Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
Freaking Crumbum
Apr 17, 2003

Too fuck to drunk




redneck nazgul posted:

end achewood after philippe comes back from his mom's, delete everything after that, there's nothing good there

:hai:

also achewood is patriarchal as hell; the only significantly developed woman is Molly and she's just a prop for Roast Beef - rarely if ever does she get an appearance where she isn't either interacting with him directly or else referencing him. at least it was honest about being "a low comic of dudes"

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Freaking Crumbum
Apr 17, 2003

Too fuck to drunk




i just can't accept jim as a hardass action hero. i know he's ripped to poo poo and too swole to control now, but i still can't not see him as goofy skinny jim in my mind.

Freaking Crumbum
Apr 17, 2003

Too fuck to drunk




so as a point of comparison, i happened to see the original rocky last week (which i hadn't watched in some years) and the scene where he goes on a date with adriene and coerces her into his apartment and forces himself onto her was massively uncomfortable to watch. it's definitely not something that should have been glorified when it was new, but obviously social norms were different and it was more socially acceptable to be a creepy predator towards women back then.

is 30 rock bad like that, where there's genuinely objectionable stuff in it that shouldn't have been cool even when it was new, or is it more cringeworthy retrospection where knowing what we know now about the world, the show wasn't half as clever and subversive as it appeared to be? i feel like 30 rock and parks & rec are both the same kind of vapid obama-era liberal fantasy world, but if there's really lovely stuff in there that everybody just ignored before that could certainly change my opinion on it.

Freaking Crumbum
Apr 17, 2003

Too fuck to drunk




Echo Chamber posted:

Alec Baldwin's character is basically "an rear end in a top hat, but our charismatic, corporate rear end in a top hat" for the whole show, right?

not only that, he is genuinely involved in tina fey's character's career, attempts to provide her with good advice and guidance, never makes sexual advances towards her, treats her more-or-less as an equal

it's sad that his character is a complete fiction, because he's written as the ideal way a manager should treat a subordinate

Freaking Crumbum
Apr 17, 2003

Too fuck to drunk




get that OUT of my face posted:

should i bother watching Stranger Things if i have no real attachment to '80s nostalgia?

season 1 is legit good for being a tv serial horror show

season 2 was bad because it really felt like they were completely unprepared to make another season. like they didn't think the first season would take off, so they didn't have any prep work done for season 2, and then when season 1 took off they had to scramble to come up with content. several of the plot beats are just straight rehashes from season 1, the entirety of episode 7 is completely divorces one character from the rest of the established cast and has them run around with a bunch of people that we won't ever meet again, only to end by dumping them right back in town with everyone else. it also introduces a few new characters but seems to struggle with figuring out how they want to use them

season 3 was bad because it felt like they got completely away from being a serial horror show. or at least the tone changed, where season 1 was like actually scary and tense and the protagonists were always fighting the unknown on their back foot, season 3 became more like buffy or the x-files where it's just a monster of the week show and the existential threat is provided by a completely implausible injection of SECRET RUSSIAN MILITARY BASES into a setting that really didn't need it

Freaking Crumbum
Apr 17, 2003

Too fuck to drunk




get that OUT of my face posted:

this seems to be a problem with a lot of shows these days. i watched all of Insecure with my then-gf. the end season 1 made me think whether the rest of it would be a laugh-out-loud show like the first half or a relationship drama like the second half. it went with neither, instead it became a boring as gently caress show where nothing of consequence happens. i guess Issa Rae didn't think it would get another season

same thing happened with true detective. the bromance between harrelson and mcconaughey and the way that the show introduced subtle supernatural themes in season 1 was like lightning in a bottle. season 2 and 3 were both wet farts imo, although season 3 is mainly guilty of just trying to re-tell the same story from season 1 but with different actors, whereas season 2 tried to cast vince vaughn as a badass action hero and that is maybe the most laughably awful casting decision i can think of in recent memory. i could not buy vaughn as a bareknuckle boxing gangster rear end kicker no matter how hard they tried to sell it

Freaking Crumbum
Apr 17, 2003

Too fuck to drunk




is there even a point to watching HBO's watchmen fan fiction after the boys on amazon turned out to be really good? because now i just want to watch more of the boys as filtered through eric kripke and i feel like the boys did such a decent job with "what if super heroes but evil" that the watchmen stuff is just going to be redundant.

Freaking Crumbum
Apr 17, 2003

Too fuck to drunk




StashAugustine posted:

The show was pretty good even if it did have a bit too much residual Ennis but I cannot imagine a watchmen tv show being good at all

OTOH they managed to take a source comic that would have been unwatchable in a 1:1 reproduction and managed to harvest enough of the themes and cool ideas without literally including cannibalism, necrophilia, etc.

the boys was ennis trying to out-ennis himself after preacher, and the fact that they were able to produce something watchable out of that is incredible

Freaking Crumbum
Apr 17, 2003

Too fuck to drunk




22 Eargesplitten posted:

For a character that really should be the dumbest most gross jingoistic thing ever they do a lot of stories of him going rogue against USA fashyness.

Guess it's because he was designed to be what people wanted to believe the USA was instead of what it is :v:

capt america played straight would be directing drone strikes onto civilian targets in afghanistan and torturing enemy pows on cia black sites and poo poo. it's pretty hilarious that the reality of what our military gets up to is so objectively awful that even comic book fantasy writers are like "uh, we straight up can't have our iconic good guy character doing these things". the real crimes our military inflicts on other countries is so cartoonishly evil that even the realm of comic books won't let a good guy in-fiction be a part of the same atrocities

also i haven't read a captain america comic since the end of the civil war run, but have they recreated his iconic punching hitler scene with him punching an alt-right pepe or are the writers aware enough of where their bread gets buttered that they won't cross that line

Freaking Crumbum
Apr 17, 2003

Too fuck to drunk




Percelus posted:

the third captain america movie fails to do much because it has such a dumb convoluted plot with the bad guys plan requiring very specific reactions from each of the avengers that would have been impossible to predict that basically you can ignore everything but the airport fight scene

the third movie was an excuse to allow the kids to mash all of their toys together in one big battle krrrsh pew pew SMASH boom! and everything else is the movie existed only to enable that moment.

Freaking Crumbum
Apr 17, 2003

Too fuck to drunk




Some Guy TT posted:

twins gently caress each other all the time in the 21st century

just gonna drop that there with no explanation huh?

is that like an actual, common thing outside niche fetlife communities? i've literally never heard anyone assert "it's 2019 heterozygous twins gently caress each other all the time now grandpa"

Freaking Crumbum
Apr 17, 2003

Too fuck to drunk




Bro Dad posted:

guess the writer

ta-nehisi coates

so wait, the villain is the blonde russian woman that wants to bring communism to the US? this is because she's also an agent of hydra or something, and not just because the prevalent narrative here is COMMUNISM = BAD right?

because if she's the villain for wanting to bring communism, i'm even more confused. i thought coates was regarded as a fairly progressive dude? just a neo-lib fuckboi like all of the other shitlib heroes?

Freaking Crumbum
Apr 17, 2003

Too fuck to drunk




Bro Dad posted:

shes a literal russian nazi-commie trying to interfere in american politics

OH NO COMMIE-NAZIS

wait wait i surrender!

TOO LITTLE TOO LATE

Freaking Crumbum
Apr 17, 2003

Too fuck to drunk




Bro Dad posted:

it is some prime succ lib

do boomers even buy comics in significant quantities any more? i can't believe they're a big enough demo that you'd have any financial benefit for continuing to parrot their gently caress-up fantasy beliefs and talking points in modern comics

Freaking Crumbum
Apr 17, 2003

Too fuck to drunk




Bro Dad posted:

im going to keep posting this and you cant stop me



"YOU MEAN 'BAD GUYS' ARE AN ARBITRARY DISTINCTION MADE BY THOSE IN POWER BASED SOLELY ON THEIR PROFIT MOTIVES?"

lmao cap had literally no problem opposing the registration act (which was a perfectly legal bill adopted by the government) and that served as the inflection point for the entire Civil War series. did the person writing this completely forget that? because they clearly chose to use "hey cap we just busted you out of jail" as their teachable moment, but i feel like "hey cap you started the loving superhero civil war based entirely on your personal morals, so maybe we shouldn't give two fucks how you feel about what we're about to do" is a much more compelling argument.

i also feel like it's significant that (at least on that page) it's three women trying to explain the relevant concepts to him; i wonder if that's a meta-commentary on cap's inherent sexism or just a happy coincidence

Freaking Crumbum
Apr 17, 2003

Too fuck to drunk




Pener Kropoopkin posted:

Hold on, Papi. Don't you mean three girl bosses?

is there a widely accepted term that's analogous to blaxploitation but for latinx people? because i feel like there should be

Freaking Crumbum
Apr 17, 2003

Too fuck to drunk




BENGHAZI 2 posted:

Here's the thing about civil war: cap was right

yeah, i was more referring to his dialogue in the very first panel of the posted image "but the law's the law! if we ignore laws that are inconvenient we're the real monsters!" and it's like steve, you literally ignored an inconvenient law and started a civil war that spiraled off into all kinds of awful new poo poo. when did you suddenly decide "THE LAW IS ABSOLUTE AND I WILL FOLLOW IT TO THE LETTER" was your MO? gently caress i know the civil war story is more than a decade old by now, but i would think that would still be a defining element of his character / backstory that contemporary writers would keep consistent

Freaking Crumbum
Apr 17, 2003

Too fuck to drunk





jesus god in heaven that's a poo poo-ton of internal monologuing going on here. there's got to be a more effective way for the writer to convey what he wants cap to say without piling up text boxes all over unrelated action scenes. give me three uninterrupted action shots and then "i really like beer" on the fourth any day of the week

Freaking Crumbum
Apr 17, 2003

Too fuck to drunk





love too hold my coffee cup by the handle with only my first two fingers, the way completely normal humans do

did they interrupt him at a starbucks drinking from a comically small espresso shooter or what

also based on the size of his hand relative to the size of his face, there's some implied foreshortening going on and he's holding his arm out almost fully extended. you know, the completely normal way you drink coffee

Freaking Crumbum
Apr 17, 2003

Too fuck to drunk




saw joker last night and the worst part for me was that it was called joker.

the batman related content within the film is so minor that you could change just two details (gotham > new york, thomas wayne > thomas smith) and not lose anything and i feel like it would have been a stronger film for it. hell you could still have phoenix be a clown-themed psycho and keep all of those elements and plot beats and it would still make sense in the context of the film if it wasn't titled "joker"

i feel like somebody wrote a completely serviceable love letter to falling down and then WB found it and paid them to make it about the iconic villain The Joker in the most tenuous way possible.

also if you read the leaked script from a few weeks back, it was nearly 100% dead-on accurate, so if you don't want to see the movie but for some reason still crave a plot synopsis, just google the leak

Freaking Crumbum
Apr 17, 2003

Too fuck to drunk




MasterSitsu posted:

It's functionally similar to Falling Down, except that Falling Down is an angry authoritarian who know what things should be, whereas Joker gradually moves from care bear to nihilist.



of those four films, i definitely enjoy nightcrawler the most. jake is the right mix of insane-below-the-surface and subjectively persuasive about his twisted views that he makes a great villain

drive really felt more like "what if roadhouse but swayze was a psychopathic murderer" to me when i watched it (years ago whenever it was released)

joker was honestly "meh". the batman elements were so minimal it feels disingenuous to call it a superhero movie. the biggest narrative inconsistency for me was when phoenix sticks his hands into kid-bruce's mouth and kid-bruce just stands there and lets it happen with no reaction. i don't know a child alive (especially a rich pampered child) that would just stand indifferently while a random stranger tries to stick their fingers in their mouth

Freaking Crumbum
Apr 17, 2003

Too fuck to drunk




Probably Magic posted:

Joker correctly diagnosing Bruce as on the spectrum is a good thing, as for as I'm concerned, since that's probably the only way good way to portray Batman going forward lest you just have people pretending he's a libertarian shithead instead.

most parents (whether they have money or not) teach their kids not to speak to strangers, not to get too close to strangers, not to take things from strangers, etc. parents that are inordinately wealthy definitely teach their kids that same poo poo, on top of the fact that they can pay staff to mind the kid 24/7 and ostensibly make sure nobody is harassing them. for kid-bruce to just slowly amble over to the fence and then allow phoenix to jam fingers in his mouth and only after that did alfred appear to halt the interaction is just incredibly dumb.

it's why the elements that related the plot to batman lore are the weakest parts for me. you could do the exact same plot minus the batman references and then the director wouldn't have felt pressure to answer some theoretical neckbeard complaining "but if it's THOMAS WAYNE then where's bruce this is bullshit"

also batman is an extremely anachronistic relic of the decade(s) in which he was conceived and he translates increasingly poorly as time moves forward and people become more sophisticated about concepts like wealth inequality and how that directly correlates with crime among people that become disenfranchised. IMO batman as a character shouldn't be presented in any media that is supposed to happen after the 1930s or so

Freaking Crumbum
Apr 17, 2003

Too fuck to drunk




get that OUT of my face posted:

reading Felix Biederman's review of Joker confirmed the thought i've been having for months about it: it's a profoundly OK movie that won't be remembered after Thanksgiving. you know, the same thing that happened with Wonder Woman and Ghostbusters 2016 before it

i'm partial to the idea that some amount of the online outrage over joker was intentionally manufactured / astroturfed to try and leverage the power of outrage porn to increase ticket sales of an otherwise mediocre and forgettable film


Farm Frenzy posted:

the gradual rising consciousness of how lovely all the nolan batman movies actually were makes me happy

the dark night was lightning in a bottle and both the origin movie and the bane one were underwhelming. it's funny because when they were being released, i was super not interested in the 2nd one after watching the first, but saw it and obviously enjoyed it, so then my hopes were higher for the third and that made it even more disappointing

Freaking Crumbum
Apr 17, 2003

Too fuck to drunk




Serf posted:

my opinion is that the movie has a pretty radical message because phillips is a huge moron. he wanted to play with the themes of anti-capitalism and revolution, but didn't do the typical hollywood thing of showing the revolutionaries doing bad stuff. given his comments about the far left i gotta assume this was pure incompetence

phoenix's dialogue with de niro at the end is basically laying out all of the subtext on the table and slapping the audience in the face with "HEY IN CASE YOU DIDN'T PICK UP ON ALL OF THE TERRIBLY NOT-SUBTLE CLUES IN THE MOVIE, HERE'S THE MAIN MESSAGE I'M TRYING TO CONVEY". if somehow that scene was included and philips thought it wasn't surfacing an eat-the-rich agenda, then the dude is astoundingly incompetent.

Freaking Crumbum
Apr 17, 2003

Too fuck to drunk




StashAugustine posted:

i think it's possible he was trying to do a sorta radlib thing about how if you treat the poor badly they'll do stupid things like start a revolution maybe? idk havent seen it

the thing is, the things the poor do isn't characterized as stupid by the film. it's presented in context as a totally normal and predictable response to the loss of social support structures and safety nets. the wealthy also aren't portrayed kindly or benevolently, they're shown to be completely detached autocrats that only care about the poor to the extent that they can leverage them to accomplish their own personal goals.

Freaking Crumbum
Apr 17, 2003

Too fuck to drunk




Serf posted:

and when one of them kills the waynes AGAIN you don't really feel bad because there was no attempt made to make them seem sympathetic

if anything, the inclusion of batman lore in this specific case undermines a more vicious "eat the rich" reading of the film

the mayor and his wife getting capped in an alley while their assailant screams "you get what's coming to you!" while the rest of the city is on fire, is a pretty obvious support for revolutionary violence

batman's mom and dad getting killed in the same circumstance transforms it into "welp, we know batman's parents have to die for him to become batman, so i guess this is just this movie's way of checking off that particular plot point"

Freaking Crumbum
Apr 17, 2003

Too fuck to drunk




Baudolino posted:

What`s next for the joker as a character? How much darker can you seriously go before he`s just another domestic terrorist gunning down children? That`s not very entertaining that`s just the evening news.

this was the worst joker because phoenix wasn't allowed to be the joker (except for like 3 minutes at the very end of the film). phoenix is "arthur fleck" for the majority of the run-time and it's another reason why it doesn't make sense to even act like it's telling a story about the same character as batman's nemesis

IMO the movie should have started right around the time he manages to defeat the two cops on the subway and then gone from there. let it open with him accomplishing complete anarchy in gotham and then explore what he does with it and let him have fun being a scenery chewing bad guy. phoenix has to play this psychologically damaged person that has been abused and mistreated his whole life, and hopefully that wins him an oscar or whatever, but it didn't look very fun to play and it sure as poo poo wasn't fun to watch.

also it's heavily implied that he kills one child right towards the end, so they're already crossed that bridge with this film.

edit: the thing i preferred about ledger's joker (even over nicholson's) was that they didn't even bother to give ledger a backstory. it doesn't matter for the joker to be an effective villain (and IMO giving him relatable, sympathetic motivations completely undermines what kind of villain he's supposed to represent). just let him be a deranged mad man with plans and ambitions that only kind of make sense to logical scrutiny and then turn him loose against the symbolic manifestation of fascist jackboots

Freaking Crumbum has issued a correction as of 22:18 on Oct 7, 2019

Freaking Crumbum
Apr 17, 2003

Too fuck to drunk




Atrocious Joe posted:

Batman was created in 1939, which was a time when socialist and communist movements were far stronger than they are today. I don't think blaming the time period of the character's creation is the reason the character sucks in a lot of stuff.

The 1970s O'Neil/Adams runs, 1980s Frank Miller run, and The Killing Joke probably cemented Batman being a monster. They combined a higher quality product with a "serious" tone. It's been a while since I read them, so they may be more nuanced than I really remember. They definitely had trash imitators and successors that basically just reproduced straight fash Batman stories though. Before all that he was a goofy rich guy fighting goofy villains.

yeah, but batman wasn't created as some kind of socialist or communist themed hero who fought for the common good of the proletariat by waging war against their capitalist oppressors.

he was always a vigilante that beat up "criminals" out of some misguided desire to make the city safer. the thing is, there wasn't as much social savvy back then about the whole idea that criminals tend to be disproportionately represented by members of the lower classes (and often statistically biased heavily towards minorities / POC) and that by only ever assaulting petty criminals, batman was low-key beating up colored poors for his jollies. it also failed to ever examine the more complex elements of crime, like what social conditions were creating so many criminals in the first place or how bruce wayne just being a millionaire / billionaire playboy meant that his own existence was enabled by the same economic systems that caused the disenfranchised to turn to crime

batman maybe became an out and proud fascist after miller got his turn at the wheel, but batman was a monster for his entire existence. maybe at first just because of a general naivety about what causes someone to commit a criminal act and/or a lack of intellectual curiosity to explore the idea of crime beyond the immediate superficial definition (why is it happening, what's causing people to make these choices, etc.) which is why, for me, batman as a character only works in an era where it's assumed there's less sophistication about income inequality and wealth stratification and etc.

trying to paint a billionaire as the unambiguous hero and good guy of the story because he leverages his vast resources to create a variety of extravagant gadgets by which he can brutalize criminals (which are almost exclusively people from the bottom of the socioeconomic ladder) is laughably tone deaf in TYOOL 2019. until he crashes through the window of a goldman sachs boardroom during their quarterly shareholder earnings call and kicks the poo poo out of a bunch of wealthy assholes, he's going to be an increasingly antiquated and embarrassing super hero

Freaking Crumbum
Apr 17, 2003

Too fuck to drunk




get that OUT of my face posted:

who gives a poo poo about South Park anymore?

i'm loving stunned that both the simpsons, family guy and south park are still being aired with regular new seasons. i cannot fathom the audience for these ancient rear end shows that all had their peak decades ago yet will apparently exist in syndication in perpetuity until the eventual heat death of the universe.

i mean i know the answer is that they're still wildly lucrative from a licensing and merchandising perspective, but i can't even imagine who is buying the toys and lunch boxes and graphic tees, nor for whom they are being purchased. is it an entire economy of confused grandparents that know their grandkid liked the simpsons back in 1998 and now forever buy bart simpson "eat my shorts man" merchandise any time they pass it at wal-mart?

Freaking Crumbum
Apr 17, 2003

Too fuck to drunk




get that OUT of my face posted:

sorry if it felt like that post was targeting you, i didn't mean to do that. it just feels like South Park isn't in the general public consciousness anymore

i heard that the first season that had a season-wide arc was good, but it reverted to trash in short order

in addition to the answer you gave, at least with South Park it's cheap to make, so cheap that the creators can just crank out an episode the week before it airs. then again, low cost of production and creators that wanted to keep going until they got bored didn't save Aqua Teen Hunger Force

the wild thing with the simpsons is, every time there's a dispute between the VAs and FOX about whether or not they'll sign on for X more seasons, the VAs all demand absurd salary increases and they almost always got them! fox is paying each of the simpsons VAs $300,000 dollars per episode, and what are they earning back on that? is buying commercial air-time during the simpsons as expensive as purchasing an ad slot during the superbowl? if they aren't covering the cost by selling advertising, where else are they making up the profit?

Freaking Crumbum
Apr 17, 2003

Too fuck to drunk




KomradeX posted:

That's something else that these, besides that these 23+ movies have maybe 5 lines that get quoted between all of them, they're are no stand out set pieces like running from the boulder, ripping the heart out, choosing the wrong grail, the Death Star trench run, the Canal chase from T2, anything from Aliens or any of the other rich stones of well cinema that have been absorbed into culture.

i don't know if it counts as MCU since it was made by fox before the merger, but Logan has definitely stuck with me since i first saw it. the grandfather/father/daughter relationship they evoke against the backdrop of unavoidable oblivion and inhuman cruelty was about as emotionally charged as you can get from comic book source material. logan having to interact with charles as the put-upon but dutiful son and then having to turn around and be an estranged father to laura, aware of all his failings and yet wanting so desperately not to be the same burden upon her really resonated with me.

the scene where logan has to bury charles and completely loses his poo poo and flips out and wrecks their vehicle and laura essentially has to wear the grown-up pants and fix all of it was darkly cyclical and also hit a little too close to home for me.

Freaking Crumbum
Apr 17, 2003

Too fuck to drunk




MasterSitsu posted:

Yes. It literally starts with the 1921 Tulsa riots. Might seem like a weird location for a major show, but thematically it already seems to have justified itself.

was new york still annihilated in the tv show timeline? if so, does the show make any effort to explain whether adrian's plan was ultimately successful? are all of dr manhattan's blimps and free energy stuff still around, or are they just inexplicably absent?

how does it compare to The Boys on amazon? I really really liked that tv adaptation and i'm worried that the watchmen tv show is just going to be retreading the same conceptual space (what if super heroes were bad people) without enough to differentiate it. seems like watchmen is a smaller scope story focused more on racism?

i'm actually gonna have to watch this show aren't i.

Freaking Crumbum
Apr 17, 2003

Too fuck to drunk




Serf posted:

we're one episode in and it has not explained much of anything

cargo cult posted:

there's only one episode out


ugggghhh that's going to be the worst part for me - does HBO not do a content dump a la the other streaming providers? i hate having the show slow dripped as if i'm watching actual live tv like some kind of idiot from 1992

Freaking Crumbum
Apr 17, 2003

Too fuck to drunk




etalian posted:

The Boys was amazing especially the craziness of Antony Starr as Homelander.

that dude seriously carried the show. he is the most compelling tv villain i've seen since omar

Freaking Crumbum
Apr 17, 2003

Too fuck to drunk




Fleetwood posted:

I started reading the comic recently and so far I think the show version of Homelander is better

100000000% better

i'm actually really curious whether or not they're going to keep black noir's origin the same as the comics or change it up. fwiw i hope they change it up because i really don't need to see necrophilia on tv

Freaking Crumbum
Apr 17, 2003

Too fuck to drunk




CharlestheHammer posted:

the joker isnít a bad movie itís just unfocused. Like the writer had ideas but thatís it. Some people like it because itís vaguely woke but it never really goes anywhere with it.

though you should check out the jokers last speech because itís hilarious and so dumb

the only legitimately entertaining part of that movie was when phoenix tries to act like a badass in front of the two detectives outside the hospital and walks directly into a sliding glass door. the whole movie leading up to that moment is just so somber and depressing, the unexpected slapstick lands even harder

Freaking Crumbum
Apr 17, 2003

Too fuck to drunk




ikanreed posted:

Comic book movie villains who were right

1. Bane
2. Joker (probably at least one of them anyways)
3. That blue guy from guardians of the galaxy 1 that wanted to destroy the planet that was apparently all cops
4. That other blue guy.
5. Mr. Mime

wasn't mandarin from iron man 2 anti-MIC and basically only working with tony's tech so that he could take him down? i might be misremembering his motivations as i haven't seen the movie in years

Freaking Crumbum
Apr 17, 2003

Too fuck to drunk




BENGHAZI 2 posted:

Whiplash was iron Man 2

Mandarin was 3

I don't remember anything else about those movies

whiplash then, i think his motivations were good (even if he was a bad guy) because it seemed like he was being presented as trying to take down the MIC via robot battle suit fight vs tony

Freaking Crumbum
Apr 17, 2003

Too fuck to drunk




gradenko_2000 posted:

https://twitter.com/MCU_Direct/status/1186360262347182080

wasn't part of the point of the MCU the experiment and succeeding realization that you could just divest the actor from the role and audiences wouldn't care?

there;s been like 4 spider-mans and 7 batmans in my own lifetime so there's some truth to that. i think the biggest tell will be whether or not audiences will tolerate an extremely iconic character getting updated i.e. rdj is ironman and jackman is wolverine (in that they nailed not only the appearance of the character but also the mannerisms and voice and etc). whenever they decide to reboot either of those characters, that'll be the point where we find out if audiences are really attached to the character or the actor

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Freaking Crumbum
Apr 17, 2003

Too fuck to drunk





i agree, 90 minutes should be the maximum legal run-time for any feature film

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply