|
Race Realists posted:the ultimate comic line is for tryhard hipters who bitch about superhero comics not being "realistic" enough Ultimates 1 and 2 were fantastic as well. Reed being evil and almost becoming Ultimates universe Doom was a great idea just executed poorly
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 06:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 13:20 |
|
|
Dexo posted:Ultimates 1 and 2 were fantastic as well. The miniseries were it occurred and also Ultimates by Hickman was.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 07:11
|
|
|
Having barely read any Ultimate titles, all this sounds like Heroes Reborn to me. And Heroes Reborn was the best for giving us that one Rob Liefeld Captain America cover.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 07:56
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:Why would recognizing that make the films good? Is the film bad because Dr. Doom isn't right? Is that why people dislike the film? If the original source material is good, and the bad movies keep being bad without even bothering to attempt to adapt what made the original source material good, it stands to reason that if they gave the good source material a shot that they might end up with a good movie. I can't believe I have to explain this, or that it's somehow a controversial opinion???  And yes, a common complaint I've seen is that part of why people dislike the movie (and the Jessica Alba ones) because of how Doom and Galactus were handled.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 08:31
|
|
|
Heh...ImpAtom's simply chosen that particular hill to die on and probably won't ever budge on it. The mere notion that there might possibly be some inherent value in any source material, something that might detract from the quality of the work if you remove it from any adaptations, is pretty much anathema to him for some reason. In this case he's suggesting that the reason this movie sucks has more to do with their lovely writing and directing than with their interpretation of Doom; in other words, who's to say that their lovely writing or direction would be any better even if they had depicted a completely comics-accurate Doom? And it's a reasonable point. But it overlooks the possibility that this interpretation of Doom might actually be the result of their bad writing and direction...in other words, that writing Doom as this sort of character might in and of itself be bad writing. What did this interpretation of Doom contribute to the film, after all? As far as I'm aware, his role as an antagonist encompassed some of the weakest and most slapdash portions of the already-weak adaptation. We could say "Oh but that all has to do with ~the writing~ and not the changes they made to Doom," but weren't the changes they made to Doom a principal facet of the writing and storytelling? At what point do we separate one from the other? Well, I haven't seen the film, so maybe I can't answer that either.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 09:42
|
|
|
That was a good post. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 10:14
|
|
|
BrianWilly posted:Heh...ImpAtom's simply chosen that particular hill to die on and probably won't ever budge on it. The mere notion that there might possibly be some inherent value in any source material, something that might detract from the quality of the work if you remove it from any adaptations, is pretty much anathema to him for some reason. When fans of the FF comics are saying that there's certain things in the comics (be it style and tone choices, character traits, etc) that made the original comics enjoyable to a wide audience, and then the movies abandon those things and end up being bad, it's pretty clear that there's a correlation. The Incredibles is proof that this is true, and it's not even an FF movie.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 11:20
|
|
|
The Incredibles was the best FF movie.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 13:08
|
|
|
The best FF movie was the play that Tobias Fünke staged in the fourth season of Arrested Development
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 13:10
|
|
|
Hakkesshu posted:The best FF movie was the play that Tobias Fünke staged in the fourth season of Arrested Development Unironically agree.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 13:13
|
|
|
The rumour mill about canning the already-dated FF sequel is firing up already... http://www.dailysuperhero.com/2015/08/rumor-fox-may-already-be-considering.html
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 17:55
|
|
|
Lurdiak posted:Wow, that's the wrongest I've seen anyone be this week.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 18:15
|
|
|
Why would they try to make it at this point?
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 18:15
|
|
|
Halloween Jack posted:Did they ever go back and try to come up with a retcon explanation for why Ultron designed a killer robot minion with red skin and a yellow Dracula cape? Vision made his own cape because he saw Thor wearing one
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 18:17
|
|
Halloween Jack posted:Did they ever go back and try to come up with a retcon explanation for why Ultron designed a killer robot minion with red skin and a yellow Dracula cape? He designed him as a superhero looking guy to infiltrate the Avengers. As I said, the red face is his idea of a joke, since he was made with parts (or based on the design, they keep changing their mind) of the original Human Torch. Get it!??!?!?!
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 18:17
|
|
|
Halloween Jack posted:Did they ever go back and try to come up with a retcon explanation for why Ultron designed a killer robot minion with red skin and a yellow Dracula cape? NO EARTH-SUPERHEROES THIS IS A HUMAN SUPERHERO, SEE, BRIGHT COLORS *BEEP*
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 18:19
|
|
I found the page I was talking about. What a jokester.
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 18:22
|
|
|
Lurdiak posted:I found the page I was talking about. What a jokester. Comics are so dumb.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 18:32
|
|
|
Xenomrph posted:That's exactly my point. Sure, the movie could have been faithful to the source material and still been poo poo, but deviating wildly certainly didn't do it any favors. I agree with this. I haven't seen the movie (and won't) but I did read the spoiler review. If you kept everything else the same, but made Doom more comic book accurate in attitude and appearance (He gets attacked by the green lava, scarring his face; he's left behind by Reed and the others; he manages to use his science magic and the unearthly metals of the other, ill-defined dimension to forge his suit of armor; he comes back because evil government mounts a rescue mission and he wants revenge against Reed) the rest of the movie would still suck. It's more comic accurate, but it doesn't save the rest of the movie from itself. Sue still doesn't get to go to the other dimension, so her getting powers is shoehorned in. Thing still gets 43 deaths under his belt (and those are not specified as enemy combatants, strangely enough). Thing is abused by his older brother and that's where he gets his battle cry from (And seriously? That is super hosed up. Like wow, that is not healthy. That's creepy.) Reed abandons his friends, not to go get help of formulate some plan to get everyone out, but just to save his own rear end. You know what just dawned on me as I was typing this? They are using the classic Superhero crossover Team-Up formula on a group that only works as a team. Look at The Avengers (and presumably BvS). The heroes meet up, they fight because of a misunderstanding or mistrust, and then they band together against a big bad. It's been done in comics for years. It's how you get your good guys who don't run together to work together despite their differences. It's probably etched into stone in the writers room at the big 2. Batman and Spawn, Superman and Spider-man, JLA/Avengers, it all goes down the same way. But the FF is a group already. Two of them are related, two are together romantically and two are best friends.They are the first family of comics. They have a dynamic that starts well before everyone gets powers. Sure, they have infighting and squabbles and people leave or die off from time to time, but they are always a group. What they've done here is forced everyone who is normally together, apart at the beginning. So they don't have that "family" thing going on so much. It's subtle, but it's kind of reinforced with the adopted sister bit. (Not that being adopted makes you any less family, but it does tend to draw a box around the individual characters. It's just one more thing to add to the pile). So without that dynamic, they are just 4 people, 3 of which are pissed at the 1, who all have powers and are forced to live and work together. That's not a family. That's the Suicide Squad.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 18:33
|
|
|
teagone posted:Comics are so dumb. If you don't enjoy that Editor's Note, I don't know what to tell ya.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 18:49
|
|
|
"It's clobbering time" actually only works as something a dumb older brother or other billy figure would use.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 18:55
|
|
|
Xenomrph posted:Quite possibly, yes? Why would you think this? A film isn't just a thing that you press a button and it comes out. Even if you're adapting existing source material you still have someone writing and directing and acting in it. Why do you think they would suddenly make something 'good' from accurate source material if they couldn't from inaccurate source material? BrianWilly posted:Heh...ImpAtom's simply chosen that particular hill to die on and probably won't ever budge on it. The mere notion that there might possibly be some inherent value in any source material, something that might detract from the quality of the work if you remove it from any adaptations, is pretty much anathema to him for some reason. Because there isn't? At all. Blade Runner is not bad because it isn't an accurate version of Do Androids Dream. The idea that the inherent source material is ~better~ is entirely a result of being upset that something is changing. There is no reason something would be better for sticking to the source material inherently, nor is something worse for deviating from it. Xenomrph posted:When fans of the FF comics are saying that there's certain things in the comics (be it style and tone choices, character traits, etc) that made the original comics enjoyable to a wide audience, and then the movies abandon those things and end up being bad, it's pretty clear that there's a correlation. No there isn't. There is absolutely no correlation there. That is what you don't seem to get. Your argument is "They changed things and people didn't like it. Ergo the mistake was changing things." As opposed to the far more likely reason "People didn't like it because it was a poorly made film." If it had been a well-made film then it wouldn't matter if Dr. Doom was a dancing pink ferret as long as he was a well-presented dancing pink ferret. Likewise it wouldn't suddenly be a well-made film if Dr. Doom was perfectly comic accurate. ImpAtom fucked around with this message at 19:05 on Aug 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 18:57
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:No there isn't. There is absolutely no correlation there. That is what you don't seem to get. Your argument is "They changed things and people didn't like it. Ergo the mistake was changing things." As opposed to the far more likely reason "People didn't like it because it was a poorly made film." If it had been a well-made film then it wouldn't matter if Dr. Doom was a dancing pink ferret as long as he was a well-presented dancing pink ferret. Likewise it wouldn't suddenly be a well-made film if Dr. Doom was perfectly comic accurate. Okay, so this is the source of the disagreement. You fundamentally disagree that there's such a thing as a "good concept". In your world, execution is the only thing that matters, the end, and that has nothing to do with the underlying foundation upon which the story is built. Audiences will be equally receptive to every idea, and every type of story will resonate just as hard with every individual, regardless of their experiences. In your world, people would be totally open to a well-written, well-acted, well-shot, well-scored, generally well produced version of About a Boy where it's still a nice heartwarming tale, but they change it so Hugh Grant is having consensual sex with the 8 year old boy - because even though people might have emotional biases against that, the only logical reaction would be to judge the film based solely on its merits. Do I have your argument pretty much right?
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 19:13
|
|
|
XboxPants posted:Okay, so this is the source of the disagreement. You fundamentally disagree that there's such a thing as a "good concept". In your world, execution is the only thing that matters, the end, and that has nothing to do with the underlying foundation upon which the story is built. Audiences will be equally receptive to every idea, and every type of story will resonate just as hard with every individual, regardless of their experiences. No. You in fact do not understand it at all and rushed to throw out a poorly considered pedophile argument. You threw in a bunch of meaningless stuff at the end there. Yes, execution is in fact everything. That has absolutely nothing to do with what you tried to throw in there about how 'every type of story will resonate just as hard', nor does it have anything to do the second thing you tossed in at all which is utterly meaningless and just you trying to be a creep. This isn't really absurdly complex. Films are adaptations of exiting stories. Not only are they not obligated to be a perfect 1-for-1 adaptation of an existing story but they are often better off not being a 1-for-1 adaptation. Many of the best adaptations in the world bring their own take on the story. The Shining deviates wildly from King's book for example. Blade Runner has almost nothing in common with the original book. Batman Begins had several major deviations from the original source material. Guardians of the Galaxy's cast is only dimly recognizable at points. Changes are not inherently better. They are also not inherently worse. They just are. How those changes are handled is what determines if they are good or not. Keeping something just because it was in the original can be as dumb as changing it if you're not careful. The execution is what is determines if it is good or if it fails. No amount of comic-accurate Dr. Doom is going to matter in a 90-minute movie with terrible pacing because the core fundimental problem there isn't that Dr. Doom wasn't accurate enough. ImpAtom fucked around with this message at 19:28 on Aug 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 19:18
|
|
|
CapnAndy posted:Wasn't the original plan to infiltrate the Avengers with him? That'd explain why he went for a garish costume, to try and blend him in.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 19:23
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:'You threw in a bunch of meaningless stuff at the end there. Yes, execution is in fact everything. That has absolutely nothing to do with what you tried to throw in there about how 'every type of story will resonate just as hard' That does have something to do with it because different audiences have different life experiences and will sympathize with different stories, characters, and environments more easily. Stories that, as they say, "hit home". The point is that audiences might enjoy one movie over another one based solely on the concept, even if their level of craft & quality is equivalent.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 19:26
|
|
|
XboxPants posted:That does have something to do with it because different audiences have different life experiences and will sympathize with different stories, characters, and environments more easily. Stories that, as they say, "hit home". ... I really have no idea what your point is here. Yes, different audiences will enjoy different things. That isn't really meaningful to the conversation at all. "Audiences" are a wide term. The same people won't enjoy the same thing. If they'd gone full-on totally Body Horror and turned Fantastic Four into a horror movie like they waved their hands at, that would appeal to a different audience than those that want a lighthearted Incredibles-style adventure. Neither side is necessarily wrong. If you have two equally well-made films with different concepts then yes, they are going to appeal to different audiences. Also the sky is blue.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 19:34
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:... I really have no idea what your point is here. Yes, different audiences will enjoy different things. That isn't really meaningful to the conversation at all. "Audiences" are a wide term. The same people won't enjoy the same thing. If they'd gone full-on totally Body Horror and turned Fantastic Four into a horror movie like they waved their hands at, that would appeal to a different audience than those that want a lighthearted Incredibles-style adventure. Neither side is necessarily wrong. Okay, so then, the next step is to acknowledge that some of those audiences are bigger than other ones. "Good" concepts, then, are ones that appeal to large audiences rather than small ones. And that's why concept can matter as much, or even more than, execution. If you execute extremely well on a concept that only appeals to a small audience then, from a business sense, that's a less "valuable" work, an inferior piece, than a film that's slightly less well made, but has a much, much broader audience potential. Which wraps around to the point that people were making to begin with about the original comics. They have concepts that induce broad appeal, and removing those concepts - while not NECESSARILY negative - is essentially rolling the dice on something new instead of using something that's already field-tested. XboxPants fucked around with this message at 19:42 on Aug 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 19:40
|
|
|
XboxPants posted:Okay, so then, the next step is to acknowledge that some of those audiences are bigger than other ones. "Good" concepts, then, are ones that appeal to large audiences rather than small ones. Really. So films that appeal to smaller audiences are inherently worse? XboxPants posted:Which wraps around to the point that people were making to begin with about the original comics. They have concepts that induce broad appeal, and removing those concepts - while not NECESSARILY negative - is essentially rolling the dice on something new instead of using something that's already field-tested. No it hasn't, because comics are not films. Something that works in a comic doesn't inherently work in a film or have the same popular appeal. You can't consider it as having been 'tested' because it was popular multiple decades ago. (Especially these days since for comic writing "popular appeal" is referring to about 100,000 people on a good day.) ImpAtom fucked around with this message at 19:45 on Aug 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 19:42
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:Really. So films that appeal to smaller audiences are inherently worse? Not in every sense, but at the very least, a film that I don't enjoy has little value to me. ImpAtom posted:No it hasn't, because comics are not films. Something that works in a comic doesn't inherently work in a film or have the same popular appeal. You can't consider it as having been 'tested' because it was popular multiple decades ago. (Especially these days since for comic writing "popular appeal" is referring to about 100,000 people on a good day.) Those three things are all very fair points, but comic book testing is still better than nothing in my opinion - especially since the same things that worked for original F4 still held up incredibly well in The Incredibles, which was not multiple decades ago, not a comic, and not referring to only 100,000 people. XboxPants fucked around with this message at 19:47 on Aug 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 19:45
|
|
|
XboxPants posted:Not in every sense, but at the very least, a film that I don't enjoy has little value to me. If, for example, Fantastic Four had done a comic-accurate Dr. Doom and still done as badly as it did, would that mean Dr. Doom is now a bad concept? XboxPants posted:Those three things are all very fair points, but comic book testing is still better than nothing in my opinion - especially since the same things that worked for original F4 still held up incredibly well in The Incredibles, which was not multiple decades ago, not a comic, and not referring to only 100,000 people. But The Incredibles has very little in common with Fantastic Four beyond the concept of a superpowered family. If anything it is proving the point that execution matters more. If Dr. Doom had been cast as a young child who was rejected by Reed Richards and sought to get revenge by killing the world's superheroes and eventually replacing them with technology, would that have been an acceptable change to Dr. Doom? If they recast Reed Richards as an older retired superhero whose power is super strength and who is presented as of normal intelligence would that be an acceptable change to Mr. Fantastic? If not why not? You're already saying that The Incredibles was a good Fantastic Four film. ImpAtom fucked around with this message at 19:51 on Aug 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 19:48
|
|
ImpAtom posted:But The Incredibles has very little in common with Fantastic Four beyond the concept of a superpowered family. People have started saying this recently, and I have no idea what the hell they're smoking. A team of superheroes who are also a family, wear goofy matching stripped down uniforms, they fight the mole man, one of them is really strong, one turns invisible, one has stretching powers, and the point of the adventure is that family is important. The only parts of that movie that aren't directly lifted from the FF are the parts that are directly lifted from Watchmen.
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 19:52
|
|
|
Does nobody remember that the retirement angle was like 3/4 of The Incredibles?
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 19:53
|
|
|
Lurdiak posted:People have started saying this recently, and I have no idea what the hell they're smoking. A team of superheroes who are also a family, wear goofy matching stripped down uniforms, they fight the mole man, one of them is really strong, one turns invisible, one has stretching powers, and the point of the adventure is that family is important. But in the Incredibles the dad is strong not stretchy. They are clearly completely different!
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 19:53
|
|
Aphrodite posted:Does nobody remember that the retirement angle was like 3/4 of The Incredibles? Like Watchmen? Senor Candle posted:But in the Incredibles the dad is strong not stretchy. They are clearly completely different! Oh right, my bad. Totally different stuff.
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 19:53
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:If, for example, Fantastic Four had done a comic-accurate Dr. Doom and still done as badly as it did, would that mean Dr. Doom is now a bad concept? No, a concept is "bad" if people don't enjoy it even when it's well executed. I suppose (to start another argument) Man of Steel might be a good example of this. I like the movie, many others do, many people would say it's technically quite well made, but a lot of people dislike it anyway because they didn't like the "feel" or "tone" of the movie.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 19:53
|
|
|
XboxPants posted:No, a concept is "bad" if people don't enjoy it even when it's well executed. No please don't. Don't do this.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 19:54
|
|
|
Lurdiak posted:People have started saying this recently, and I have no idea what the hell they're smoking. A team of superheroes who are also a family, wear goofy matching stripped down uniforms, they fight the mole man, one of them is really strong, one turns invisible, one has stretching powers, and the point of the adventure is that family is important. Because they're not. Reed Richards and Mr. Incredible have almost nothing in common. Elastiwoman and Sue Storm are slightly closer in the roles they fill. Violet and Dash have absolutely nothing in common character-wise with Johnny and Ben. They have similar powers (except with fire replaced with super speed) but not similar characters.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 19:55
|
|
|
XboxPants posted:I suppose (to start another argument) Man of Steel might be a good example of this. I like the movie, many others do, many people would say it's technically quite well made, but a lot of people dislike it anyway because they didn't like the "feel" or "tone" of the movie. Hey now, watch yourself, you're about to merge one bad argument with another even worse argument here and the results will likely be disastrous.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 19:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 13:20 |
|
|
I forgot that both families have an overpowered superbaby, too.
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2015 19:56
|
|