That is Wesley Snipes. It's a trailer for the original 1998 Blade movie getting re-released in 4K this December.
Posts made by Count Mario
-
RE: Marvel Movies Thread - Holy Shitballs
-
RE: Marvel Movies Thread - Holy Shitballs
And unfortunately redundant in light of the video game already taking things back to 94.
Damn, you're right lol. Well, it helps enforce why Spider-Man PS4 is arguably the best (pseudo) live action Spider-Man movie.
-
RE: Marvel Movies Thread - Holy Shitballs
@Daz:
I definetely see where you're coming from, but while MCU Spidey certainly can be a bumbling, well, kid, I do think he sells a certain kind of wish fulfilllment; P
Oh my God. Everything makes so much sense now. MCU Spider-Man isn't Spider-Man. He's… he's...
MCU Spider-Man is Harry Potter.
transphobic creator withstanding for now…I can't stop laughing at how accurate this is for me now.Being serious though, the wish fulfillment angle only hammers my point home about how Into the Spider-Verse did everything the MCU movies tried to do but only needed one film and without compromising the relatable working class underdog core of the character.
In other news though…
Looks like Doctor Strange will also be appearing in MCU Spider-Man 3.
Welp, so much for Spider-Man 3 being a solo Spidey movie where Peter has moved on from appealing to mentor figures.
Everybody is interpreting this news to speculate if MCU Spider-Man 3 will be a live-action adaptation of Spider-Verse and/or One More Day.
For now, I can't fathom how you could make either of those stories work for a compelling emotional arc with a lighthearted high school Peter Parker that Into the Spider-Verse didn't already do in spades unless you use the One More Day elements to erase everyone's memory of Peter's identity being exposed. Which would be another slap on the wrist for MCU Peter's supposed consequences.
Unless maybe you have Aunt May get killed as a result of Peter's identity getting exposed, and the movie actually sticks with that to the end unlike the comic. Damn, that would be pretty dark and compelling. But I don't trust the MCU to take risks like that (heroic sacrifices at the end of the actor's contract don't count, I'm talking a cold blooded assassination attempt and hospitalization here). And they would need to develop May as a character so I actually care about her since she's only been a joke 95% of the time.
-
RE: Marvel Movies Thread - Holy Shitballs
@Daz:
If I could narrow it down, the vibe I get from the MCU movies is "Spider Man is cool! Its cool being Spider Man!"; and while I've certainly always found Spider Man cool, that coolness was built on the fact that being Spider Man was really, REALLY hard, and that Spidey kept going despite the toll it took- something I feel Spiderverse tapped into very succesfully.
I agree with everything you said, but on this point I argue it's the exact opposite. The MCU movies, to me, love making fun of Spider-Man. Mocking how small-time and young he is compared to the Avengers. And emphasizing how cool it would be for Peter to take on "Avengers-level" threats and play with the type of tech that Iron Man makes.
Which is emblematic of modern Disney movies as a whole, especially the live-action remakes. You know, how they love to do the whole intertextual nudge nudge, wink wink "ain't this trope you remember SOOOO dated or unrealistic", but then they do the tropes anyways as if they're afraid of being themselves. So it only makes the movie feel unnecessary and watered down.
That's why Spider-Verse makes such a positive impression. Because it's all about celebrating why Spider-Man is awesome and inspiring, right down to having Spider-Man merchandise be an in-world diegetic element for plot devices, humor, and overall aesthetic. Which Lord and Miller carried over from their work on self-reverent referential media franchises like the LEGO Movies and LEGO Batman.
As for his love of Iron Man:
1: His first ever issue of his self-titled solo comic was him trying to join the Fantastic Four. There's precedent for him wanting to belong to the superhero community in the MU.
Comic book Peter tried to join the Fantastic Four solely because he thought he could get paid and improve his reputation, but refused when they said they were a nonprofit and accused him of being a criminal. He was a working class hero, dealing with working class struggles, protecting working class loved ones.
And when he does eventually join the FF and Avengers, he doesn't serve any purpose besides being bros with Human Torch and an extra bit player that cracks jokes.
MCU Peter wants to impress Tony Stark because he wants to be seen as an A-lister and become an Avenger. Add in the stakes for both MCU Spidey movies being supervillains stealing Iron Man's tech, and Peter never once acknowledges Tony did reckless stuff with said tech that's just as bad, if not worse than both Vulture and Mysterio's plans. He was practically a superhero fanboy stanning billionaires. And without Uncle Ben being directly mentioned, that's the only thing motivating him aside from a vaguely implied past failure and a conventional moral compass.
The latter isn't inherently a bad premise for a superhero movie. It would line up very well for adaptations of Ms. Marvel or Sam Alexander Nova. But for Spider-Man, that change only rubs me the wrong way more and more as current real world events keep proceeding.
2: They introduced him via Civil War where he did indeed have a very close relationship with Iron Man. Pete was basically his intern following him around everywhere. Later, after they had a falling out, Peter said he was "Like a father" to him.
And that's exactly what's missing from Peter and Tony's MCU relationship. The falling out moment. And I don't mean Tony becoming disappointed in Peter so he takes away the fancy suit. But Peter being disappointed in Tony by realizing how flawed and self-centered he can be.
Comic Book Civil War Tony is indeed way too cartoonishly corrupt, but the MCU had plenty of ripe ground by Homecoming and especially Far from Home for a more nuanced take. Where Peter sees how Tony's actions created Ultron and Vulture, attempted to kill someone for crimes they committed while brainwashed, and knowingly drafting a naive kid into a superhero war. We literally two villains in a row that were originally sabotaged by Tony somehow, and Peter either shrugged it off (Vulture) or never heard about it (Mysterio).
At the very least, have Peter at the end of Homecoming start calling him Tony instead of Mr. Stark. That way you get to have your cake and eat it too by showing that Peter still has respect for Stark without putting him on a pedestal.
Plus, FFH was pretty decisively about him moving on from Iron Man. Future movies featuring him SHOULD have basically no IM stuff save a passing mention.
Was it really though? If anything, Happy's vague whole "Tony made mistakes too" monologue without going into specifics and Peter making a new suit with AC/DC playing implies otherwise.
And people said the exact same thing about Peter moving on from wanting to be like Iron Man after Homecoming. And Mysterio exposing Spider-Man's identity only furthers that connection, especially since everyone close to Peter (besides Flash, who's purely a punchline) already knows who he is so there's no interpersonal drama there. Come to think of it, I remember there being an interview after Far from Home released where Jon Watts or one of the actors said the post-credits scene was supposed to parallel Tony announcing he's Iron Man in Iron Man 1 as an epilogue to the Infinity Stones saga.
So I don't care for leaning on that line of blind faith logic until we get a whole trailers and a whole movie of having Spider-Man unapologetically be Spider-Man.
Far from Home would have had a much stronger message if the script had Peter realize that Mysterio, in trying to usurp Tony's tech because he sees himself as a true hero above everyone else, is unknowingly emulating all of Tony's worst traits. To the point you can't even really call Quentin Beck an "evil Iron Man" so much as an even more unhinged and egocentric Tony Stark 2.0. The drone strikes are even a redux of all the Iron Man robots Tony made in Age of Ultron that Ultron stole control over.
So Peter therefore realizes that Beck (the new hero he thought was better than him), and by extension Tony Stark, is the last kind of person he wants to be pressured into becoming. And that Spider-Man's humble origins/abilities and restraint are the meaningful divide separates them. Then tie that development in with Peter honing his Spider-Sense, one of the few abilities exclusive to only him, to overcome Beck's illusions instead of just building a better suit like Tony would. The movie even recognizes that Iron Man is similar to Mysterio when Flash remarks that Mysterio looks like a fusion of Iron Man and Thor, but it never considers further comparing the two tech fiends.
Like, I know opinions are opinions and if you still don't like it fine, I'm not trying to change minds but I don't like the "He doesn't make mistakes!" or "He suffers no consequences for being Spider-Man!" thing when he very clearly obviously does.
That's actually my exact problem. To me… MCU Peter almost exclusively makes mistakes. Up until the third act of both movies where he just gets better at being a hero all of a sudden without actually changing up his strategy. Unless you count the "Peter Tingle" but that's less character growth and more a sudden power-up conveniently kicking in when you need it most.
But the movies want us to think he had an arc. And the plot either has most of his constant mistakes have consequences washed away or be played for laughs, even though plenty of those mistakes end up almost accidentally killing people and wrecking their property. That works for a irreverent, edgy superhero parody/satire like Kick-Ass or Deadpool, not for a legitimate superhero drama.
This cycle happens to the point MCU Peter hardly has any redeemable qualities for me. And so even when he's acting relatably awkward and depressed, or ditching his friends to try (emphasis on try) being a responsible Spider-Man, he only annoys me at best. Because I don't care about seeing him improve. If anything, he deserves to feel bad about himself. I want him to quit and retire early lol.
I've said this before, but watching MCU Spider-Man movies makes me feel like J. Jonah Jameson. Because MCU Peter is written as a superhero parody or a shonen manga gag character that we're suddenly supposed to take seriously.
Everyone can feel free to rag on Tobey and Andrew's Spider-Men, neither of them are perfect takes on Peter with plenty of accurate criticism their way. But at least they were competent at being superheroes for most of their screentime. With their failures or corruption being few and far apart amidst their effectiveness at rescuing people and fighting baddies, and thus having more impact and investment when they do fall short because I believe in their ability to pick themselves back up and be better.
Actually, Spider-Verse Miles has an extremely similar flawed hero-in-training arc as MCU Peter. Right down to having a mentor he's struggling to live up to. But it's framed in a much more endearing way that doesn't actively endanger others as often, and we see how he gradually earns becoming Spider-Man by building up his self-confidence and embracing his unique style with supportive feedback to finally master his powers linked to his emotional stability.
-
RE: Marvel Movies Thread - Holy Shitballs
Single can't hold down a job working class Spider-Man you mean.
More like a single Peter having any kind of job whatsoever. There hasn't been a movie or show with a working Peter Parker since the 2000s.
Spider-Man adaptations nowadays don't like having Peter be a photographer for some reason. The comics and PS4 game have him be a scientist, but it'll practically be a decade before MCU Spider-Man can reach that point.
-
RE: Marvel Movies Thread - Holy Shitballs
Or better yet. Give us a single working class Spider-Man that isn't hanging out with billionaires and government agents.
-
RE: Marvel Movies Thread - Holy Shitballs
Jamie Foxx is apparently returning as Electro in MCU Spider-Man 3. No word on if it's a new interpretation or the same version as in The Amazing Spider-Man 2.
Wow… Even as one of the few Amazing Spider-Man 2 defenders out there, I never would have saw this coming.
Not against it though. The villains are the best part of MCU Spider-Man films, Jamie Foxx is a great actor, and the The Amazing Spider-Man's flaws mainly have to do with the plot/narrative focus and pacing. Jamie Foxx's Electro most certainly isn't perfect, but on paper he probably had the most interesting supervillain motivation out of all the Spidey movie antagonists by being a Spidey fan who grows to hate his idol because he doesn't live up to his standards. Which is something you can only convincingly do with a hero like Spider-Man who interacts with regular civilians often.
Interestingly though, in Kevin Feige's Sony leak advice on Amazing Spider-Man 2, he did like The Amazing Spider-Man 2's Electro. Biggest critique he had for him was cutting out scenes that made him look too crazy pre-transformation so he feels more relatable.
-
RE: Channel Awesome, AVGN, and other web review shows
@Daz:
Some recommendations:
Film Crit Hulk
I had seen Film Crit Hulk's videos recommended to me recently on YouTube a couple times but refused the call to try them because of how long their runtime tends to be. I usually need to already be familiar with a YouTuber's content before being willing to donate that much of my time to their content. Especially since I tend to be wary of critical analyses videos an hour or more long that always end up being obnoxious nitpick vitriol sessions with little depth, research, consistency, or context awareness put in. Although their toxicity and ignorance is easy to spot because they'll have a crude title labeling a piece of media as the worst thing ever.
But seeing you of all people recommend their channel convinced me to try out his Spider-Verse writing breakdown video and later the ABCS of Cinematics breakdown video on my own. And hot diggity damn, those videos are the bee's knees. Totally worth the length to watch through because he has that many insightful thoughts and eloquence to deliver.
So thank you, Daz.
As mentioned in the Naruto thread, Super Eyepatch Wolf has some neat manga retrospectives (and an extensive rant on Shenmue III)
Speaking of Super Eyepatch Wolf, he released a video today that is a sequel to his previous video four years ago analyzing how Bleach fell apart. He apologizes and corrects himself for the faulty statistical analyses he used back then while diving deeper into both what he likes and dislikes about the series. I totally recommend the video to anyone who at least has a casual interest in Bleach even if they haven't read/watched it.
hWolfYou don't need to watch the original Fall of Bleach video to understand this one. But if anyone is curious about watching both videos anyways, the first one is delisted but can still be found through a link in the description of the 4 Years Later video.
And Jenny Nicholson, who is hilarious yet very insightful as to storytelling in general, and I will recommend at every opportunity
The more exposure for Jenny, the better.
I love how she makes fun of Sith Lord training like it's a ridiculously stupid high school clique pyramid scheme promising power but being literally all about stealing power from everyone else, including your apprentices. And how she also dug deeper into Ratatouille's "not everyone is a great artist" line in the context of applying auteur theory to Brad Bird's films to realize how it could have messed up eugenics implications and a practical misunderstanding of how artists become successful or not.
-
RE: DC Movies Thread - Shazam saves the day
I would prefer Static operating solo. DC is chock full of teenage sidekicks without any of them acting independently unless they're the Teen Titans or a sanctioned junior Justice League. And would help contrast with MCU Spider-Man being so closely affiliated with the Avengers and SHIELD.
Granted, none of the DC films have incorporated sidekicks for the past couple decades. But it'd feel really weird to have Static be the first one of all people.
-
RE: DC Movies Thread - Shazam saves the day
I'm not into the domino mask design with tiara cat ears. It looks more like one of those cheap Party City sexy black cat Halloween costume than a suit. It's not bad, but not great to me either because it can't take it seriously since it looks so generically Halloween-y. It's like the villain equivalent of Miles wearing the Halloween Spider-Man costume for most of Spider-Verse, but unironic.
Matt Reeves talks a lot in this video about how the film focuses on a Year 2 Batman. It skips the origin story and focuses on a young Bruce refining his flaws from vengeful vigilante to symbol of hope, and realizing the true depth of Gotham's corruption. A bunch of other characters like Catwoman and Penguin are also going to evolve into something resembling their original incarnations too.
He convinced me to have a lot more faith in the movie.
It would be pretty neat if they take a page from Telltale Batman and reveal to Bruce that the Waynes were corrupt. It would very timely and fit with the character arc of not letting himself be defined by the grief of his tragedy. I can imagine a scene where he makes a new Bat symbol because the one he currently has is probably made from the gun that killed his parents.
-
RE: DC Movies Thread - Shazam saves the day
I just learned today that Catwoman's look in The Dark Knight Rises is a near shot-to-shot remake of her Batman '66 Adam West show appearance. I wonder if they did it on purpose or through sheer coincidence of not wanting to do the full spandex mask.
Doesn't change the fact both of those costumes looked pretty meh though.
I get the wanting not to see Batman be a straight-up killer but when you put him in a position where there's no way out without having to use lethal force, like when he has to save Gordon's son from Two-Face in TDK or when he throws the coins at Two-Face in Batman Forever, I'm more satisfied knowing he'll do the right thing rather than let someone else come to harm due to his inaction and have to brood over it later like he's already doing all his life from his parents' deaths.
I'm with you there actually. If a hero has to kill to save a life, I'm fine with it as long as it's treated with gravity. I didn't mind when Superman snapped Zod's neck. Believe it or not, my theater actually clapped when that happened. Probably because they only saw Superman as a do gooder boyscout. There is power in having a hero be forced to kill depending on how it's framed.
I was referring more to the dark edgy takes on Batman that fanboys love to stan, such as how badass Batman looks when he severely beats up people near death but stops just short of killing them. I feel like people praise Batman as a superhero for the wrong reasons more often than not. And aren't willing to see him be criticized or grow as a person at all. You know, the guys who love to parrot the "Bruce Wayne is the mask, he's really Batman" shlock. Or all the "I'M BATMAN" memes. Or always eating up whenever he delivers a witty comeback or pulls a ridiculous keikaku "this all went according to my plan" moment that makes no sense.
I would have loved a trailer like this when I was a teenager, but nowadays I'm sick of grounded, gritty Batman.
Although I will admit that I would like to see a live-action Batman movie where Bats does not kill someone. He killed Joker in the first Burton film, planted a bomb on a goon in the Batman Returns sequel before indirectly killing Penguin at the end of the film, fools Two-Face into killing himself in Batman Forever, Batgirl and Robin kill Bane in Batman and Robin, Batman lets Ra's explode in Batman Begins, Batman tackles Two-Face off a platform with enough force to snap his neck in The Dark Knight, Catwoman kills Bane in The Dark Knight Rises, and Batman blows up a car with people inside during Batman v. Superman.
Every live-action Batman has to have Bruce or someone in the Bat Family kill someone. No matter how much of a relief it is to see Batman willing to choose saving people over naive principles, Batman either liking to kill or being forced to kill has been done to death. It feels funny to keep adapting a character who is known as THE non-killing superhero, and have him directly or indirectly murder at least one person in every film he's in.
Unless there's always a deus ex machina to get around doing that, we just have to deal with it. I'd love if there was a way to handle things like he did in the animated Justice League Unlimited.
I love the Ace scene. Same with the Baby Doll episode in Batman The Animated Series. Those are the types of Batman moment I love to see and wish there was more of in the movies. The closest we ever got that is when he tells Gordon his secret identity at the end of The Dark Knight Rises. His capacity to empathize and help people in need. Not just beating up the bad men and calling it a day.
A good writer can balance over the top action here with a clever well earned cerebral solution. Doctor Strange was still a trippy action flick up until Strange used the Time Stone against Dormammu. Spider-Man 2 has Spidey fight Doc Ock twice in some of the best superhero movie fights to this day before appealing to his humanity and convincing him to undo his experiment in the finale. I'm not saying either movie is perfect, but it has been done.
I think my favorite instance of Batman winning a battle with his wits was in the Superman/Batman: Apocalypse movie where Bruce extorts Darkseid into freeing Supergirl from his brainwashing by revealing he plants bombs in Apokolips. A really clever, yet simple plan I can actually see someone do. It helps empathize his both his intellect and compassion as a character without nerfing Darkseid with a plot device like Super-Ultra-Platinum-Hellstorm Arcade Edition Bat Armor to make Batman seem invincible.
The question isn't wondering if it's possible, it is if DC cares about wanting both action and wits instead of only one. And how much effort with common sense they will put in.
Clayface would be an amazing villain on the big screen but how does Batman fight him without it getting ridiculous?
Drive him crazy or use electricity like Green vs Red said, use cryo pellets, or trap Clayface somewhere to get bombarded by a LOT of water.
Or if you really can't think of anything, just have Clayface redeem himself in the end. Both the recent Detective Comics stories and The Batman 2004 cartoon showed Clayface try being a hero to switch things up.
So make a movie script where Batman doesn't win over Clayface externally, but internally. Batman stories love to talk about how the city is filled with insane supervillains but they can't be killed because they have tragic backstories and deserve to be rehabilitated. So have Clayface actually be the first cinematic Batman villain turn a new leaf so that Gotham doesn't look like a perpetual cycle of insanity and violence.
-
RE: Marvel Movies Thread - Holy Shitballs
Reeves' Superman is EXACTLY that. The first one holds up really, REALLY well. 42 years later and its still the Gold Standard. The effects have aged a bit (they won't convince you a man can fly nowadays) and it's still the old 70's crazy scientist Luthor instead of modern competent Businessman Luthor of the 80's, so him and his sidekick are campy (intentionally so) but the rest is pretty solid. It's nothing like Batman 66 if that's what you're worried about.
Huh. I'll give Superman 1 a watch then sometime before summer ends. And Superman 2 just because of the Kneel Before Zod memes.
Yeah he saves a plane but… c'mon, it was the first one.
Fair. I hate that Superman trope so much I was happy when horror villain Supes destroyed the plane at the end of Brightburn. Neat premise but lackluster character writing.
A better way to write the plane save shtick is having Superman either rescue everyone inside the plane before it crashes or comforting them face-to-face during/after the fall. We need more superheroes directly talking to bystanders instead of only used as prop mannequins for rescues and supervillain death tolls.
Goofy wrestling heel Venom is the best Venom.
!
!THAT is how you write a fun Eddie Brock Venom. That and the Spectacular Spider-Man season two episode when Venom tells the paparazzi he'll take off Spidey's mask in public is a close second.
I mean maybe not in superhero comics but.
That whole video is a spot on example of how stupid not conceiving children is as a villain motivation.
Being Eddie first isn't inherent to the character at all either considering almost modern adaptation just leapfrogs Eddie as host.
Eddie is indeed expendable. The sooner we get to Flash Thompson sooner, the better. Or if we need to have Eddie, maybe write him more like a shonen rival anti-hero from the get go instead of straight-up villain. He doesn't want to kill Spider-Man, he wants to upstage him as the better hero as ruin Peter's reputation.
Speaking of Flash, he and Jonah are the most underserved characters when it comes to live-action Spider-Man films nowadays. They feel like relics even though they're some of the most interesting antagonists and eventual allies for Peter.
Have him lift a car:ninja:
Better yet, have him not try to kill someone for at least one film.
Well shit not that it would've made the movie less problematic but it sounds like we got bullshit for the theatrical release.
Yup. Glad I rented it on Amazon to rewatch instead of the theatrical cut.
At the very least, I'll take an hilarious ambitious failure over a boring mediocre movie that plays everything safe for mass audience appeal any day. Spider-Man 3 ironically entertains me more than Homecoming unironically did.
-
RE: DC Movies Thread - Shazam saves the day
Not killing people but stopping short by giving them comas and internal bleeding is a pretty low bar that doesn't exactly makes Bats an endearing protagonist. But I'll be fine with it if he has a character arc in this movie where he realizes that, no, denying your humanity by trying to become a monster does not make you a hero. Let alone healthy or inspiring.
Give us a take where he can occasionally learn to crack a smile, open up others, and maybe finally give him a Robin again. I can't believe it's been TWO DECADES since we've seen a live-action movie with Batman and Robin because nobody can take the dynamic duo seriously without ironically ribbing on how silly it looks at first glance.
I'm glad we're finally getting Riddler and what seems like a detective mystery-driven plot, but at the same time that greeting card felt way too generic a serial killer motif. I'm worried they're not going to execute Riddler with the theatrical narcissist genius nature that define the character and make him so fun. I'd love to be proven wrong though, and I don't mind experimenting with the character can be as long as this isn't another faux "Batman is rEaLiztiK" take like the Nolan films. I want to see Clayface finally get his due and Mr. Freeze return.
And why are Batman movies still afraid of giving Catwoman an actual cat costume? Along with calling her Catwoman instead of vague workaround reference to appease analytical comic book dorks. We can have Batman wear horns and a cape, Joker wear makeup with a purple suit, half of Two-Faces can get scarred to the point he looks like a zombie, and Scarecrow can wear a freaking burlap sack over his head, but the line is drawn at triangle ears and round goggles? Just use the modern designs from the Arkham games and even that underrated 2000s The Batman show. Please give her a better costume by the end of the movie.
Robert Battinson wearing black eye makeup under the film is the only real pleasant surprise in the trailer for me. It's always been obvious Batman actors wear black makeup under their cowls.
I've said this before, but until a new take on Bats is willing to inject with some actual capacity for empathy and supervillain theatrics, the LEGO Batman movie is still the best Batman film.
-
RE: Marvel Movies Thread - Holy Shitballs
I can see Eddie easily rationalizing only killing Peter because he sees Peter as a threat to everyone. He's a narcissist dodging self accountability by drowning in self pity, the exact opposite of Peter. Who therefore who thinks that Spider-Man ruined his life and deserves to be terrorized because he might have acted like a dick a couple times while wearing the Symbiote.
So it's not a leap to imagine that Eddie would therefore think Spider-Man harms EVERYONE ELSE's lives too, or at least eventually will.
Because everyone knows Eddie Brock is an innocent upstanding citizen who got dealt a bad hand. Of course. Everyone loves Eddie Brock. Like the employer that fired him. Or the girlfriend that left him. Or the abusive cop dad that saved him from a drunk driving manslaighter charge but smacked him when he wanted to confess and serve his time. No one has it as bad as Eddie.
Eddie can never stop feeding his ego, reigniting his delusions of grandeur fueled by hated for Spider-Man. Because then he has to look in the mirror and realize he's as much of a monster internally as he already looks externally. And thus confront how much he actually hates himself for ruining his own life.
But hey, give him some credit. He knows what Peter Parker is "really" like, through a mere few brief casual interactions as co-workers. And everyone is else is just too naive to see him for the menace he is until it's too late. You're right to think that he's also hurting Peter's loved ones indirectly too, but he would just say he's "saving them" from Peter or some self righteous nonsense.
Eddie's vendetta makes as much sense as why J Jonah Jameson hates Spider-Man, which always has different interpretations that range from petty envy, to Spider-Man taking attention away from his son the astronaut, to irrational insecurities fueled by trauma, to a marketing stunt for selling newspapers, to Peter sharing some blame by stoking the fire by mocking him in retaliation.
And let's not even get started on what makes Lex Luthor hate Superman so much or why Joker loves Batman so much he wants to break his no killing rule which would somehow proves he's right. Supervillains tend to be crazy. But often have a method to the madness, which makes them compelling.
As much as I didn't care for the Venom film, it hit the nail in the head in calling Eddie Brock a loser. Because that's what he acts like. A sore loser.
What irks me about Venom is when he harms other people besides Spider-Man. Because then Eddie loses his supposed moral high ground against Peter "ruining" his life. That's the one flaw that bothered me about Spectacular Spider-Man's Venom targeting Aunt May and Gwen Stacy despite loving Eddie's buildup from being Peter's older brother figure to to becoming a tragic villain. He's easily the most sympathetic take on Venom who isn't just a delusional jerk before AND after meeting Spider-Man. So he loses his depth as an antagonist and just becomes another homicidal villain. Or just an idiot.
But no, his 90's redemption doesn't make sense. Many comic book redemptions don't make sense and aren't written well. They're only done because villains turned anti-heroes is a popular gimmick. Which only makes the Punisher look like an imbecile because the Avengers and X-Men are chock full of former murderers and supervillains.
-
RE: Marvel Movies Thread - Holy Shitballs
@Cyan:
I can't wait for a proper take on the Black Suit storyline that finally portrays the Venom Symbiote as it was originally written - as Peter's jilted lover.
I always prefer the toxic relationship allegory for the Venom Symbiote than the drug metaphor because they don't really commit enough to the drug idea to to explore stuff like withdrawal after getting rid of the suit. And for someone as down on his luck as Peter who has to struggles to maintain relationships with people, he's prime pickings for getting involved in a toxic and eventually abusive relationship that empowers his worse impulses.
Eddie as Venom is only interesting if he's personally antagonizing Peter in goofy, petty, theatrical ways like a wrestling heel or suffering from the Symbiote's psychological abuse.
Like holy crap is that dark and legitimate anger. Much more than Eddie Brock's… uhm... Peter proved I faked a photo?
But editorial was super sexist and didn't think the audience could believe a woman going toe to toe with Spiderman.
Yeah there's been a couple female symbiote hosts since but... not the same.
As someone who also doesn't care for Eddie Brock and would love to see more female supervillains (especially an evil doppelgänger of a male protagonist because it's always the same gender), that backstory is pretty terrible? It probably wasn't approved because of editorial sexism, sure, but having a fictional woman go insane because of infertility or miscarriage issues of is also a sexist cliche as old as time. That trope is right up there with fridging female love interests.
The last thing we need for gender representation is a woman breaking bad because she couldn't have kids. You would never see that with a guy. Killing Joke Joker had his pregnant wife get fridged off-screen but you don't see him announcing to Batman that he wreaks havoc on Gotham to avenge his unborn child.
How is blaming a miscarriage on Spider-Man (in a car accident that's the driver's fault no less), more logically sound for a villain motivation than a scandal involving Spider-Man costing someone their job, reputation, and living situation?
But I have no problem with someone rewriting Eddie to be a woman in a new reinterpretation. Being male isn't inherent to the character at all. But we all know that she would get designed with an hypersexualized hourglass Oda figure instead of having even slight muscle tones. Which would be a huge shame since half of what makes Venom intimidating, aside from wearing black and eating human heads, is that they're a bulkier, deadlier Spider-Man. Almost like his natural predator, aside from Scorpion.
^ Low hanging fruit why not do the Christopher Reeve Superman movies preceding 3, need to throw some sacrificial lambs on the spit.
I still haven't watched the Reeves Superman films and get nervous whenever I consider to because I'm afraid they'll be horrendously dated and cheesy. Not that DCEU apathetic alien Supes is any better, but I'm waiting for a take on Superman that can effectively balance being both inspiring and pragmatic. Optimistic, but not preachy. And not saving a plane, it's played out and not impressive enough for someone with super strength and flight.
Woof, did they at least make Sandman's and Eddie's first meeting look less awkward?
Even the video game version of their meeting was poorly written which I know is a minor nitpick in a film that had a series of problems but still.
Unfortunately no, that silly first meeting is still the same. Although I still chuckle at how Sandman is only mildly disgusted by Venom's appearance.
There were a few other small changes that slightly improve the film though. Like a brief daytime swinging sequence with the black suit (which we really needed more of because that suit gets muddled in dark night scenes without the classic white spider logo contrast).
There's a new two minute scene after Sandman's transformation with no dialogue that shows him slowly learning how to regain his density and human appearance so he can grab his daughter's locket.
But the best and most apparent change has to be how they removed the scene where Harry's butler tells him the truth about Norman two movies too late. Instead it's replaced with Harry rejecting Peter's plea for help against Venom but then looking at a broken framed high school photo of him, Peter, and MJ while tearing up, so he decides to forgive Peter through his own agency in this version.
And they also slightly change the introduction to Emo Peter and Harry's apartment fight by having Peter lay down on the same couch that he laid Norman's corpse on at the end of Spider-Man 1. It's a blink and you'll miss it moment, but damn, I love how much the Editor's Cut reframes Bully Maguire to be an absolute monster of a human being without going full supervillain.
-
RE: Marvel Movies Thread - Holy Shitballs
their track record without Marvel's help is…1 for 8? The Raimi/Webb 5, and the two Ghost Rider abominations, and only Spider-Verse wasn't an embarrassment.
At least 4 out of 8. And in the context of Sony Spider-Man films, 4 or 5 out of 7 depending on how you view Venom.
When Sony lets directors and writers make a Spider-Man film without trying to force multiple main antagonists and a shared universe, they tend to turn out pretty good. And it's thanks to Sony and FOX owning Spidey and X-Men that we get experimental subversive superhero films like Spider-Verse, Logan, and Deadpool. Which would never get made under Disney (unless someone wants to come out and say Big Hero 6 is an misunderstood masterpiece lol). I'll gladly risk three bad live-action spin-off movies if it means there's even a chance we'll get something like Spider-Verse again.
My brief, yet still pedantic thoughts on all the Spider-Man films:
! Spider-Man 1 is fairly dated. Decent, but riddled with cheesy dialogue, some of the action is 2000s quality at its worst, and has a poorly written romance. But it's not a definitively bad film by any means. X-Men took the first step (and Blade I guess), but it was Spider-Man 1 that walked so every modern 21st century superhero movie could run. I probably won't ever rewatch it on my own, but anyone here relentlessly bashing it is kidding themselves if they think it's as underwhelming as the worst entries in the MCU or DCEU. Willem Dafoe's Green Goblin chews the scenery so hard his gums bleed, but at least he's a villain memorable enough to requote.
! Over the years we take it for granted as this cheesy first Spider-Man movie where the only good thing was J.K. Simmons' casting, but it's easy to forget it was mainly a drama and the first time we see the tragedy of Uncle Ben's death outside of the comics. Which is still one of the most uniquely iconic and emotional origin stories out there. And unlike most MCU movies, it has a great soundtrack that isn't just white noise in the background and triumphantly playing the main theme once in the climax.
! I will always bat for Spider-Man 2 still being one of the top ten live-action superhero films to date, if not top five (although for me, it's right at the top). Amazing action, spectacular music, astonishing drama (outside of MJ, this trilogy had no idea how to write romance well but that can be said for most superhero films), sensational humor, and a superior supporting cast compared to Homecoming and Far from Home outside of the villains. Compared to Spider-Man 1, there's a lot less cheesiness and whatever cheese is left tends to be more fun than cringe-y. One of the only superhero that more often not knows how to balance drama and humor effectively. The Raindrops Keep Falling on My Head, pizza delivery, and elevator scenes still make me crack up more than any other superhero comedy ever has. It's not my favorite adapted take on Spider-Man (Spectacular, PS4, and Spider-Verse take that honor), but it nailed Peter Parker's underdog lifestyle.
! Spider-Man 3 is a dumpster fire and I definitely wouldn't count it as one of the "good" Sony Spider-Man films. But there's something to be said about how it can still be ironically entertaining to watch for how gloriously bad it is compared to true painfully boring trash like Daredevil, Ghost Rider, and half of MCU's Phase Two movies. The action scenes are pretty damn good, it probably has the best final fight scenario in the trilogy of being staged like a 2v2 hell in a cell wrestling match in a skyscraper construction site, and I'd go as far as saying it has my favorite take on the Symbiote Spider-Man arc.
! >! Because it's less the suit literally corrupting Peter into becoming bad and more Peter letting ego and vanity get to his head after finally becoming a popular superhero, with the Symbiote playing a minor role in his devolution like an actual drug would. I can totally believe a dork like Peter would do that dance because that's his idea of being cool and confident, and the Editor's Cut has that scene take place right after he blows up Harry's face so it was supposed to be a lot more unsettling because there he's celebrating scarring his best friend.
! I respect how daring they were in making Peter naturally become a huge asshat. Of course I would still prefer Peter not putting his hair down and wearing eyeliner to look edgy and his redemption/withdrawal process being longer than just taking off the suit (but that's something no Spider-Man story has ever been willing to do for some reason). The second dance scene is way too cheesy for my liking, the one redeemable aspect about it that's easily forgotten is how Peter was using Gwen as tool to make Mary Jane jealous. Which is downright evil, and makes the sequence easier to swallow because there was a dramatic point to it.
! Oh, and as rushed and lame as the Venom design in this movie is, the Eddie Brock in this movie is better than in Venom. He's a pathetic, slimy, cunning, self-pitying loser who uses his earned misfortune as an excuse to be evil, and he's effective at it as an antagonistic foil to Peter's underdog character who still strives to be a compassionate hero. That's all Eddie Brock ever is and needs to be. While Venom's Eddie… I don't even know how to describe what Tom Hardy's take was besides being a selfish idiot at best and a fidgeting, stuttering, awkward middle schooler in an adult's body at worst.
! The first Amazing Spider-Man is actually a better origin story than Spider-Man 1 and is an overall engaging film when you get past the first clunky fifteen minutes of once Peter gets his powers. It's also the first Spider-Man movie where the main villain has an actual plan in spite of how goofy it is. And for once in the superhero movie genre, the romantic chemistry between Peter and Gwen is actually decently written and endearing? Peter's got a good arc in this movie about starting off as an introverted teen to a jerk with superpowers to a selfish revenge-obsessed vigilante to realizing he should be a responsible superhero. And I think this movie did the best job with Peter's supporting cast, especially Flash Thompson.
! >!
! Everyone knows Spider-Verse is the best Spider-Man film. Although I would go as far as saying it's the best superhero film ever. And as for The Amazing Spider-Man 2…I liked Amazing Spider-Man 2 though yeah it wasn't necessary to have Harry become the Green Goblin and fight Peter at the end of the movie …....or kill off Gwen, which lead to that weird transition in the last few minutes.
I can't express how grateful I am to see someone else on here defend Amazing Spider-Man 2 despite it's many flaws. Seriously, it's a relief.
! Like Md-Martin said, Sony should have listened to all of Feige's advice because he had both spot on critiques and praises (he also actually liked Electro, which I don't see anyone ever talk about). Yes, its ending is rushed to oblivion and it's a mess of a film when viewed as a whole two and half hour experience and deserves a lot of its criticism. Although I think some of the complaints tend to be overblown nitpicks that most people wouldn't fuss about in more popular superhero films.
! But there are individual parts within Amazing Spider-Man 2 that I really liked and wish were allowed to be fleshed out more by dividing the story across two movies and completely cutting out the mystery about Peter's parents. The web swinging, crime fighting, and bits of Spider-Man helping out New Yorkers and kids in the intro to the film are really charming. And I liked Electro a lot, aside from the couple cheesy bits pre-transformation where they make him look cartoonishly crazy (but it's not like Spider-Man 1's Green Goblin was any better).
! Even the final fight with Gobby and Gwen's death, as ugly as its Green Goblin design is and how shoehorned they are in climax of the film right after beating Electro, that final fight still has really compelling tension, music, and action choreography. Especially the action choreography. If there's one thing I could absolutely care less for in the MCU Spider-Man films, it's how mediocre the action choreography and web-swinging are portrayed and made almost entirely in CGI compared to all the other Spider-Man films. In a better film focused exclusively on Harry's descent into madness, it could have been the best finale out of all the Spider-Man films.Criticize the Amazing films as much as you want, but at least the Spider-Man in those two films is actually funny like he's supposed to be.
Then there's the MCU Spider-Man films where… I don't like anything besides the villains, including Peter Parker himself, until the third act. MCU Peter messes up everything so badly all the time until just barely scraping by with success in the final battle of both films that I only want him to quit being a hero instead of becoming a better one. Spider-Verse does a flawed beginner Spider-Man character living up to a mentor's expectations arc dozens of times better, and it only needed one film with a runtime less than two hours too.
Tom Holland's Spider-Man in the proximity of the entire MCU is like the comedic relief main character in a shonen action series, but the story pretends he develops into a competent superhero without doing the legwork to show him learn and improve, unlike Usopp in One Piece and Kanchome/Folgore in Zatch Bell.
I still felt Spider-Man 2 was too cliche and they spent way too much time focusing on 'Spider-Man is broke AF'.
But mundane conflicts like money problems are essential to making Spider-Man, well, Spider-Man. They're a notable part of what makes him unique among the Marvel universe, and superhero comics as a whole. And would easily enhanced the MCU's variety when juxtaposed with how every other superhero is basically a celebrity, billionaire, monarch, or commissioned agent of justice with near infinite resources to fall back on. Out of all the things to criticize about Spider-Man movies, that's what you're homing in on?
It's always funny to me to see people praise seeing Spider-Man in a shared universe when a big part of early Spider-Man crossovers in the comics (going back as far as Spider-Man meeting the Fantastic Four in Amazing Spider-Man #1) is him trying to join superhero teams because he thinks it'll help him improve his public reception and earn a living wage to support himself and Aunt May through superhero work. Those are relatable motivations that set him apart from other superheroes to this day. And make excellent comedic material for moments like this:
!
! It's not the first time he joined the Avengers here but it still says everything you need to know about the character. And Peter joining the Avengers in Infinity War was just as anticlimactic.While I understand the desire to create a different take on the character and potential in focusing on a superhero living up to the A-listers, I find stuff like money problems much more compelling and relatable than Peter trying to earn a billionaire's approval or struggling with inheriting interstellar drone strike AI glasses. A better pick for that type of superhero-fan-in-training niche would have been Ms. Marvel.
And what exactly was cliche about Spider-Man 2? The only thing I can point out off the top of my head is hiding his secret identity from a love interest. And maybe Harry misunderstanding how his father died because Peter wants to maintain his secret identity, because contrived drama.
But everything else aside from them? Spider-Man 2 would still be a very unconventional film under today's superhero genre standards. Dealing with money issues, being criticized by news outlets, trying not to fail college because of poor attendance, talking with ordinary New Yorkers, saving people from fires, struggling with depression to the point it negative affects your superpowers, giving up your superhero identity to focus on maintaining civilian life, and ultimately redeeming the supervillain of the month are all still unique superhero story elements that I haven't seen done in any modern superhero film this past decade. Iron Man 3 came close with Tony's PTSD and blowing up his suits at the end of the film, but the consequences of those things weren't explored enough to feel impactful before inevitably donning the suit again.
Superheroes having secret identities are all but extinct nowadays, and while there are a bunch of tired out tropes I'm glad we don't see from that anymore, there are some characters that benefit more from having one than without one.
Spider-Man 2 definitely isn't a perfect movie. But very few superhero films are even truly great, although Spider-Verse comes super freaking close. I feel like a lot of the criticism towards Spider-Man 2 nowadays comes from people vaguely remembering watching it as a kid and comparing it to recent movies fresh on the mind under the assumption they've only gotten better, and watching cheesy out of context clips of Tobey crying or screaming online. If you watched it recently and you dislike it, I can respect that, but provide criticism that is consistent and backed up.
I used to think Spider-Man 2 was outdated for a few a decade or so too until I watched all the Spider-Man films back-to-back a year ago to prepare for watching Far from Home. And I was blown away by how much more heartfelt, sincere, and funny it is compared to the MCU. The humor especially, there's actually a lot of great slapstick and visual comedy gold in Spider-Man 2 that still stands the test of time compared to the Avengers namedropping Spongebob characters and the Beatles.
I think Spidey's connection to the MCU is the most important aspect because of all the tie-ins whatnot so it behooves Sony to let Marvel be the thing whispering in their ear and doing course-correction. I'm still against them having started Peter Parker out in high school instead of college because he's literally the only hero with a secret identity to protect and a freakin' curfew which is not a compelling distraction from his duties. There are so many other things he could be dealing with that provide filler for his time outside of costume but we get the same one we got twice before and it hasn't fixed the underlying issue.
That's what makes him different and interesting though. Why do we want more of the same superheroes with no social constraints besides being super? I would have enjoyed MCU movies like, say, Ant-Man and the Wasp a lot more if it focused on Scott's parental struggles and being an ex-convict instead of watered down humor most of the time.
Now, I would prefer not keeping Peter in high school for an entire movie trilogy (both the Raimi and Webb films got high school over with in the first or second film). But even if he got to college sooner he'll have to deal with issues like attending classes, dealing with college professors potentially being supervillains, working on his college thesis, and deciding on his future profession (which I would prefer being a teacher since that's a relatable working class underdog job, but Spider-Man stories lean heavily into him being an inventor nowadays).
Otherwise there's no point to making him a student besides setting window dressing.
Not that Spider-Man doesn't work as an adult living on his own with a job, that's literally Spider-Man 2. But you miss out on a lot of internal conflict, character growth, and supporting cast potential by completely skipping the high school years. Hence why Spectacular Spider-Man and Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse are such beloved takes on Spider-Man despite taking place entirely in high school as per the usual Spider-Man adaptation. Theoretically you could possibly have Harry Osborn, MJ, Gwen Stacy, and Flash Thompson be college classmates instead, but they would need to be somewhat reinvented since their tropes and roles are very rooted in high school specifically.
I don't mean to be a jerk, but I struggle to understand how you criticize both having Peter as an adult with money problems and a high school student with domestic problems. That's like saying Spider-Man should be all about the power with zero responsibility. That sequence in Homecoming where Peter learns Toomes is Vulture and Toomes learns Peter is Spider-Man is arguably the best part of the movie, but you can't have twists seeped in suspense like that if you don't focus on the high school problems and skip it entirely. Hence why scenes like these get to be so impactful thanks to the high school drama buildup:
Spider-Man having a curfew isn't just a distraction from the super cool hero work, it's an insight into his relationship with Aunt May and the drama of living with your caretaker after being indirectly responsible for them becoming a widow. Which plants the seeds for big moments like these:
!
!Those scenes wouldn't be possible or impactful if we didn't focus on Peter's school and home life with Aunt May. Peter needs to be in high school for at least a little while because that's where he gets his supporting cast. They gave Peter relationships. Drama. Lessons. Stakes. They help flesh out New York to feel like a character of its own that deserves to be protected by Spider-Man. They define his stories as much as the powers, costume, and villains do.
Without them… he's just Iron Man. If I wanted to watch Iron Man, I'd watch Iron Man.
Only 1 and 3 though.As much as I like to rag on MCU Spider-Man films, taking place in high school for the third time isn't one of my fundamental issues with them. There are a bunch of ways to play out his high school life that hasn't been often done before, a la Spectacular Spider-Man (which is the most faithful Lee/Ditko-inspired adaptation). Instead, my grievances are how the MCU movies barely characterize any of Peter's supporting cast aside from maybe MJ outside of forgettable gags that either make them a joke or a jerk with little-to-no depth. And how the comedy is emphasized more than the drama in both Homecoming and Far from Home until the third acts where they finally feel like Spider-Man stories instead of teenage Iron Man (not to be confused with the actual teenage Iron Man story, Iron Man: Armored Adventures, which is a pretty underrated cartoon).
Spider-Man, across every adaptation except maybe the MCU, is a drama first, a comedy second, and a tragedy from time to time but not relentlessly gritty. And if a writer wants to focus on the comedy, at least have it be relatable/character-driven instead of accidentally ordering a drone strike on your tour bus because your romantic rival walked in on you changing clothes with a female secret agent and misunderstood the situation enough to take a picture so as to show it to said love intere-Seriously, what in God's name even was that freaking scene?
How did we get a point where people think Spider-Man crossing over with other heroes is more essential to his stories than being an everyman protagonist? Aside from rebooting a movie franchise twice, I mean.
Let me know when it's time to roast a superhero movie franchise that's actually cliche, overrated, dated, and worth picking apart. Like all the live-action Batman movies outside of Heath Ledger's Joker performance.
-
RE: Marvel Movies Thread - Holy Shitballs
The Hulk is an incredibly boring character on his own, he just tries to isolate himself to stop his rampages and eventually his past catches up with him, the military finds him, comes for him, he loses control, becomes the Hulk, Rampages, effortlessly beats everyone, then runs away again, rinse and repeat
The only time I remember anything remotely different was Planet Hulk, but they basically already did that with Thor Ragnarok
The best Hulk stories are the ones that embrace super weird sci-fi. Planet Hulk is a perfect example.
Other notable ones include Future Imperfect, where Professor Hulk gets transported to a future where an evil old version of himself called Maestro killed all Marvel heroes and rules the world. And there is the current Immortal Hulk run where Bruce Banner now transform into the Hulk at night time like a werewolf but the Hulk is a deviously intelligent split personality like Mr. Hyde.
The only good Hulk story that uses the generic "military chases down Hulk" story template is probably the Ultimate Destruction video game. And even that has weird cool stuff like a new Devil Hulk personality emerging inside Bruce's mind threatening to take control. And the Abomination is an intimidating yet tragic character for once.
-
RE: Marvel Movies Thread - Holy Shitballs
Wonder when daredevil is going to get salvaged
They can't start any projects using him until at least a year from now as per the Netflix deal saying they can't use these characters until two years after their shows end.
-
RE: Castlevania Mini-Series
@Daz:
Yeah but you'd still have to develop everything from scratch. It'd be Simon in name only. Trevor had the honor of being the first one to face Dracula and a supporting cast that included Alucard, the guy with the most elaborate connection to Dracula. Simon has no supporting cast, and the "Belmont legacy" angle would work equally well for Richter, Juste, Julius, Christopher or even Sonia Belmont just as well. If they want further material from the games virtually everyone is more interesting than Simon, but maybe they could keep his name and make him a hodgepodge of all the others. Team him up with Maria, give him an abducted son like Christopher and a fallen comrade like Juste or Nathan Graves etc.
You could say the same about Trevor given how his personality as a cynical loner drunkard who is easily provoked is something the show entirely made up. Taking paper thin source material and injecting new elements into doesn't ruin or stray far away from something that was already something that was hollow to begin with. As long as he's still killing monsters, new traits only adds to to a nearly naked canvas.
I agree that almost every other Belmont is more interesting than Simon. I personally wouldn't shed any tears if Simon got cut. But there is little to no chance they're skipping the first and most iconic protagonist in the franchise (besides Alucard) if we're ever getting past Trevor's story. So there's no harm in spitballing how to make Simon work, even if the character is "different" to the point he could have any other name.
Although I would still argue calling him Simon still has proper purpose and weight despite the differences. It lets the audience know this is their definitive take on the character and doesn't keep them wondering when "real" Simon will get referenced or show up.
New adaptations should be evaluated as stories on their own first and faithful adaptations second. If the character is enjoyable and they aren't ignoring unique potential from the source material in favor if a wateted down take, that's all that matters at the end of the day.
Otherwise, you may as well say there's no point in calling MCU Vulture the Vulture because he's not an elderly man wearing a green birdsuit and robbing banks. MCU Vulture is still at least a flying Spider-Man villain and has a much more interesting design and clever modus operandi based around tech scavenging a la scavenger animals like vultures. Calling him the Buzzard or the Hawk would not feel anywhere near as meaningful as simply calling him the Vulture.
Adaptations like these need to take big liberties here and there to function whenever the source material is lacking. It's fine. Even if he gets thrown traits from other Belmonts the series like you suggested.
-
RE: Castlevania Mini-Series
The side-scroller games would kick my ass at the second half of it. I was that dumb of a kid. And even though I didn't had to chance to beat (Alongside several PS2 games), Lamment of Innocence deserves more respect than it got it.
To this day I wished they made a game about Julius menaging to kill Dracula once and of all in 1999. (It was a bizarre summer.)
I never got to beat the 2D games either for that same reason lol. And as blasphemous as it sounds, I haven't touched Symphony of the Night yet.
I'd kill for Julius Belmont eventually becoming the last protagonist of the show. But I doubt we're getting there becayse this series really feels like it's being written on the cuff with little longterm planning.
@Daz:
As iconic as he is, theres really not much dramatic potential to wring from Simon. His story is basically "Go kill Dracula!" in its purest form. Theres' a bit more to Richter - kindapped girlfriend turned vampire, Shaft, posession, new dynamic with Maria, friendship/conflict with Alucard - but if they were to do a timeskip I could see them going all the way to Bloodlines just to mix things up. Or the Soma Cruz games I guess, but then we're full-on anime…
I see your point. They could expand on Simon's personality but that's only conjecture based on nothing.
However, it is possible for a simple character like Simon to work depending on how well you explore the reasoning and consequences of why he wants to kill Dracula or any other villain. Like with Guts in Berserk. Or go full throttle on him being obsessed with killing Dracula that he's a barely functioning amusing idiot otherwise. Like Fred Jones in Scooby Doo Mystery Incoporated. Throw in a party member or two like Grant and Alucard to act as foils who can complement whatever Simon lacks
and give him depth.Simple characters aren't bad by default, it all depends on how you play with what unexpected situations and characters you throw their way.
Richter would be great though. Especially if they work in a Divine Bloodlines remix.
-
RE: Castlevania Mini-Series
You do know he was the "idiot who put wheels on a ship" that was mentioned twice in the first episode, right?
I know. That's exactly what I mean. It's such a weird reference because it almost deconfirms him becoming a main character in a way. Because it made him a joke without appearing on-screen. The chances of him joining the main cast now are like if the Straw Hats' next crewmate was someone they already met before, but completely off-panel and thought they were to embarrassing to interact with.
To his defence, they were all idiots to think they could do anything against a army of hell spawns even though they were given the option to no engage them.
I agree that kind of stupidity would piss me off too. But that that badass captain's advice is too awesome to ignore just because of some random imbeciles.I did really like the
! "because you were all so fucking rude" line though.
> >! Yeah, Alucard did that already in episode 7 of season 2. The only Werewolf they could use is Cornell, but he was from that awful N64 so….Original character from the same tribe, I guess.
! Original character is fine with me as long as it's a talking bipedal werewolf this time. Although they could always take inspiration from the Cornell in Lords of Shadow. He's a vampire lord who likes transforming himself and his army into talking werewolves.! The worst possible thing they can even pull out of this is making him go full-time antagonist. That would be like the biggest example of ruining a character, not only by the game counterpart, but as how you written down your character since the beggining.
! It would be really, really dumb. Defeats the entire point of his character, that he's the good vampire.
! While I do agree with this, I feel like we need to see the resolution of Hector and Isaac before we can jump over a hundred years or so in the future before we leave unanswered answers.
! I definitely agree that their mortality requires their character arcs to be solved before we skip over multiple generations yet. But I want to retort by saying that they don't need to make the Belmont bloodline as needlessly convoluted as in the original canon timeline. The Lords of Shadow reboot took the liberty of making Simon just be Trevor's son instead of Trevor's great great great great great great great great great grandson or whatever.
! I don't think making Simon becoming Trevor's son or grandson in this show is something anyone would throw a fit over. And it would only benefit the story by still having the Forgemasters and maybe even Trevor and/or Sypha alive as supporting characters like Joseph Joestar and Jotaro in latter Jojo parts while Simon (or maybe Christopher Belmont lol, but he's just Game Boy Simon) becomes the next official protagonist. The only other Belmont they've set in stone anyways is Leon as the clan founder through his painting cameos.
! By the way, which Castlevania games have you played? I don't often get a chance to meet other Castlevania fans. I've mainly played the classic first four side-scroller games and the Lords of Shadow reboot trilogy, the latter of which I still liked a lot despite Lords of Shadow 2 being a very messy game (still loved the music and combat system though). -
RE: Castlevania Mini-Series
Wait, we got three characters from Curse of Darkness already of all games but we still haven't gotten Grant yet? That's freaking hilarious.
Anyways, my thoughts on this season are pretty much the opposite of season 2. Season 3 is much more engaging for the most part than season 2 was. A bunch of neat character interactions and dialogue, especially with Isaac. Lenore was also a standout. This season focuses on smaller moments and philosophical pondering. It benefits a lot from that.
But on the other hand, season 2's last couple episodes left a much stronger satisfying impression with bits of melancholy than season 3's did. I wasn't into any of the conflicts going on aside from Hector's, and that felt a bit rushed like Baroness alluded to. And the ending felt like it really wanted to be dark and cynical for the sake of being depressing and cynical without having the substance to make it feel convincing. It felt like I was watching a Walking Dead season finale lol.
! The judge being a homicidal asshole doesn't really add anything besides forcing a bitter ending. Isaac's final battle was pretty meh and felt like action for the sake of action. He could also be more patient with humanity instead of basing all their redeemability on every stubborn angry mob he sees. Those green thorn crowns on the humans looled cool though. Such a shame too because he was a really cool guy. The siblings betrayed Alucard way too quick and that threesome was random as hell. I thought they would try to sneak around the castle in secret, but no they just skip ahead to assassinating him lol.
! I did like the worldbuilding with the Japanese vampire though, I hope we get more stuff like that. Along with other recurring intelligent horror creature characters that aren't vampires. Like a werewolf. Or at least a vampire-werewolf hybrid since some vampires can become wolves.
! I can't help feeling like this season had no idea what to do with Alucard but still gave him his own random plotline anyway. Honestly, the same goes for Trevor and Sypha, hence keeping them in a library for most of season 2, because they're right back where they started. It feels like the writers are way more interested in writing the villains throughout this whole show but feel burdened to keep the protagonists around despite not knowing what to do with them besides killing more monsters to resemble the games.
! I'd argue that a better choice for continuing the series past Dracula might have been cutting the season in half to focus on the villains building up their power and then have a timeskip jump to Simon. Maybe even switch things up like having Simon fight the vampire sisters instead of Dracula and have Grant partner up with him since he hasn't been introduced yet and so Simon isn't alone like in both his games. Throw Alucard in too, so he becomes the eternal wingman for future Belmonts. But I feel like they're too scared to switch protagonists like Jojo's Bizarre Adventure.
! Also, Lenore is the best antagonist this series has had so far. Her duality between being a cunning negotiator yet also seeing herself as a good person "helping" the person she's enslaving like a pet is so chilling. I hesitate to call Isaac an antagonist yet (please let him become Death, PLEASE), Dracula was barely a presence before the final battle and let his court do all the work, and Carmilla's entire characterization is basically misandry + bitch. I love how even her sisters constantly criticize her for being such a bitch for no good reason too lol. I can see Lenore having a secret plan to usurp control by enslaving her sisters with the blood rings too. Whatever happens, she deserves more spotloght than Carmilla does. The other sisters are fine though. -
RE: General Sonic the Hedgehog Thread (Now With Movie 3 & Knuckles)
Yeah, it's pretty much the film you'd expect it to be from the trailer but not really in a bad way.
This is a very accurate brief review of the movie's quality. Although funnily enough:
! Stuff like the Echidna Tribe chasing Sonic in the beginning was only put into the movie after Hyson Tesse was attached to redesign Sonic. Originally they were realistic humanoid lizard creatures. Which is also apparently a holdover of a previous attempt at making a live-action Sonic movie where said lizards would actually be the main antagonists instead of Dr. Robotnik (I'm using this name primarily because that's the main name they're sticking with over Eggman). And there's a good chance that if Hesse never got involved, Tails would either not be in the film or look like the original Uncanny Valley live-action Sonic…
! Although in spite of those changes, I'm surprised they kept that Longclaw (Sonic's new parental owl) design intact. Because that design doesn't fit in with Sonic's character design style at all, it's literally just a giant photorealistic owl that looks more like it's from Zelda. But hey, 3/4 decent faithful animal character designs ain't bad by Hollywood standards. I have to give this movie credit for actually improving itself based on trailer audience reactions, although it's mainly more in the vein of finally having at least one person who cares about the source material check their progress to give feedback three quarters into production lol.
! Movie's decent and even pleasantly surprising if you go into it for what it is. It's your typical fish out of water/buddy bonding plot to a T (there's even a contrived "the main characters bicker" plot point where Sonic becomes an asshole because he doesn't like Tom moving on with his life to San Francisco). The humor ranges from okay to "yeah, this is a Hollywood movie", with stuff fart jokes, a bar fight, and Tom's wife's sister constantly wanting them to get divorced. But it's actually marginally better than most other adapted properties that do this, mainly because Sonic and Dr. Robotnik carrey this movie through and through with semi-decent characterization and humor. When it focuses on just the other humans it's bleh to mediocre.
! They give Sonic a (rushed) origin story and an actual internal conflict for once, so he's automatically more interesting than usual portrayals where he's just a cocky quipping goody two-shoes even though it's a cliche "I'm lonely and really want friends" shtick". Jim Carrey does his usual thing with an arrogant narcissist misanthrope genius flair. Although he doesn't start looking like the game design towards the end and his "Badniks" are only generic sci-fi white/grey robots, which inhibits his personality but maybe they'll fix that in the inevitable sequel judging by the after-credits scene and the movie's huge success. He does have this cool Power Glove to control his robots, with the buttons being on his palm. They look a lot like Genesis buttons if I remember right. And I liked how he powers his aircraft with Sonic's quill speed energy to keep up with Sonic.
! They never explain where Sonic's electric burst spin dash powers come from either even though it's vaguely attached to his emotional state. But there is this cool subtle detail where whenever Sonic is hurt and needs medical attention in the movie, he doesn't have a bag of rings with him. When he does, the rings scatter and he's able to bounce back on his own. And Dr. Robotnik's robo dance walk at the end of the movie is apparently a reference to the Death Egg Robot's walk.
! Although what's the weirdest creative choice for me out of this entire movie is that for some reason, they make Dr. Robotnik a rival for Tom instead of Sonic. Sonic and Robotnik do fight towards the end of the movie, but even then they barely have any dialogue exchanges while the movie constantly has this recurring gag around Tom punching Robotnik. Even though Sonic calls Dr. Robotnik "Eggman" as an insult in this movie at least three times, Robotnik NEVER reacts to it even though he's insecure enough to lash back at anyone else who gets in his way. Such an odd scripting choice when giving them chemistry together would only elevated this film's screenplay.I don't like it as much Detective Pikachu, like Shift mentioned earlier (its appeal definitely dulls if you rewatch it because the CGI Pokemon novelty wears off). But it's an okay somewhat enjoyable Hollywood kids movie experience for what it is. And I think that redesigning definitely paid off because I doubt anybody would find this movie as redeemable as it is if he still looked as ugly.
There is absolutely potential for a sequel movie that focuses exclusively on the original Sonic characters, which I really hope they decide to do.
-
RE: My Hero Academia II - A true Hero
Well Tsukauchi and Gran Torino we're on the Nomu's and the League's tail for a while, after discovering Kurogiri's former identity they could track to where Shirakumo's body went, how many of the medical staff of that time is still active and start spying on those.
If that was the case I would have loved to see that logic on-panel than skip right to suspecting Dr. Ujiko. That way it has more impact and suspense than finding that out after the heroes already have. Gran Torino's investigation would be more interesting if Horikoshi didn't keep skipping so much of that.
Hawks didn't meet Ujiko.
He just narrowed down the possibilities from the leads he received from Twice and Oboro (a "hospital" and "in the mountains of Kyoto". We saw him piecing things together a few chapters ago). From that point on, the police planted a spy to check on Ujiko in order to gather proof.
Thanks, that makes sense. For some reason it's hard for me to remember specific details from Hawks' side of things because nothing much really happens after the Best Jeanist situation besides lot of narration while hanging out with Twice.
Although focusing on Ujiko, let alone one of his hospitals specifically with such little information still feels a little too stretch-y? Eh. Guess it's my fault for expecting more mystery solving towards a character who's so secretive he only gives an alias to the villain group he's helping out.
-
RE: My Hero Academia II - A true Hero
! The heroes already figuring out Doctor Ujiko's identity off-panel is lame considering how secretive and foreshadowed in the long-term this guy is. Especially considering how Hawks never got permission to even see Shigaraki (although that could simply be because he's too busy with his torture training power-up), so why would he get to meet Ujiko of all people? But Ujiko's close-up expressions are really fun.
! I don't have a good feeling about this arc's setup. It feels like the Yakuza arc but with lots more characters. But it could be good if Horikoshi either keeps Deku in his place to not save everyone or makes him interesting again by establishing some sort of emotional drama for him.
! Can't wait for the inevitable misunderstanding battle where someone assumes Hawks killed Best Jeanist. -
RE: Marvel Movies Thread - Holy Shitballs
I keep seeing this confusion over what is MCU and what isn't. For context, Sony's been trying to establish a universe since Spiderman 3. Kraven, Mysterio, Morbius, Venom, Vulture etc have all been in development as not only part of Spidey flicks, but their own solo films as well. This universe, that started with Homecoming, has been made for Spidey and his supporting figures. They are further etablishing that this is Spidey's universe. There has been this whole race for Spidey and it played out after FFH dropped.
So, how could you bait an audience into your own universe? Spidey is in the MCU just as much as he is in his own universe. The truth is that Sony is responsible for Homecoming and FFH, just as much as Disney is. Some of the audience have this way of thinking where everything they like about any of the Spidey films has to be due to Disney. "Disney did this scene or hired this director, writer, actor etc". It has been a collaborative effort and when people admit that they are brainwashed and conditioned by Disney at some capacity, then real conversations can take place. How would someone feel if they found out certain hiring were done by Sony in the collaboration.
I know all of that. And I actually supported Sony during the whole Spider-Man leaving the MCU fiasco because Sony pours a lot into MCU Spidey film production Disney and has too much of a media monopoly.
The problem here though is we don't know if the independent Spider-Man universe has actually started yet. Neither do we have any surefire confirmation on yet on Morbius being part of a shared universe. You can guess that it is because Morbius is a Spider-Man villain in the comics, but that's not confirmation and would be like saying the Joker will tie into the DCEU because Joker is known as a Batman villain. But at least with that, DC and Warner Bros went out of their way to say it's a standalone movie, which we do not have with Morbius. Only guesses and teases to, well… bait the audience into watching the movie to see if they get the confirmation from the film itself. Unless you think it's fair for people to have to risk reading spoilers online to find that out if Sony does not give official confirmation.
We know Sony has been trying to its own Spider-Man universe for years, and maybe wants to have Tom Holland's Spidey, in it. But what I'm emphasizing is how there is no official confirmation yet. Only rumors and speculation based on supposed teases.
So if they don't announce it prior to the movie's release, they're making viewers pay to watch the movie so they can find out if Morbius will connect to Spider-Man or Venom or Sinister Six of whatever. And people who watch the trailers will go see the movie because they'll look at the Raimi Spider-Man mural and Michael Keaton at the end going, "wait, was that Tom Holland Spider-Man and Vulture?!", even though the former could amount to nothing besides a background reference and Michael Keaton could very well be a different character.
For all we know, this movie could very well be contained to itself, like Venom was, and that's a character who is much more tied to Spider-Man than Morbius is. Sony definitely wants to start a universe, sure, but how do we know they're going to start crossing over different properties in Morbius of all movies, rather than Venom or even Kraven?
Despite whatever majority opinion and or reputation there is, or whether they're in the right or wrong of a business dispute, no corporation is your friend. Disney, Sony, or anyone else. They only care about money and have the power to take advantage of people. And if they can get away with it while seeming like they're trendy and appealing, they most likely will because it mostly helps them, not you. Giving them the benefit of the doubt that they'll give you what they seem to promise is exactly what they're counting on you to gullibly do. That's capitalism for you.
Well, all 3 movies are MCU Cap. It started with Tony's 1st 2 movies and Disney always planned to get him from Paramount. Feige has talked about this in the past.
Um… of course these movies all feature MCU Cap. I'm saying that I prefer one movie's depiction of the character over the others, not implying that they're completely different characters.
From my perspective, Cap was built up to juxtapose Tony. Both characters had to be balanced to a certain degree. Both were wrong in instances and right as well. They dug deeper into Cap being too much "in the now" in the latter movies, but he was introduced as simple and down to Earth in his 1st movie. That's what happens when you want to pull off a larger scale continuity. Characters become so flexible at their core. They do this in a plethora of stories to snag the audience, then hit you with the "this character is deeper than you thought". It is rare for a character to survive this without inconsistency and a total loss of credible writing.
I have always seen how Steve and Tony are meant to parallel each other. You are completely right about that.
But the parallel never really works for me because it's always Tony who has to be the flawed perspective. Not once have I felt like Tony had an interesting moral high ground over or even on the same level as Cap. The only times Cap falters post-gaining powers in these films is not saving Bucky (which wasn't his fault), not preventing the explosion in the beginning of Civil War (which is only used as a plot device for the Accords and not something Cap himself is actually criticized for by someone we're meant to agree with), not telling Tony about who killed his parents (which was selfish but he did it because he thought Tony couldn't handle it, and guess what, he ended up being right because Tony tried to kill an innocent brainwashed man), and failing to stop Thanos' snap (but EVERYONE failed at that, especially Quill and Thor, aside from maybe Dr. Strange).
Yet despite that, this makes me more interested in Tony as a character than Cap because Tony's flaws are at least interesting to explore even if it's obvious he's in the wrong. And Tony at least tries to alter his methods, like making robot drones evacuate and safeguard people in Age of Ultron and giving superhero registration, but those actions backfire because of his ego and/or because Marvel wants him to backfire without focusing on his merits. Meanwhile, Cap's behavior is predictable and often disingenuous with how I see his traditional SWAT team and "let's beat the bad guy up to save the day" methods turning out if they actually happened in real life without a convenient irredeemable villain puppeteering the situation the shadows. Normally I can ignore whether or not superheroes are realistic crusaders of justice for suspension of disbelief, but Civil War wants to put a magnifying glass on the issue so I have to acknowledge it.
Notice how in Civil War, Cap never really gives a solid retort or changes his approach in response to the criticism for the collateral damage that his team failed preventing in Lagos when apprehending Crossbones. All we get is him telling Wanda something along the lines of "people die, but all we can do is try our best, and if we don't act we can't help anyone." Which is a cute uplifting truism, but is so obvious and complacent that it doesn't mean anything when lives are at stake, and is reasonably not enough for governments to be okay with. It would be fine if a cop or FBI agent said that because they're adhering to the best protocol they have, but Cap follows his own rules, so he's not exempt from the criticism. The superhero registration is extreme, inefficient, and corrupt. It's not the right way (My Hero Academia does a way better job of showing that type of thing). But that doesn't make Cap's side all that agreeable either, yet the movie keeps trying to make it sound like it is. Which Infinity War emphasizes even further when the characters band together and acknowledge the Accords as being pointless, so there's no room whatsoever to see flaws with Cap from the movie's perspective.
I, on the other hand, am a sucker for an antagonist. Like how some prefer great art over great writing in a manga, I put a lot of stock in how the antagonist is set up and handled through the story. Cap 2 and 3 had way better antagonist, and out of the 3, I was most familiar with Red Skull. I liked Cap 1, but it's the weakest link of the 3. Wish it wasn't that way.
I love great antagonists, but a superhero movie won't ride or die by solely that aspect for me. Sort of like how I only love The Dark Knight for Joker but could care less for Bale's Batman. A great hero or a great villain can carry a movie even if you find the other side lacking. But whether or not they can do that is subjective, so I can respect that.
If you didn't like Red Skull, what appeals to you about Winter Soldier, HYDRA, and Zemo in comparison? I'm not fans of any of them, but I'm always curious to hear differing opinions.
-
RE: Marvel Movies Thread - Holy Shitballs
I like the Morbius trailer's Fur Elise remix music and design, but that's it. The trailer itself is cliche and it's obvious Sony is being really sleazy in baiting MCU fans to see it when it probably isn't in the MCU at all until further retcon notice like with Venom. Although Spider-Man being shown as a wall mural with murderer spray painted on it is daring and might indicate that there is a valid connection. Who knows. Regardless, this movie's existence is still dumb unless they make it like an actual horror film, which would be ironic because of Doctor Strange 2's development.
It's laudable that you withstood Captain America 1. I'm a big Red Skull fan and he was so boring. He needs to be redone. Red Skull as a Stonekeeper is better than whatever that was in the 1st movie. That's telling
I agree about Red Skull, but this discussion has made me think about the Cap trilogy and in all honesty…
I like Captain America: The First Avenger the best.Primarily because it doesn't try to frame itself as being anything deeper than a scrawny good-willed kid from Brooklyn signing up for war, getting superpowers, and beating up Nazis with a cute romance to boot. Whereas the sequels try to sound deep but keep pulling half measures to stick with black-and-white conflicts that don't make people think too hard about why they like people in costumes beating people up. Red Skull's lameness is really the only critique I have for First Avenger until I rewatch it.
I know how much people love MCU Cap and the sequel movies directed by the Russo Brothers, but Cap in those movies always feels like he's on an arrogant convenient pedestal. Always immediately knows what's right and hardly ever wavers in pursuing a naive black-and-white sense of justice even though his modus operandi is reckless as hell. And in all normal circumstances his decisions would be biased and easily backfire like we see with Spider-Man, which would make him a more interesting character if that happened at least once to show how things work differently in present day than the 1940s. But he always manages to be right only because the opposition keeps turning out to be cartoonishly corrupt.
Winter Soldier Cap: "I don't like the ethically grey stuff SHIELD seems to be doing with secret public surveillance."
You think that would lead into a movie exploring the ethics of a government using public surveillance technology and other controversial security methods.
But nope, the government's secretly controlled by Nazis. And not even in an interesting modern far right critique way, but a literal World War II Nazi legacy conspiracy. Because that's not how a real American government would act, but a bunch of bad eggs ruining things for everyone else. And fun fact, the military revoked their funding for Avengers 1 because of that scene where Fury criticizes his political superiors for wanting to bomb New York, but still funded Winter Soldier, a movie that is supposedly about American government critique according to how most people seem to praise it.
Civil War Cap: "I don't like the government conscripting superheroes according to the whims of political authority and imprisoning those who don't agree, along with pursuing my old best friend who has been brainwashed and reported be a terrorist now."
You would think that this story would gauge the merits and disadvantages of government-sanctioned heroism and individual vigilantism side-by-side. Especially with the debates amongst the Avengers in the opening scenes. Not to mention making Bucky either an interesting morally ambiguous character with his own destructive sense of justice or see Cap grapple with how Bucky's brainwashing and PTSD might be so severe and easily provoked that maybe the government is justified in wanting to arrest him for public safety even if it's technically unfair. Thus resulting in a film analyzing the full extent of free will and accountability.
But nope, Scarlet Witch is put under house arrest right before Steve gives Tony's perspective a chance and halfway through the movie we find out that Bucky's terrorism and most of the conflict between the pro-registration and anti-registration sides just happens to be manipulated by a mastermind with a Nazi brainwash codeword handbook. And the story shifts from deconstructing superhero accountability and responsibility to… revenge is bad. And the pro-registration people who want collateral damage accountability and moderation are all emotionally irrational and only want petty revenge, I guess? Is that what I'm supposed to take away from the movie?
In comparison to those exaggerated threats as a foil, of course Steve Rogers seems cool and ethically sound. And I don't even have a problem with that in itself, I'm always game for black-and-white good vs evil feel good stories that run on emotions more than intellectual debates. I can enjoy Winter Soldier and Civil War when I watch them for the first time without having enough time to process the story themes in my theater seat or go into rewatching them knowing what to expect. But my problem with the sequels is that those antagonists are treated as secret looming threats that take over a more interesting narrative premise.
So they're good vs evil stories trying to disguise themselves as politically complex films, which only disappoints me. Because it makes me think about if we actually got a politically complex film through and through. It's easy to say that you shouldn't go to superhero stories to find mature storytelling, but that's a load of BS to me, especially after Joker's success.
Down below is more rambling about what I wish Cap movies would explore, and more about why I liked First Avenger and criticize the sequels:
! I want to see stories that show the struggles of how Cap adjusts to modern day, interacts with people, and challenges his methods and political perspective (you can't say that a guy who wears the American flag for a costume isn't political lol). Which can make Cap even more impressive as a result by seeing how he either proves his ideology right against those tempting odds or charismatically matures as a person to show his humility in an inspiring way.
! And yet, the First Avenger still actually has more insightful political intrigue and humanizing moments than the later movies? Like Steve being an illustrator, which I'm sure 90% of audiences completely forgot by now. Or that scene where Steve looks like an idiot when he disobeys orders and dives over a grenade to protect everyone from the explosion, but it's fake. Which is a brief but cool way to show selfless yet goofy and flawed Steve is since he doesn't have powers at that point. Much more charming than spitting cheesy one liners mid-battle. And to this day I still love that musical propaganda montage that perfectly captures the era while poking fun at how over the top patriotism can be. That segment actually explores a more interesting side to Cap as a hero by showing what it's like for him to make staged public appearances and interact with ordinary people.
! That's actually what I was looking forward to seeing more of, Cap being a human being dealing with the pressure of being an inspiring American hero, in Cap 2 juxtaposed with a present day fish out of water setting for a Cap 2 film. But of course played more for drama than solely comedy.
! But then the Winter Soldier subtitle got shown off and revealed that we were skipping Cap adjusting to present day almost entirely besides a few gags to immediately deal with his past haunting him. Oh well. Maybe we'll get this in Falcon and Winter Soldier Disney+ show though. Maybe.
! Now in contrast, Cap sequels and Endgame ground Cap's humanity entirely in either Bucky or his love interests, Peggy and Sharon. But a bunch of problems arise here because Bucky is only ever a victim for Steve to protect or a sparring partner for brief action scenes. He gets brainwashed or killed by villains most of the time. So he feels like an static plot device with little agency as a character, but the movies want me to care about him only because he's Steve's best friend and we only vaguely remember his "death" scene in First Avenger.
! Sharon's an underdeveloped character and that whole relationship is creepy for obvious reasons.
! Steve's relationship with Peggy is good, but she's only a prominent plot focus in First Avenger. So every time she gets referenced or cameos once or twice in feature films, those moments relies on First Avenger nostalgia as a crutch for empathizing with Steve yet can't be appreciated in a vacuum if you haven't seen previous Cap films. But with every year that passes I remember Peggy's presence in First Avenger less and less, which makes those moments less impactful for me because I only have a foggy vignette of Peggy being that one lady Steve wanted to dance with and little else unless I make the effort to rewatch First Avenger side-by-side with newer films. And even then, the movies don't give Steve's grieving moments much room to feel organic and breathe, like when she randomly happens to die in Civil War and Sharon steals Cap's best speech from the comics because why knows why that was a good idea and then the main plot completely unrelated to Peggy has to keep on trucking. So those moments feel tacked on than truly compelling. So while I like Steve's beautiful ending coming full circle with the dance in Endgame, it feels more like a checklist for sending him off than something truly built-up in a movie focusing mostly on time travel and alien shenanigans. Further, at this point I have to wonder if Steve's time travel relationship with Peggy would even realistically work considering how much he's changed as a person since World War II.
! So… I really don't care about Steve's supporting cast, to put it short. But at least Steve shines in First Avenger as a fleshed out character and that movie has a properly focused romance compared to the sequels.
! I suppose the storytelling I want for Cap stories would risk mainstream appeal, profit, and military funding in Marvel Studio's/Disney's eyes, so they don't do it. Even though that is objectively false because again Joker and Old Man Logan and all the other hip new subversive superhero shows exist, but whatever.The Cap sequel films are good and entertaining, don't get me wrong. But so many people keep propping them up as politically deep stories when they are not that in the slightest, which admittingly plays a big role in souring them for me so that might be a bit biased although my point still stands. They're merely fun thrillers that run on basic emotional cues tied to your attachment to characters over the years with cool action scenes, not much more than that. And I find the Russos to be overrated as storytellers, but that can be it's own whole essay post.
If you want to talk about the weakest MCU movies, I argue you're most likely to find them in Phase 3. Plus Ant-Man.
-
RE: Marvel Movies Thread - Holy Shitballs
A lot of family friendly horror would benefit from looking at Coraline. Legitimately trippy, unsettling, and tense without going for straight-up gore instead of wearing a horror trope costume like Hotel Transylvania and Nightmare Before Christmas. Or even the Babadook, which is mostly PG-13.
But what I'm expecting from an MCU "horror" film is something formulaic like a few cheap jumpscares, Tim Burton/goth-looking characters, a bunch of token horror movie/show joke references, and probably a giant ugly spider at some point just because action films trying to scare people with minimal creative effort really like big spiders.
A proper Dr. Strange horror film needs be like an extended version of the Mysterio hallucination sequence but going even deeper. Go for weird horror that probably isn't outright scary but REALLY weird yet personal which sticks in your mind afterwards and gives you a dark existential crisis.
Basically, make a cosmic horror movie.
-
RE: Marvel Movies Thread - Holy Shitballs
A story in four pictures of Doctor Strange 2's development.
So much for the only Phase 4 film that sounded slightly interesting.
You would think that after Endgame, Marvel would be more open to experimenting with their films.
Then again from a
profitcertain point of view, it also gives them more of an excuse to play things safe.At least The New Mutants is finally releasing. Even if it's awful, I'm at least interested in seeing a superhero movie that doesn't seem to pull half measures in embracing other genre influences.
-
RE: Marvel Movies Thread - Holy Shitballs
I find it more likely that Bale is going to play the villain, most likely Dario Agger AKA the Minotaur. He's one of the most recent new Thor villains and was created by the same author (Jason Aaron) who introduced Jane Foster Thor, so it would make sense for multiple characters from Aaron's run to be pulled if we already know they're including one aspect.
Agger is the CEO of the Roxxon Energy Corporation and who was kidnapped by pirates as a kid and prayed to a bull statue that lets him transform into a Minotaur when he gets angry (mythical Hulk, basically).
Bale is known for playing
psychoticeccentric businessman characters like Bruce Wayne in The Dark Knight Trilogy and Patrick Bateman in American Psycho, so it would be similar to how they type-casted Michael Keaton as Vulture because of his past roles as 1981 Batman and Birdman.And if you look at the guy's design, Christian Bale can easily pull it off:
!
Also, it would be a great change of pace for Thor to fight an Earth-based villain than another god/alien character. Roxxon's whole deal is that they strip mine and pollute the environment, along with creating shady genetic experiments that create characters like Cloak and Dagger. In the recent Thor run leading up to War of the Realms, Agger wants to expand the mining/polluting operation into the Norse realms. And the company has been referenced in small ways in several MCU films and tv shows. And a neat bonus is that the film can tie Valkyrie back into the plot since the Asgardians are based on Earth now rather than coming up with a contrived reason for them to migrate to space again.
I want to believe Marvel Studios is going to do Beta Ray Bill sooner or later, but it would be weird to introduce both him and Jane Foster Thor in the same movie unless they do an after-credits scene or do it near the end like Wonder Woman in BvS, but Beta doesn't have the brand recognition to suspend disbelief for that. And they would need to dedicate some screentime to explaining how another new hammer gets made for him too, although Stormbreaker is supposed to be Beta's hammer and not Thor's new one if we accurately followed the comics. So maybe Thor loses BOTH of his hammers in Love and Thunder? Eh…
But now that I think about it, it would actually be pretty easy for Beta Ray Bill to actually get introduced in a Guardians of the Galaxy film if Thor is part of the cast since it would be easier to connect the tone and cosmic aspects of both series. It could even explain or take advantage of how Guardians 3 got delayed despite originally coming out right after Spider-Man: Far from Home, aside from James Gunn's whole tweet fiasco and temporary firing but supposedly getting rehired behind the scenes months before it was publicly announced.
-
RE: Steven Universe
Has Steven ever gone to a real human school?
No, at least in the show He told Connie in the original series that he never went to school, which I think led to him asking Pearl to homeschool him but she brought out the mirror that Lapis was trapped in as a teaching tool and since it wasn't working for her she cancelled the whole thing. Which made Steven take it as his "summer break". Human school never gets mentioned again aside from the Lars mindswap episode where we learn Lars gets failing grades on his report card and the Onion Friends episode where Steven realizes at the end that Onion's friends have to all split up for most of the year because school is about to start up in fall.
However, I googled this question online out of curiosity and found out that there is an official Steven Universe graphic novel exploring him going to Connie's middle school for a couple days before the principal forces him to drop out so that Connie wouldn't get suspended for inspiring the students to fight back against a Gem monster Steven brought into class for show and tell.
https://steven-universe.fandom.com/wiki/Steven_Universe:_Too_Cool_for_School
-
RE: My Hero Academia II - A true Hero
^ I completely concur with this as well. It's actually really sad how I'm more invested in the Todoroki drama for Endeavor and Shoto's brother who barely has any panel time rather than Shoto himself.
I'm more interested in following the abuser side character than the abuse survivor main character. That. Is. Hilarious.
And I think the issue is because Horikoshi still only ties Shoto's relevancy to Endeavor even though he's already mostly over Endeavor aside from "forgiving him", instead of expanding his character interaction potential and have him do other stuff besides living in his father's shadow. If he wants to be his own man, then he needs to be open to different influences and experiences not tied to Endeavor.
And yeah, he really needs a better costume.
-
RE: My Hero Academia II - A true Hero
It's more that he only won the first one. There's an inherent boost to being the main character and always being on screen. I mean MCBoom will disappear for long stretches at times or barely cameo.
Justice for Mirio!! I'm really interested on reading to full poll now. If you had to rank the characters currently what would be your list?
I know that, but at the very least when Bakugo does manage to show up he tends to have a memorable character growth or decent humor moment. Even going back to the recent second internship arc, I still remember Bakugo's bitter commentary being a little funny. Same for the Remedial Course arc. But besides that, his character arc is still memorable for how subversive it is and he got some notable focus in the Remedial Class A vs Class B fights.
I can't remember ANY memorable Deku moments, big or small from the past few years that aren't him getting a power-up or fighting the main antagonist. His character has gotten so dry and predictable that I rolled my eyes when he confronted Overhaul and stole the spotlight from someone actually compelling like Mirio, or how the Gentle fight's appeal aside from choreography was with the villains rather than Deku's character or motivations being the slightest bit interesting.
As for my top ten…
Deku and Iida would have been in my top ten in previous years for how great their internal conflicts and character arcs were, but they haven't done anything interesting in so long that they would get booted off easily. And Bakugo annoys me now because Horikoshi refuses to let him mature by quitting with the insults and apologizing to Deku, not to mention praising him for every bare minimum teamwork effort he does. And I want Tokoyami in there too but Horikoshi keeps swiping him to the side even though he's supposed to intern under Hawks lol. Off the top of my head and in non-ranked order, I would probably say:
Endeavor
Shigaraki
Twice
Dr. Ujiko
Mirio
Hawks
Gentle
Re-DestroLex Laughter
Toga (her backstory was creepy and raised interesting philosophical questions about Quirks, free will, and societal treatment)
Natsuo Todoroki (might seem weird to list him in a top ten list but it makes perfect sense when you realize every one of Endeavor's big character moments since the High-End arc has been tied to him as Endeavor's foil.)Honorable mentions to Shinso and Wash.
-
RE: My Hero Academia II - A true Hero
Deku hasn't been an interesting character since the Hero License Exam arc, so Bakugo surpassing is entirely his own fault.
-
RE: Steven Universe
! Sure, add domestic violence to the pile. I'm echoing Steven in "what did she did now", the further we go back the worse she was, the day that she emerged she bathed in the blood of one thousand puppies?
! The fact that the tag line of the series is that "we are fine", and that Steven is still hurting (not realizing that to get jasper to engage you need to meet her in her terms, that being useful and happy is better than change for change's sake, naively instinctively "improving" someone's elses careful plans has low success rate, stop puting someone else's feelings as priority over your own mental welfare, and that Rose Quartz can always be worse, and not facing it head on causes more problems)
! Even tho, the weird point that the episode made before trying to reboot the pearls, if they had been closer to him, steven would have hurt them as well as per Volleyball's reaction, if it was trully an accident, why lean so heavily on the domestic violece angle, and if it was domestic violence, why paint Stephen in the same light?! There's a recurring theme in these episodes with Steven trying to repress/forget about Rose and Gem conflict but then having to face and accept their legacy to some degree.
! So I'm willing to bet that this trend in coordination with Steven's new powers coming from duress/negative emotions means that Steven's character arc in Future might be about realizing and dealing with how, even though he's finally accepted that he is his own person, he now has to confront how he's inherited Rose's flaws which are surfacing now that he's running out of room to focus on other people's issues instead of his own. Which will probably make him go into his own existential crisis about whether his character arc meant anything, sort of like what happened when Garnet split when she found out Rose was Pink Diamond.
! Future seems intent on challenging Steven's familiar ideals while also emphasizing how much main characters like Amethyst and Pearl have grown and are now helping people in their own unique ways like Steven did in the original series. So I expect Future's climax to revolve around Steven accepting help from others instead of the other way around like usual. -
RE: My Hero Academia II - A true Hero
I couldn't give 2 shits about the specifics of the abuse. As far as I am concerned it doesn't matter that it didn't seem that bad what matters is that the trauma was so great she indeed in a mental ward and has trouble seeing her children face because they vaguely reminds her of her abuser.
Agreed.
Anything but a functional as relation would be too much for me. It has nothing to do with whether Flamebeard become a good person or not. One of the biggest thing about the whole domestic abuse thing is managing to get out of that relationship despite seeing the most human aspect of your abuser or remorse. So the whole let's make a bond because you got better will always irks me and reminds me of the most insidious aspect of the subject.
I totally get that. It's why I would prefer them only having brief contact, or maybe never meet at all.
I can't really remember the third arc being that bad ethically(but I erase a good chunk of the movie from my mind due to wasted potential). What was that awful? The "Twist villain" or the undermining of the whole message of the movie due to why the hero got killed?
The real question to ask is what I actually did like in that third act in all honesty. It's not that Coco's third act is awful so much as being a predictable mediocre resolution to the complex conflicts and themes the movie introduced. The exact type of story playing it safe I expect from direct-to-DVD animated kids movie. Wasted potential, like you said.
! - The twist villain because Disney's too scared to ever have protagonists be related by blood to awful people,
! - The family twist reveal that I called in less than thirty seconds early when Hector first showed up,
! - The cliche third act focusing on a Scooby-Doo murder mystery chase plot where the bad guy gets caught because he brags about his crimes like an idiot while the intercom is on rather than focusing on Miguel's nuanced conflict between choosing his dreams or family
! - The great grandparents getting back together even though Hector left his family and only came back because he felt sorry for himself one day.
! That last part especially rubs me the wrong way because it reminds me of my parents' relationship and seems like the naive type of thought a kid who got abandoned by their parent or doesn't like their parents splitting up keeps hoping will happen.
! I don't like anything in that third act aside from Miguel playing a song for his great grandma, which I admit was cute and heartwarming. That movie was Disney/Pixar's one chance to tackle challenging ideas people like myself and my friends could relate to as an aspiring artists who deal with not having family support for their dreams, and the movie played the safest cliche inoffensive route possible to please audiences. Maybe _Soul_can change that though. Maybe.
! Coco's still a fine entertaining movie as is, but I always can't help but cringe whenever people praise it as one of the best animated films.
! And while I'm on the subject, Incredibles 1 is still the best Pixar movie that only gets better when you rewatch it as you get older and I doubt that's changing anytime soon. -
RE: My Hero Academia II - A true Hero
People make it sound like he was constantly hitting her. But I dunno. Of course hitting her once is awful. Maybe it'll be more clear what happened when they actually talk about Touya. I'm still curious how the kids were becoming more like Endeavor when we saw everyone but Shouto playing.
The quirk marriage thing did sound like a weird outdated thing. But then we got a brief glimpse of Endeavor seeming to know her favorite flowers or something. And Rei reflecting on it.
I dunno what Horikoshi plans to do. But I don't think it's the worst thing in the world for Endeavor to try. But man.the hero works in Japan will be a wreck once everything is aired. Endeavour being awful for years, Hawks possibly killing the number 3. And then a bunch of randos in league with PLF.
Whether Endeavor constantly abused his wife or not is irrelevant to me considering what we already from the evidence other posters have shown/referenced. Although I hope that my comments don't make me sound like I'm spreading conjecture that the abuse was constant or that Endeavor doesn't deserve a redemption arc because I've said a few times that I like it a lot so far.
I love that Horikoshi had the balls to tackle an abuser redemption arc. Before reading this manga I was on the fence as an aspiring comic book creator if it would ever be responsible for me to ever attempt something like that and do it justice. Deep down, I've always tried to see the best in people and am a sap for stories the most awful characters/people end up learning to take responsibility for their actions and become good people.
I'm only trying to say that because I love well written redemption arcs and how Horikoshi's been doing such a thoughtful job at writing Endeavor's redemption arc that I would absolutely LOATHE if it ever got watered down into a generic "everyone forgives and loves their emotional/physical abusers now and gets back together again because they do one or two nice things" story, especially in the span of only two-three years max if the series only covers high school and we're about to finish the first year.
But I will say this though.
You don't often have a reflex like throwing boiling water at your kid's face who is super short and only looks similar to your abusive spouse because one half of their hair is the same color if there is not some sort of abusive behavior pattern or constant risk in your mind while being around your abusive spouse.
So forgive me if I doubt that getting yelled at and slapped as an adult only once, as awful and dealbreaking as that already is for a relationship, is enough to make you psychologically vulnerable enough to need to be put in a mental hospital for years unless you've been coincidentally traumatized by previous abusive relatives/friends/lovers before. And that's not even mentioning that if they know and saw her kids get abused, not just themselves.
@.access:
God damn it, Count, I am not following the thread (or the manga) closely, but your rhetoric is always so damn good reading your posts is worthy even if I am not on par of the whole discussion. Just wanted to point that out.
Thank you. I don't post often anymore so I really appreciate that. Especially since you often give thoughtful comments yourself.
I will hate if they make them friends or partners again. I have no positive feelings about them developing a close bond.
I would prefer them not developing a close bond at all, but written gradually and properly I would still consider becoming friends to be a lot more thoughtful for an abuser redemption arc resolution than most other stories that try to tackle this sort of thing (God, I don't have the words to express how much I dislike Disney-Pixar's Coco's third act on both a creative and ethical level).
-
RE: My Hero Academia II - A true Hero
! I expect it will be like Natsuo. With a fearful Mom slowly realizing that manye he's not so bad anymore. I'm fine with the sister I think each represent a different way to approach the situation. Distance with Zuko, Resentment with the brother, reconciliation with the sister. And I think the mother is fear.
! I have zero patience with a reconciliation between mom and dad because most likely I will not feel confortable with a work a fiction reconciling his victim with his abuser. I am all for an asshole improving. I am very dubious on the asshole recieving forgivesess from those he abused. If Flamebeard gets happily married to a new person good for him. If he becomes a couple again with the mom I will hate it.
! It's kind of like I hate that ultimately the author decided Bakugo didn't need to actually apologize and actually Deku always admired him instead of acknowledging Bakugo was a dick and should do a proper apology and that he terrified a classmate for his own pleasure but as now improved.
! I can gloss over a lot but evrytime the mom is bring in the redemption arc I get testy about it. I want her good with her kids. Leave Flamebeard out.! I too would prefer to see Rei interact with her kids than have her role solely be a foil to Endeavor's redemption arc. That way she can actually feel like a character and not solely be forced into drama for the sake of drama after everything she went through.
! And when it comes to stories about victims reconciling with abusers, I'm usually cautiously open to it. Depends on the circumstances. But mostly because creators often go for broke with complete forgiveness and focus much more on the abuser's drama than their victim as if the former's guilt/self pity is more important than what they're putting the victim though.
! While we are on the subject, I strongly recommend checking out a manga called a A Silent Voice. It's a redemption/friendship manga about an elementary school kid who bullied his deaf female classmate and years later in high school is filled with guilt wants to atone. The manga surprisingly treats bullying even that early very seriously and it's a very thoughtful and heartwarming story analyzing what it means to find redemption and be a good friend. And amazingly enough, their relationship never spins into a cheesy forced romance. It got a movie a year or two ago as well. I know school bullying is usually a far cry from domestic abuse involving adults though.
! And I completely agree with Bakugo. I used to like him but Horikoshi still doubling down on his assholery and praising him for the smallest things at this point is getting on my nerves.! Ending talking about heroes never killing reminded me of All Might casually talking about how he thought he killed AFO the first time. Yeah, he wasn't conflicted at all about it. AFO made it personal by killing Nana and All Might had no problem taking him out. That may come into play in the future if Shiggy kills Toshinori. Will Deku want him dead or will Grand Torino or Bakugo champion for him and/or themselves killing Shigaraki for revenge?
! Great point. Here's hoping Horikoshi can write a protagonist potentially sparing or redeeming their homicidal nemesis better than Naruto did.
I know a lot of persons don't want to see the couple reunite or Endeavor gets forgiven by his son, but from my experience and what I have seen this happens all the time in our society. People do change and some people have the ability to forgive despite the circumstances they were put through, I don't have a problem with him getting forgiven, what I would have a problem with if he is let off the hook without seeing what is actions have caused and so far it has been handled well
And I argue that's one of the biggest problems with our society. Especially in countries like America where divorce has historically been frowned upon and at certain points illegal, women and children tend to have less rights than the patriarchal father figure, and both religious and cultural norms advocating forgiveness and marriage as being synonymous with happiness and virtue.
My issue with couples reuniting after separating for very good reasons like neglect/abuse is that in terms of storytelling it's nothing new whatsoever. It's practically a cliche that happens day in and day out, and is often made by writers who preach naive platitudes about universal forgiveness and redemption without actually researching, experiencing, or knowing what domestic abuse is actually like. Count how many stories you've seen where a character chooses to not forgive someone in a neutral/positive light and I guarantee you it's not more than a handful. They're the exception. And when stories about couple reconciliation are the norm, that sends a message to people that it's okay and what you should strive for.
Couples may reunite often in real life, but how many of those on/off again relationships can you say are all that healthy? In fact, many abuse survivors state that they feel often think they deserve the abuse and feel like they should forgive their abuser for no good well-informed reason other than they apologize and seem nicer than usual. Which more often than not leads to them going back to their abuser. Then bam, the abuse happens again at least 90% of the time rinse and repeat.
Because that's the scariest part about abuse. That abusers can act nice once in a while or even a lot of the time to make the people they hurt second-guess their negative feelings. People in those situations deserve to feel empowered by knowing that they can say no and find better options in life than put themselves at risk and stagnate their healing/growth.
The fact of the matter it is impossible for Endeavor to show his wife (or children for that matter) that he has changed and will never relapse. Not only that but having to deal with the victims being reminded of everything they went through every time he shows his sorry face trying to do better. That is the main struggle Endeavor has faced with his redemption arc, why we find his redemption arc so surprising and suspenseful, and something he has come to accept.
Having Rei forgive and get back with Endeavor, no matter how knowledgable and convinced we are as readers that Endeavor has changed because of our omniscient reading POV, is telling readers that it might be okay to give abusers a second chance. And that's quite frankly nasty and scary as hell to me. Especially because I actually see that happen frequently with both my family and friends. And even then very little of them deal with someone on the level of Endeavor who treated his family like eugenics experiment for vicarious life goal satisfaction and punched his kid so hard he threw up. His wife is in a mental hospital because she was so traumatized she mistook her son for her husband and scarred him for life with boiling water. If you heard about a couple like that getting back together in the news, would that seriously make you feel the slightest bit comfortable?
Also, keep in mind that getting back together isn't the only option for Endeavor and Rei to possible reconcile. They can be, you know, just friends. They can tolerate each other around their kids. They can call each other when they need help. Why do so many people think that getting back together romantically is the only way forgiveness can work for an abusive relationship?
That, and it's just plain unnecessary when Endeavor has multiple family members? What benefit does it add to the story to have every single one of them forgive Endeavor rather than taking the bold creative route and exploring different facets of tolerance/forgiveness with each character? Considering how Fuyumi and inevitably Shoto will end up forgiving Endeavor, wanting the same out of Natsuo and Rei (and let's not forget that if Dabi is Touya, he could potentially get redeemed and forgive Endeavor too for all we know) only limits storytelling potential rather than enhancing it in any meaningful way.
I don't mean to sound like a jerk accusing you of romanticizing abusers or anything. I know you're being honest and optimistic. But you even said in your comment that "some people have the ability to forgive despite the circumstances they were put through". Key words: some people. I agree with that strongly. And Horikoshi should keep it as that. Having all the people we like and sympathize with in this story forgive guys like Endeavor is not only toxic, but boring and unrealistic. Shoto's arc of forgiving Endeavor probably isn't even close to finishing as of now too. Why do we need more "let's let bygones be bygones" level of forgiveness on top of that instead of more nuanced and thoughtful story variety?
-
RE: My Hero Academia II - A true Hero
! I loved this chapter. I was feeling mixed on the last chapter because while I liked the choreography and different roles each of the students performed, I feel like the kids could have advanced their powers in a more interesting and thought-provoking way like Deku's previous power-ups requiring him to change his mindset instead instead of only training off-panel. And I felt like Ending could have been focused on more to get more insight into how Endeavor treated the villains he captured and how he's technically the only Pro-Hero we've seen technically kill someone with High-End (which I hope isn't forgotten when it's inevitably revealed they used to be humans and probably even mostly kids).
! But this chapter pulled me back in. It dodged the pitfall I was scared of being that Natsuo would start forgiving Endeavor by being saved. Instead we got Endeavor being okay with not being forgiven but still wanting to atone, which is the only sensible way to write a domestic abuser redemption arc. Endeavor's dream being an admirable one instead of a nightmare was clever.
! But more than that, I didn't expect Horikoshi to be thoughtful enough to have Endeavor praise Natsuo as still being a kind person in spite of not forgiving Endeavor, and focusing on how Natsuo feels pressured about not being able to forgive like his siblings. That helps show how you can not forgive while still being a selfless person, and helps fight against the stigma that you can only be a healthy person if you forgive everyone. It dodges something a bunch of other series do where they try to advocate forgiveness in a pretentious way that demonizes whoever doesn't forgive abuse as awful people. I think the only other series I've seen do that is Avatar: The Last Airbender with Katara and her mother's killer.
! This chapter even helped me realize that Ending was a foil to help show the difference between past Endeavor and current Endeavor. His life was ruined and he got so caught up in despair and self-pity that he needed to ruin Endeavor's life while getting killed by Endeavor in turn to feel validated. But because Endeavor has been changing and the kids stop him as an indirect result of Endeavor helping others, Ending is robbed of getting that type of pathetic satisfaction anymore.
! In a way, Ending is a representation of the people who only want Endeavor to relapse and end up miserable by stubbornly believing he shouldn't change. Along with embodying the kinds of trauma survivors who have so little self-worth left that they use their trauma as an excuse to become awful people by lashing out against the world to feel powerful (basically like a school shooter). Which in turn can be interpreted as a foil to Natsuo, emphasizing how he still chooses to be a compassionate person in spite of not forgiving Endeavor.Good God, this My Hero Academia chapter was the best one I've read in a long while. It helped remind me of what drew to this series in the first place in spite of the bumps the past couple years or so.
! Maybe people will stop whining a bit about Endeavor and Natsuo. Natsuo didn't forgive him yet. Endeavour didn't expect forgiveness either. He's trying though. It bugs me people are so against Endeavor trying to atone. Wouldn't it be worse if he did nothing at all?
! Damn Horikoshi holding off on Touya info and Bakugo hero name lol. I kinda hop Jeanist is alive to hear it…! I don't know how Horikoshi can top the masterpiece that was Ground Zero, but here's hoping he puts more thought into Bakugo's hero name than most of the female students lol.
! So he did have the drug.
! If him and the kids reconcile? Fine. But I will deeply hate if there is any reconciliation with the mom.! I would be strongly surprised if they don't go the whole "I forgive you, but for my own sake as a way to heal from my trauma and not give you power over me through hatred" kind of route. They keep hinting at something like that with moments like the dinner argument where they allude to Mama Todoroki forgiving Endeavor. Which is alright.
! But I'll give Horikoshi bonus points if he also adds something tense to their inevitable interaction, like Mama Todoroki saying that she's grateful for the new house but will never like or put up with Endeavor again for the sake of her and the kids, and literally tells him to leave the premises. Which would show that she has become more independent and confident, and can do the one thing she wish she could have done in he first place to protect her family.
! I think Horikoshi's only weak point with the Endeavor redemption arc is with the women, because we haven't gotten any showings of them actively resenting Endeavor or processing their trauma in present time. Only quiet ambiguous moments, flashback vignettes, and throwaway quote blurbs. So instead of looking compassionate and powerful they look like all-forgiving robotic saints, which is boring and honestly makes me dislike Fuyumi a little for looking selfish/inconsiderate even though I get what Horikoshi is trying to do by having her prioritize a healthy family over one split by resentment. And considering that they're both women, I argue it even feels a little sexist since compassion/forgiveness is often viewed as a default feminine trait.
! I'm satisfied as long as Horikoshi sticks to that dream of not letting Endeavor live in that house he's promising to build, Natsuo putting up with not never getting along with Endeavor, and Endeavor's marriage still staying split. Last thing we need is another Coco-esque toxic marriage reconciliation… -
RE: My Hero Academia II - A true Hero
I feel like we saw the hero association mention poeple skills is one of the thing he is lacking on,
It wasn't the Hero Association specifically. It was a bunch of tv news reports talking about Endeavor's mixed approval ratings compared to All-Might.
!
! -
RE: DC Movies Thread - Shazam saves the day
Maybe it's because it's too easy? You think about a person who's really old, you kind of expect them to be cynical after a lifetime of shit and so obviously, boom, psycho supervillain. Having someone become that at a young age, especially from a very, very young age like when Bruce Wayne experiences his trauma that drives him to become Batman, makes a more appropriate mirror of the Dark Knight. At least, if you forego the whole 'falls into a vat of chemicals' backstory.
You could also argue that becoming a prominent villain as an older man contrasts with Bruce being young in a fun opposite mirror kind of way. Youthful optimism/vengeance vs elderly nihilism/anarchy. Put that together with how Bruce grew up privileged and had his parents die at a young age while Arthur got to grow up most of his life in the slums with an overbearing single mother and there you go, the opposite parallels write themselves. Especially since most traditional versions of Batman's top tier villains tend to skew young aside from Ra's al Ghul and Hugo Strange off the top of my head.
Aside from that, my favorite Joker takes are when he isn't a good hand-to-hand fighter. He can cook up the kookiest schemes in the world, but when he's a few feet away from Batman, he has to pull a cunning trick to survive or else he gets goes down with one good uppercut or judo throw. I remember how at the end of Death of the Family, Joker tries to surprise attack Batman with an axe at the end of the story and barely puts up a decent fight. That hilarious and embarrassing defeat does not undermine how scary and tactical he is throughout the rest of the story in the slightest.
Then there's how many times he pulls a trick to inhibit Batman in the Dark Knight be it literally throwing his goons at Batman while he cowardly kicks Batman on the side with a shoe knife, shooting the Batcycle with an assault rifle while Batman hesitates to run over him because of the no kill rule, and Joker unleashing attack hounds on Bats while he pummels him with a pipe.
Joker's all about psychological manipulation and having aces up his sleeve to ensure a victory rather than fair direct one-v-one combat.
It's more appealing to me that way because Joker is supposed to be a human being that feasibly anyone can become, yet is also somehow capable of making himself seem like he's larger than life.
-
RE: DC Movies Thread - Shazam saves the day
The more I hear about the Joker movie, the more I think that its prerelease public hype/criticism and superhero genre legacy going forward will be more interesting to analyze than the film itself.
-
RE: My Hero Academia II - A true Hero
I just realized that Endeavor's outfit since becoming the No. 1 Pro-Hero (mainly the sharp shoulder pads) reminds me a lot of Azrael's Batman: Knightfall design.
!
! -
RE: DC TV Series Thread - Crossovers where heroes SING!
They can do a couple of things though.
with…
! Michael Rosenbaum they could of course bring him back as Lex…however, they can also bring him in as another Flash. Everyone forgets he was the voice of Wally West Flash in Justice League.
! Also there is a 4th member they need to bring in too, Justin Hartley. Cmon we need to see both Green Arrow's stand side by side.! I believe that the corpse of Smallville's Green Arrow was shown at the end of Elseworlds.
-
RE: DC Movies Thread - Shazam saves the day
Apart from the Billy Batson side of Shazam, I don't think they're skewing quite as young as a lot of your list would be (at least the versions I'm familiar with). Also I'm not familiar with the person in the hat. And no Flash or other speedster? For shame!
She is The Question. Specifically the Renee Montoya iteration. A male Question is a prominent character in Justice League Unlimited and the main inspiration for Rorschach in Watchmen.
-
RE: My Hero Academia II - A true Hero
I enjoy the hero world building and I really enjoy the in between change of pace, slice of life chapters.
The UA kids shouldn't be a threat to the paranormals for a few years, so feels too early for them to be introduced. Just my opinion.
Same.
Don't worry, I feel where you're coming from. Although traditional shonen new generation of prodigies tropes and the series being called My Hero Academia dictates that this entire manga's going to take place in the span of three years. Maybe a little bit afterwards during the final arcs, but not more than that.
I do think it is important to note that the League of Villains was doing a decent job handling the whole Liberation Army horde while stalling for Gigantomachia until Shigaraki wrecked everything. Given how Deku is inevitably going to be Amalgam Spider-Boy power-wise and Eri's power to reverse things is clearly the perfect Quirk to counter Shigaraki's decay with enough training, I think Horikoshi can make this work out with enough clever writing. The only factors I'm worried about are how many High Noumus there are (which can be handled easily if there are only a handful of them and they can't all be awoken at once) and if Horikoshi has the restraint to prioritize teamwork over Deku outshining everyone all the time like in the Overhaul arc finale.
-
RE: My Hero Academia II - A true Hero
Hero career world building would be fun but we just got an arc where the villains are going to destroy that world. So it seems poorly timed and pointless. Unless he shows the bad side to the hero society but from the heros perspective.
While that is possible in the future, I don't see it happening soon in the slightest though. That is endgame saga or post-timeskip material, not something you throw out before the second high school year. Shigaraki getting an army doesn't automatically mean that hero society is going to crumble just yet. Like typical supervillain routine, they need time to make plans and maybe pull a small stunt or two to set up a huge scheme.
The worst thing for Shigaraki, and by extension Horikoshi's writing, to do with the Paranormals is to have them quickly announce their presence to the world despite just recently covering up a town's destruction and already having their villainous tentacles ensnared around the media to subtly manipulate it to their advantage. I would argue that their greatest advantage right now is not even their numbers/strength but the fact that the public has no idea they exist yet, which has a lot of unique future suspense and tension potential that does not have to dial everything to 11 to top itself immediately. Not to mention it would make Hawks' double agent infiltration lose a lot more narrative purpose for the villains to show their cards so early.
Have the heroes investigate to find out what Shigaraki is up to piece by piece while we the audience are kept in suspense instead of just having the heroes react to them.
That and after having such a long villain-centric arc, along with Horikoshi's usual style of hopping from school arc to villain arc to repeat, it makes sense for this arc to be somewhat a breather as we get reaccustomed to the heroes' perspectives and the world's status quo again, especially before big changes happen afterwards so the stakes and plot transition feel all the more impactful. Especially after how dark the flashbacks were, so we're sure for at least some lighthearted storytelling as a palate cleanser to balance the manga's tone and make the dark moments feel more special instead of predictable or dare I say even repetitive.
And I'm always game for showing more hero society flaws. Especially front and center in an arc plotline instead of only being a cool worldbuilding detail that will only get introduced/referenced once in a blue moon or foreshadow a big development years later.
-
RE: My Hero Academia II - A true Hero
By the way, I just want to say that I really like the latest chapter diving into:
! superhero PR by having Mt. lady teach how important interviews and super moves are for self-advertising and mass communication. This is the type of stuff a series like My Hero Academia focusing on a superhero culture world can dive into as a way to stand out from other typical superhero stories. I wonder if Shoto and Bakugo's interview is building up to anything long-term like Bakugo getting kidnapped by the League of Villains.
! I actually wouldn't mind a whole short arc about this kind of thing like the Bakugo and Shoto remedial license exam, but it seems like it's being used as a shortcut to a second internship arc. If we're going that route, I just really REALLY hope that there will be interesting untapped superhero career worldbuilding aspects to this arc compared to the first only being a rescue mission gauntlet against criminals.
! And being better written than that first internship arc to begin with lol. Although I wonder if new internships can connect to the Paranormals, especially if Tokoyami interns for Hawks again and gets tied into that whole double agent plotline.The saving grace for me is Deku should probably never be as strong as All Might with his basic quirk. The fact he should have to concentrate on multiple quirks alone should mean he won't be able to dedicate himself to completely max out either one of them.
Fact there are so many quirks means Deku should with time create his own style, complemented with different abilities, so that he may be at All Might's level, but with multiple quirks instead of one. But what is the point of them then?Well it really all depends if Horikoshi goes with "Jack of all trades, master of none" principle.
I would actually REALLY like that. But I don't think Horikoshi is going to be able to resist making Deku 100% everything and become the most powerful character ever Naruto-style after how he ditched a perfectly good opportunity for a team-up in favor of 100% Deku + Eri in the Overhaul arc finale.
Not to mention that this manga doesn't really commit to any of its supposed consequences outside of All-Might's retirement and Shigaraki's rise to power, which are both obvious familiar shonen tropes. And I mention this because the only reason I can see Deku not being able to master One for All is because his body is too damaged to withstand it without help from someone like Eri. Which I don't see happening considering how early Horikoshi pulled that card so early in the story like I mentioned above.
^ Yeah. That's why I think…
! Through Mt. Lady, Deku will intern under Kamui Woods (Tree Spider-man) and work on mastering Blackwhip.
! I would like this a lot, especially since I have always liked Kamui's design and it would be a neat way to make the first chapter feel like it was building up to something even if it wasn't planned that far ahead.
-
RE: My Hero Academia II - A true Hero
@Long:
Ahhh yes Batman, the underdog protagonist with billions of dollars
A better example for a relatable underdog inventor protagonist would actually be Spider-Man. In spite of having powers he often has to make new inventions and suits with a limited budget to compensate against villains that beat him up during their first go around. Like making a magnetic field nullifying device to disable Vulture's wings, rubber attire to withstand Electro's lightning, or a serum to cure the Lizard.
When people say "Batman Deku", they mean what if Hatsume was the protagonist.
While I was disappointed that we weren't sticking with the simplistic appeal of clever super strength usage cultivated by multiple generations versus several deadly Quirks, I'm with Jabberwok on hoping that these powers will work in more of a versatile complementary utility belt rather than pulling a full-on Mega Man.
Hopefully these additional powers will be more along the lines of the multiple powers Spider-Man has which aren't that special and limited on their own (super strength, wall crawling, web shooters, spider sense). As long as we continue to see new interesting ways Deku masters his Quirks by rethinking how to use them rather than just the cliche shonen standard of physically training to gain more strength or abilities, I'm willing to give Horikoshi the benefit of the doubt.
Although I think people do have a right to be worried based on how easily this can all go wrong like other shonen manga.
-
RE: Marvel Movies Thread - Holy Shitballs
Super late to the party. But I just watched Into the Spider-verse. Damn that was a solid movie.
Easily my favorite Spider-Man and even favorite superhero movie of all time.
I would be completely cool with a sequel focusing on just Miles being a solo hero.