Tenshinhan

Post-Crisis Batman takes a couple years to find its footing, so maybe stick it out for a little longer. The continuity eventually gets tighter and more fluid. Especially after Death in the Family. Pre-Crisis Batman of the 80s had better continuity and broader arcs than early post-Crisis Batman, for what it's worth.

Superman on film just hasn't been done properly yet, and I think that Gunn realizes this. I think that his only choices were either a clean reboot, or a DC film universe with no Superman at all. My guess is that anything in between would be a disservice to the property and the audience in Gunn's eyes.

I don't see any reason why Gunn's Superman would have to be an origin story. You can reboot the story without retelling the origin. I think Superman is long overdue for a respectful film adaptation and I'm interested to see what Gunn will do with it.

That's sad to hear. I wonder if they will now kill off Epiphany.

I think that Gunn mentioned that it won't be an origin story. This reboot is probably for the best. The DCEU was a mess from the jump. I doubt that there was much of any chance to salvage Superman after the Snyder films, despite Cavill's performance. Superman deserves better. It's unfortunate for some of the actors and some of the more successful movies. But I think that ultimately we can do without a Wonder Woman or Aquaman on screen for a while. Same for Flash or Shazam. DC doesn't necessarily have to rely upon those characters. A solo Lois Lane film/series would be dope.

The Watchmen comic was a limited series telling a single self-contained story over the course of a year by one writer/artist team. Not an ongoing comic book series telling multiple stories throughout decades with a variety of different writers/artists, like most of the primary DC/Marvel characters. I don't think it's really the best example to use in this case.

The days of comic book adaptations being closely faithful to the source material are long over in my view. They are on an entirely different path now. I think that at this point it would probably be better for fans to just forget everything they know about the comics before watching the movies, and be prepared for something else completely. Also, I'm all for keeping comics fans away from writing and directing the movies. I think that a healthy lack of history with the source material is a better approach.

That's only natural. The more successful and more popular something becomes, the more it should evolve beyond how it started. It makes sense that as the film series grows it would become less and less targeted towards fans of the original material, and instead aim for a wider and wider audience. That's both good storytelling and good business.

Those characters were recasted only when their universes were rebooted. There's no way they would just reboot the entire MCU. At least not for a very long time to come. People also want to see the actors that have portrayed those characters. You can't just separate the two in audiences minds.

I can buy it. Liz has always been willing to get her hands dirty when it involves Nikolas. She also has no problem doing shady stuff like with the whole Drew/"Jake"/Jason thing a few years ago. I do find it odd that they are throwing her into this story right when they're in the middle of the Finn/Jeff/Reiko story. It's the biological bond he wants. Genetics are very important to many people. Also, he wants the father/son bond the way Felicia has the mother/daughter bond. I'm sure that it would be different. Men relate differently to male children than they do to female children.

I agree, but it's not like it ever had any serious competition. The show is great, but I think most of that is due to the quality of animation and artwork, the writing, performances, and musical score. Not so much their approach to the Batman characters and mythos. Those aspects were decent, but not especially groundbreaking in my view.

He was from Atlantis in the comic books. The thing is, the movies are not the comic books. They are only based on the comic books. There are many different ways to approach an adaptation, not just recreating the same story for another medium. You can also take the original story and re-imagine it into another form. I can understand how some fans would want to see the original versions of these characters on film, but movies and film are about much more than that. Filmmakers are artists, and they may have their own ideas and visions that they wish to express when taking on a project. That's part of the power and opportunity of making art. True, but Namor in the comic books is no Iron Man or Thor. He doesn't carry the same weight as those characters within the publication history, despite having appeared during the Golden Age. Additionally, Greco-Roman mythology and particularly Atlantis are played out. We don't need to be beaten over the head with it over and over again. Especially when there is so much mythology to be found outside of Western cultures that has yet to be explored.

There doesn't have to be any kind of necessity when taking liberties with established characters. If the writers and director want to take a new and different approach to a character, then that's all that's required. It all comes down to what best serves the story and filmmakers' vision. I hadn't realized that Namor's characterization in the film was somehow unfaithful to the comic books. Or are you referring to the character's costume and design? Because in my view there's a lot more to being a faithful film adaptation than just a character's appearance.

Well, this is a bit unexpected. I don't think he had been sick for very long. He was still doing interviews and making appearances and such. Not really a huge fan of TAS or the DCAU, and I think that their take on Batman was overrated, but Kevin Conroy was great as Bruce Wayne/Batman. Even when the writing was shit, Conroy could still sell it. His performance is classic. Definitely iconic.

Except that the Batman is not a normal street level vigilante. It's a superhero comic. He wears a Bat costume, and he's a billionaire. Well... yes. It's just a cave that has been converted into an office and workspace.

Not really. It's a souped up car and airplane. Nothing astoundingly hi-tech. Especially compared to the 1990s comic book upgrades or the Nolan/Burton stuff. Only because that's not his gimmick, it's Batman's. And because Matt Murdock ain't rich.

There's nothing especially hi-tech about the pre-90s Batplane in my view. As well as the Batmobile and the rest. Not until the Wayne Enterprises concept began to expand in the 90s when so much was explained away with military contracts and advanced scientific research divisions and so forth.

I'm guessing that maybe the disease will turn out to be some kind of a cover story and the fall somehow killed her. Or if not then some other kind of cover up involving Jeff, maybe a pregnancy... who knows.

I would argue that most of the pre-1990s stories are relatively low-tech compared to what we see in the Nolan/Burton/Schumacher films. Maybe somewhat more high tech than in this particular film, but not hugely so in my view.

That's somewhat true, but I think that the lower-tech aspects and eras of the comics outnumbers the higher-tech stuff.

I too appreciate the more down-to-earth Batman stuff. It aligns closer with the comic books more than the super hi-tech stuff from the previous film series.

It's not a matter of perspective, really. Just look at the differences between Cameron's films and a Marvel or DC film. One is rooted in comic books, where things have to continue on endlessly and can only grow and change to a limited extent. Cameron doesn't make movies like that. It's ok to prefer one kind of empowerment to another. I don't think that is necessarily the same thing as telling women what is empowering and what's not, or that it's necessarily arrogant. Especially if it comes from a place of knowledge and understanding. Much of it depends upon what his comments actually were and how he went about expressing his views.

Cameron is right with his comments. However, he shouldn't expect anything different from these types of movies. It's just the genre. I get that he doesn't like that kind of storytelling, but there are many different ways to make movies. It's ok to be critical of something that a lot of people love.

None of this is particularly evil, in my view. Morally questionable, perhaps, but not evil. Sonny is a criminal, so he can be somewhat villainous. But again, generally speaking, most of Sonny's murders are rival mobsters and criminals.

Those people he had murdered and beaten are usually rival mobsters, so I don't think that necessarily makes Sonny some kind of evil monster. He's a criminal, yes, but that doesn't automatically make him horrible in my view.