Tenshinhan
-
Posts
464 -
Joined
Content Type
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Discussion
Posts posted by Tenshinhan
-
-
3 hours ago, ICantDoThatDave said:
But they didn't get the look, much less the personality, of Supergirl right in that movie, so I had no interest - active disinterest even. Because they didn't accurately portray Supergirl correctly.
Supergirl does not have to be a blonde white girl to be "done right" or portrayed accurately on film.
Also, aside from the fact that she was supposed to be from an alternate reality in that film anyway, her personality was not really that different than how she has been depicted in some Modern Age versions.
And not all comic book fans need or desire to see the characters look the same, or sometimes, even behave the same on film. Of course many of them do, but there are many fans who do not.
-
6 hours ago, Chyromaniac said:
The only difference is that instead of a shiny naked guy on a surfboard, it's a shiny naked lady. Why is that a big deal? If it's the same story with the same messages, it should have the same meaning right?
4 hours ago, Chyromaniac said:Same personality, same storyline - would that character have the same resonance? If not then I think we know what the issue is.
I think this is a bit of an oversimplification. I disagree that the meaning or resonance should remain the same if you switched the sex or race of a specific character. There are certain essential traits that human beings and individuals identify with that are associated with notions like race and gender. I agree with rmontro in the sense that many audience members might connect differently to a female version of a character than to a male, or to a non-white character than a white character etc.
Further, one of the reasons I like the idea of replacing the male Silver Surfer with a woman/female is because of the unique opportunity to do different things with the character than you could otherwise. How might a woman react to being separated from her homeworld and lover? How might a woman experience and endure living and serving at the will of Galactus? How does a woman perceive and understand the power and nature of the universe? This particular kind of perspective is worth exploring in my view, and is an example of the value that can be gained by reimagining stories and characters in a different lens.
-
1
-
-
I honestly think that the days of comic book fans getting to see their favorite characters depicted as they were in the source material are over. Or at least on their way out. The movies have evolved past that in the last twenty years, and are now more interested in reimagining and recreating the source stories and characters instead. Yeah, it sucks for those fans who may not have gotten the chance to see their favorite characters adapted onscreen before now, but it looks like this is just the direction things are going.
-
3 hours ago, rmontro said:
Sue has acted as field leader for the Fantastic Four at times during the comic's run, but Reed is the leader of the Fantastic Four, and always will be. He is the entire reason they exist, and they go on their adventures because Reed is such a gifted genius that they have a unique opportunity to aid humanity by helping him bring his vision to life.
Reed can still be the leader of the team even if they make Sue the lead character and focus of the film. Having the story revolve around Sue doesn't necessarily diminish Reed's role and vision. It all depends on the writing and how they choose to tell the story.
-
3
-
-
47 minutes ago, rmontro said:
What you've said and they've said, DEI. Feige has said they want 51% of the heroes to be female, and reportedly when he saw the first three cast members of the Fantastic Four, his response was "Too white". Followed by their hiring Pedro Pascal. Now I think Pascal will likely do a passable job, but you have to admit, he doesn't exactly scream "Reed Richards".
It may very well be as you say, that they chose the female Surfer for story reasons, but given their stated intentions, and past actions, I think it's much more likely she is there to satisfy the DEI factor. What Disney should realize is comic book fans have always been mostly male, and buy into that. I think I saw a stat that even with The Marvels (a movie aimed more at females), the audience was 2/3 male. As I said before, "Shalla Bel Surfer" doesn't ruin the movie for me, but I would expect to get Norrin Radd in the 616 Universe.
There are also rumors that Sue will be considered the lead and focus of the FF movie. I can see how they might effectively tell the movie from her viewpoint, but if you know Marvel comics history, the Reed Richards character should really be the next Tony Stark, but better. Some have speculated that they will turn this Reed Richards into The Maker, but if they do that, what is the point of getting us attached to this Fantastic Four team? Unless they don't plan on having any sequels. Which, I guess they won't, if it bombs. But you would still expect the FF to be popping up in MCU movies fairly routinely for the near future at leats.
I don't think that socially responsible filmmaking is a bad thing. Those DEI standards are in place for a purpose. Also, you can be socially responsible while also serving the story and pleasing the fans, all at the same time. Take out Norrin Radd and replace him with Shalla-Bal and you can do just that. There's a whole lot to gain by making Silver Surfer a female instead of keeping him male in my view. Of course there will still be some fans who prefer Norrin Radd, but you can't please everyone.
Centering the film around Susan is another good idea that can be both socially responsible and serve the story. It's also something that is rooted in the comic books.
I don't know about "the next Tony Stark", but Reed Richards could still be an important character and become a fan favorite with Sue as the lead of the film. It all depends on the writing.
-
22 hours ago, rmontro said:
Because I don't like changes to iconic characters simply to please DEI standards, as opposed to storyline and serving the fans of the source material.
There's no way of knowing whether or not a female Silver Surfer was devised to simply satisfy DEI standards.
It's not difficult to imagine a female Surfer being chosen for storyline purposes, while also serving fans of the source material at the same time.
16 hours ago, rmontro said:And it's clear a lot of this is because Disney is more interested in pushing their agenda than in pleasing the fans.
What exactly is Disney's "agenda" as you see it?
-
1
-
-
6 hours ago, driver18 said:
I think he's the detective we saw a few times last year, Bennett, who was hot, that we wanted to see more of.
Yes, it's the same character, Detective Bennet, played by Kendrick Cross.
-
2
-
-
4 hours ago, Artsda said:
Jason's probably killed 10x more than Sonny.
Jason killed on Sonny's orders. So Joss probably sees those killings as Sonny's killings. In her mind, people like Dex, Carly, and Jason are pawns and victims of Sonny's lifestyle.
-
5
-
-
Galactus in the first movie could mean anything. This isn't the old days when comic book movie plots were self-contained, or when they would raise the stakes gradually throughout trilogies and so forth. They don't actually have to defeat Galactus in the film; it could just be a precursor to something more in subsequent films. Especially with the Surfer in the mix.
5 hours ago, benteen said:But I find it puzzling that Marvel is going with the most obscure version of the Silver Surfer imaginable.
I don't really think that's what they are doing. I think they are essentially substituting the original Norrin Radd Surfer with the Shalla-Bal character. My guess is that the fact that she was briefly the Surfer at one point has little or nothing to do with it.
I like the idea of a female Surfer and think it might offer a unique perspective for the films to explore, and is more interesting than if they went with a male Surfer in my view.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, GHScorpiosRule said:
Where's Chloe's father? We know he also survived that bomb; why couldn't he have given Chloe away?
It was never stated on the show, but according to the writers, Chloe's dad passed away at some point later on from unknown causes. That's why he isn't seen or mentioned after season four.
Although I think it's more likely that they just forgot about him and were just too lazy to write anything in.
-
1
-
-
12 minutes ago, GHScorpiosRule said:
When it was revealed that Chloe was meteor-infected, how Clark showed up. Was there for her and my favorite line of his to her was for her to consider him her personal bomb squad.
And of course casting Wonder Woman Lynda Carter as Chloe's mother, even though the first time we saw her, she was a blonde and we only saw the back of her head.
These episodes were in Season Six, not Seven, just to let you know.
-
6 hours ago, GHScorpiosRule said:
Clark's got some nerve giving Chloe attitude for "turning her back" on him, when just last season, he turned his back on her after Davis killed Henry.
The show runners just DECIMATED that friendship, to make way for Lois and Clark.
It's unfortunate that Allison Mack decided to only do a small number of episodes for S10. It's even more unfortunate that, from what we know now, her decision was being influenced by someone else...
QuoteEVUHL Lionel is BACK! But that horrid beard!
Apparently Glover had already shaved his beard before they filmed the finale, so they gave him a fake one.
-
1
-
-
6 hours ago, GHScorpiosRule said:
The speculation on TWoP was that they couldn't get Batman, so they got Carter Hall/Hawk Man to be the leader; while I love Michael Shanks (YUM), he was doing the Christopher Nolan grating impersonation of Batman.
I doubt that they were trying to get Batman, since the character was never an active member of the Society in the books.
-
7 hours ago, GHScorpiosRule said:
And something Kristen did, that annoyed me, and I wonder if it was her choice or she was directed to do so-lowering her voice pitch to sound...older/sexier, instead of the 19 year old she was!
Kristin has mentioned that it took her a few years on the show before she "found her voice" and matured as an actress, and that she had been working to build confidence. This season was probably around the time it became most visible.
-
I liked Kara but the writers just didn't know what to do with her. And unfortunately since Al/Miles left at the end of the season, all of her potential stories went out the window and the character never had a chance to be redeemed.
Before the season started there was talk of possibly retooling the show and making Kara the lead character if Tom decided to leave. Things went differently but that might have been an interesting direction.
-
10 hours ago, Spartan Girl said:
It was just as stupid as bringing Lana back one more time.
Unfortunately since KK left Season 7 early, they had to save her final episodes until Season 8. So it does feel out of place. I agree that the story was bad. Plus they should have allowed her shorter haircut instead of those extensions.
-
10 hours ago, Spartan Girl said:
Oh they were bringing in Superman villains starting all the way to season 5.
Characters and concepts like Zod and the Phantom Zone actually originated with Superboy in the comic books, not with Superman. Whereas Doomsday and Darkseid, plus Clark/Lois at the Daily Planet are definitively Superman-era plot points.
But aside from that, despite the comic book concepts being brought in earlier, Seasons 8-10 seemed to be much more reliant on them instead of doing original work, is my point.
10 hours ago, GHScorpiosRule said:I disagree. They could have made up villains like they did in the first season with the freaks of the week; but these writers by this time were so creatively bankrupt and lazy.
That was my point. That it was the writers' lack of talent that caused it and not necessarily the length of the show.
10 hours ago, Chaos Theory said:I watched in its original run and haven’t done a rewatch so my memory might be off but I do remember hearing that DC Comics (or whatever) held a pretty tight reign on the legacy characters and ended up making a lot of demands of the writers. If that is true the writers were limited in what they could achieve so kept writing what was safe but well….boring.
That is true about DC's tight leash, especially in the earlier seasons. However, those early seasons were much better written than the later ones, and more creative. The writers got lazy when they began to venture into the popular comic book mythos and characters.
-
2
-
-
I think people should remember that the Crow is a comic book series first, and a movie second. There is definitely room for more adaptations. A new version of the Crow does not automatically mean that the original film is somehow being disrespected or insulted.
The Crow is about much more than just Brandon Lee. There can be sequels and reboots that continue the story's legacy. Just so long as they are written well.
-
11 hours ago, GHScorpiosRule said:
But I was so happy to see Rosenbaum reprise his role one last time, though peeved he was a clone.
That was supposed to be the real Lex, not a clone. He survived the explosion from S8 and was using the body parts from his clones to help rebuild himself.
-
1
-
-
I don't think it necessarily went on for too long, it's more like the writers didn't know how to come up with original stories anymore. Sticking Clark with Lois at the Daily Planet and bringing in the Superman villains was a clear sign of that.
-
1
-
-
11 hours ago, GHScorpiosRule said:
This was at the end of season 8; not here.
Chloe begging Clark to go back in time to save Jimmy was at the beginning of Season 9.
-
1
-
-
Lois should never have been on the show to begin with, in my opinion. It wasn't necessary. If they really wanted to, then she shouldn't have been more than a guest star.
Having said that, I like Erica Durance, and think that her character was strongest in season four. Unfortunately, the show went into a different direction and the writers clearly were not interested in doing anything with the character. It was only in S8 that Lois began to get real material.
-
1
-
-
7 hours ago, GHScorpiosRule said:
But one of the things that really, really irks me is, we see that Swann and Lionel did NOT know each other. It was the first time they met. Yet, four seasons later, during the Veritas subplot, in a flashback, we are told that Queen, Lionel, Teague, and Swann were part of a society/group, that monitored the coming of the last son of Krypton/the "Traveler" which was just a massacring of the mythos of Superman.
Even though it was clearly a retcon, I thought that the Veritas story worked well enough. It was never outright stated that Swann and Lionel were meeting for the first time during that convo, despite the implications. And it was a nice way to tie everything together for Al/Miles as their exit storyline.
7 hours ago, GHScorpiosRule said:And I also hate how AlMiles, Souders/Peterson, went all out in trying to make AI Jor-El as something that had emotions and was some evil despot that hated Earth that needed to be conquered. Just give me Marlon Brando's version, thankyouverymooch. Not to mention that horrid "Relic" that had Jor-El doing a walkabout and meeting Hiram Kent, and thus chose the Kents to find and adopt Clark.
I never thought Jor-El was evil, just very strict. I don't mind the writers expanding upon the comics that way. I also didn't mind the 1961 story with Jor-El, despite the Clana anvils.
-
54 minutes ago, MadyGirl1987 said:
While the films have their issues, I would argue the Donner films gave us the most accurate live-action portrayal of Superman to date. Christopher Reeves' Superman/Clark Kent portrays him in a way that is both tough but also kind and earnest.
I agree but my point wasn't against the Donner films so much as it was against the inability to move on from them. In the fandom but especially with filmmakers.
Smallville, Superman Returns, and even Man of Steel to a certain extent have had this problem. If you're going to adapt Superman, then do it your own way. No matter how successful or iconic the previous iterations may have been.
1 hour ago, MadyGirl1987 said:The single biggest disservice DC and Snyder have done to Superman is to try to make him dark and gritty. Superman is not dark and gritty. He's a symbol of hope.
1 hour ago, MadyGirl1987 said:Marvel found a way to make him relevant to current day, while DC just made him Batman, because the Dark Knight was so well received, not considering they are different characters.
None of the DC Comics characters are particularly "dark and gritty" in the first place, but I understand what you mean. Zack Snyder just knows jackshit about Superman and DC Comics, and also is not the right kind of filmmaker for these kinds of movies.
1 hour ago, MadyGirl1987 said:I see Captain America as the Marvel version of Superman; big kind tough men fighting for "truth justice and the American way."
I can understand the similarities, but Cap and Superman are still different characters. Especially with regards to the patriotism, which for Superman is not integral to the character and shouldn't be misrepresented as such, in my view.
-
1
-
The Marvel Cinematic Universe: The Avengers, etc.
in Movies
Like I said, Supergirl does not have to be a blonde white woman to be portrayed accurately on film. She can be a dark-haired Latina or anything else and still be Supergirl. There's much more to an accurate portrayal than a character's appearance and/or ethnicity.
Pre-crisis Kara maybe. But post-crisis, Supergirl has often been portrayed as troubled, both emotionally and psychologically. Her background and life circumstances shaped her in ways that set her apart from Superman. The optimism is not always there.
Even if it were true, that still wouldn't automatically rule out The Flash being an accurate portrayal of Supergirl. There are many different components to the nature of any one character.