flesh wobble*
Next time try Polish, where some films are dubbed by one person who just talks over the film
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/05/19 11:19:29
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
Ghost in the Shell got flak for having a A list white actress as the main character. but I had no isue with it in the same way as happy to see Samuel J as Nick Fury - both got the charcter right.
To get really technical, neither of those would be examples of 'white/blackwashing' in movies: -Johansson's character in Ghost in the Shell remake was still Asian, she just had been transferred to robot body designed to look like generic Caucasian woman. (Personally I didn't like her there - she had no chemistry with anyone). -MCU Nick Fury is based on Ultimate Marvel Nick Fury, who is essentially different character with same name, like many other Ultimate universe characters. It's actually very faithful adaptation of comic character (because Ultimate Nick Fury was based on Samuel Jackson...), just not original comic 616-Fury.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/05/19 13:42:29
Voss wrote: As Superman, Cavill looks bored out of his mind and completely uninterested in anything going on around him.
I feel like that's largely down to the directorial decision to make him moody and emo. When he gets to actually act, he sells it - the final scene with Zod,for example, was just an awesome, powerful, emotional moment. I dislike Superman with a passion as a character, and hate his presence in the Justice League, but I'm still sorry that Cavill didn't get to play him properly, because he seems a perfect fit for the role.
I've circled around on Man of Steel. Yeah, Justice League is still garbo, but there are some genuinely great moments in Man of Steel - I especially love the Russell Crowe speech about how he can save them, he can save all of them.
I was on an airplane back from France at one point with 12 hours to kill, so I started searching through the movies they had on to see if I could find some that would be funny to watch in a french dub, and justice league did not disappoint for that purpose.
There is nothing like seeing henry cavill turn to camera and
"hon hon monseiur le sup sont comme un petit chou-fleur oui oui!" *disconcerting CGI mustache-flesh wobble*
Next time try Polish, where some films are dubbed by one person who just talks over the film
I always wanted to see fight club dubbed into German with English subs, but from the German. Don't know why just thought it would be cool. I always get a kick out of anime when it's in English with English subs but the text doesn't fit the spoken. Most amusing.
The rewards of tolerance are treachery and betrayal.
Remember kids, Games Workshop needs you more than you need them.
Ghost in the Shell got flak for having a A list white actress as the main character. but I had no isue with it in the same way as happy to see Samuel J as Nick Fury - both got the charcter right.
To get really technical, neither of those would be examples of 'white/blackwashing' in movies: -Johansson's character in Ghost in the Shell remake was still Asian, she just had been transferred to robot body designed to look like generic Caucasian woman. (Personally I didn't like her there - she had no chemistry with anyone). -MCU Nick Fury is based on Ultimate Marvel Nick Fury, who is essentially different character with same name, like many other Ultimate universe characters. It's actually very faithful adaptation of comic character (because Ultimate Nick Fury was based on Samuel Jackson...), just not original comic 616-Fury.
Nah, the Ghost In The Shell example is still whitewashing. Just because you try to justify your whitewashing in the narrative doesn't mean you aren't still whitewashing.
Also, one is removing a role from an underrepresented group and the other is not.
And really, the first phase of the Marvel cinematic universe had more than enough white dudes, so a bit of variety in there was good if just for the colour palette of the films
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/05/19 16:45:51
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
Voss wrote: As Superman, Cavill looks bored out of his mind and completely uninterested in anything going on around him.
I feel like that's largely down to the directorial decision to make him moody and emo. When he gets to actually act, he sells it - the final scene with Zod,for example, was just an awesome, powerful, emotional moment. I dislike Superman with a passion as a character, and hate his presence in the Justice League, but I'm still sorry that Cavill didn't get to play him properly, because he seems a perfect fit for the role.
I've circled around on Man of Steel. Yeah, Justice League is still garbo, but there are some genuinely great moments in Man of Steel - I especially love the Russell Crowe speech about how he can save them, he can save all of them.
I was on an airplane back from France at one point with 12 hours to kill, so I started searching through the movies they had on to see if I could find some that would be funny to watch in a french dub, and justice league did not disappoint for that purpose.
There is nothing like seeing henry cavill turn to camera and
"hon hon monseiur le sup sont comme un petit chou-fleur oui oui!" *disconcerting CGI mustache-flesh wobble*
I stuffed that into google translate and got '<garbled> (possibly superman) is like a little cauliflower, yes, yes'
What's the context for that line?
Heresy World Eaters/Emperors Children 
