botz1
New Member
Posts: 422
|
Post by botz1 on Dec 4, 2013 20:10:33 GMT -5
Say what?  ? explain this, i must have missed the doomsday reference in the prequel comic david goyer wrote, kara was on the ancient scout ship- and i may have mis-remembered where dev-em fit in. i remember he was mentioned in it, and was mentioned as having a "bio-weapon" and this is from an era of krypton where cloning/chimeras were going on. to think about it, maybe kara was part of a crew sent out to capture dev-em. ill have to look it up. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- anyhoo- im excited as heck. now, with the caveat the maaaayyyybbbeeeeee WBDC is sneaking a JL movie in here on the sly, maybe they had the JL-in-2015 planned out and only pretended to dial it back to worlds finest. possibly. i highly doubt it. i think what we're getting is superman and batman vs luthor and metallo. ithink "diana" will be in the mix, presenting herself in a mysterious way; and just as "superman" was only uttered twice towards the end of MoS, i doubt we'll even hear the name "wonder woman". i think we'll see "diana" as an ambassador debated/round table discussing with lex luthor- a man with huge political ambition and trying to turn public sentiment against superman. maybe theyll use the "public enemies" idea that john corben was implicated in the death of thomas and martha wayne. at any rate, i think we'll see diana exhibit powers very judiciously, and only at the end. in fact, ill bet its HER idea to form a team. and i bet we close with her voice-over as we watch a montage of 1-2 second clips that tease flash, GL and arrow. we might not even see if it really is the arrow from "arrow". just to suggest that supermans arrival is the green light (no pun) for other beings with abilities to go public. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- as to the kara/amazon theory- its only a theory. not even mine though i like it. now, i can see wonder woman fans taking umbrage at modifying her origin, but frankly, its been done. if a wonder woman series introduced superman, and the much reviled "zeus" was actually a sinister kryptonian, adding to the amazons distrust of man's world as "super"-man is also kryptonian i dont think we'd be to pissed. in the lynda carter series, it starts with her in WWII era, then inexplicably gets set in modern times the next season. traditionally, "the gods" made her out of clay- new52 posits that she is the daughter of zeus. john byrne posited that the WWII wonder woman was dianas mother. in one era she has no powers. in some eras she loses the title "wonder woman" to her sister or mother. so if the amazons have a kryptonian connection i dont think its that much different than elliot maggin suggesting that the house of El was considered for membership of the green lantern corps, or the post-crises idea that alan scotts "magic ring" actually was from Oa all along ( which would mean that the ORIGINAL green lantern was being changed to fit the successor's concept) . the concept of 'ancient aliens' ( whether its the modern "theory" or a running theme in STTNG, or in a series of superman movies), is that in antiquity a human-like species traveled all over the galaxy leaving behind a few people to start a society that evolved/adapted to the local world. ( to be sure- its a writers contrivance for why so many aliens in sci fi look like a human/have a human shape). even prometheus suggested that "the engineers" were ancestors of life all over the galaxy, and that life evolved differently on each world they visited. does the story of "Hercules" lose any charm when we examine that the Greek predecessor "Herakles" was actually a modified Egyptian "Herakhte" ? (or that "samson" is also an iteration of "herakhte"?). crude dna jokes aside, there has always been a precedent for this, but like i say- its only a fan theory and wonder woman could be something else altogether. aside- in marvel comics ULTRON has a specific origin being deliberately ignored by AII:AOU, ( the prevailing theory there is that tony stark accidently created ultron when a corrupted "jarvis" program takes control of the annihilator armor). noone minds this modification as it fits well with the popular established iron man series. in batman lore the waynes were killed by "joe chill", but when tim burton changed it to jack/joker no one really minded (well, im sure some did) because it made sense. if th eamazons ended up being connected to "new genesis" and "apokolips" and big barda and the amazons are really the same, would that be a travesty? Jeeeze my head is spinning |
|
|
|
Post by Jor-L5150 on Dec 4, 2013 20:16:21 GMT -5
i'm suddenly remembering stan lee talking about "mutants/x-men" as way to not have to "explain" a superheroes powers.
eventually DC "borrowed" the concept in some way- "meta-gene" i think it was.
in DC, are the OANs the original species? are the new gods?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 4, 2013 20:28:13 GMT -5
Who gives a fuck? The girl is a goddamn fox!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 4, 2013 20:42:28 GMT -5
What about God? Couldn't He feasibly turn people into superheroes? I wanna see that. Normal one day, powerful the next. Why not? It's as out there and silly as a spiderbite.
Sent from my SPH-L720 using proboards
|
|
|
|
Post by Jor-L5150 on Dec 4, 2013 21:12:07 GMT -5
What about God? Couldn't He feasibly turn people into superheroes? I wanna see that. Normal one day, powerful the next. Why not? It's as out there and silly as a spiderbite. Sent from my SPH-L720 using proboards maybe "wonder woman" was..."touched by an angel" maybe touched by ananagel was a sequel to lynda carter!!!! WB/DC phase II: the Jesus League of nascar! seriously, the SPECTRE is the angel of death, and new52 phantom stranger is judas escariot. SHAZAM gets powers from solomon from the bible (among others) |
|
Melv
New Member
Posts: 546
|
Post by Melv on Dec 4, 2013 21:18:58 GMT -5
You'd have to establish God as part of the universe or presuppose one. That opens up a whole unnecessary can of worms that many people, including this atheist, wouldn't be happy with.
Scientific explanations are more convincing because they are at least fairly logical.
Some kind of 'higher' being on the other hand (like the 'gods' in Thor) would be a more acceptable explanation as that doesn't advocate any religious worldview and they are effectively just aliens we don't understand. They are at least a plausible concept.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jor-L5150 on Dec 4, 2013 21:32:44 GMT -5
You'd have to establish God as part of the universe or presuppose one. That opens up a whole unnecessary can of worms that many people, including this atheist, wouldn't be happy with. Scientific explanations are more convincing because are at least fairly logical. hypothetically, its a fiction so anything could happen if executed well. the "g/God(s)" element was the angle in star trek the motion picture and star trek 5. "quantum leap" was based on theoretical physics, and ended up using a quasi-spiritual element. the thing that i always thought about was, and im saying this as a guy raised in a bible thumping house, you always had fictional characters that appealed to both bible theology, AND mystical stuff forbidden by the holy writ. look at indiana jones, in the first one, he finds the ark of the covenant, which is based on the hebrew bible- which as a fiction validates that idea. the next (or prior in continuity) temple of doom was categorically "pagan" (and entirely invented). so to base the story on that means that BOTH have "powers" or a supernatural thing. then last crusade had the holy grail. so thats jesus entering the picture. now, bible scholars and theologians will tell you that "drinking the cup of christ" is a metaphor for lifestyle, and heavenly hope, but that not hollywood enough for a fantasy film so it becomes a literal thing that grants immortality. the quandary is that for jesus to be the real thing the other stuff has to be imaginary. or evil. so you get to SHAZAM and he has solomon, and the wizard petitions solomon to give billy batson "wisdom" from solomon- but the biblical narrative says solomon was wrong to cavort with pagans- and it caused him to lose god's favor. all of bailly batsons powers cames from mercury and zeus and so on. so for SHAZAM is, according to the bible's mandate, categorically evil because Yahwehs gift of wisdom to solomon was NOT to be shared with pagan entities and forces. short answer: AVOID. |
|
Melv
New Member
Posts: 546
|
Post by Melv on Dec 4, 2013 21:43:33 GMT -5
Well that's why I'm not a fan of it. It doesn't really explain anything. 'Magic' is just aspects of reality that we don't understand as is 'God'. I'd rather they came up with something unique than attribute stuff to religious beliefs people actually have, which also in some way validates them within the science fiction universe.
A god, sure. 'God', no.
Indiana Jones is different, in my opinion, because it's a tongue in cheek fantasy.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jor-L5150 on Dec 4, 2013 22:07:04 GMT -5
im really wound up today. dont know why.
been under the weather for a week. tired,nauseous, blacked out a few times, tremors. oof.
but today i feel like im really wound up and scrappy. weird. guess thats why im so chatty. pow pow pow.
and the concept of g/Gods in a fantasy doesnt bother me (im agnostic) im looking forward to aranofskys NOAH movie. im just trying to find some verisimilitude.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 5, 2013 1:08:43 GMT -5
There is none when it comes to religion. Every one is based on rumor.
Sent from my SPH-L720 using proboards
|
|
|
|
Post by Jack Tripper on Dec 5, 2013 1:35:06 GMT -5
Fuck this movie. Quit fucking around WB and just call it The Justice League already.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 5, 2013 1:54:32 GMT -5
It's...kinda sad, really.
Sent from my SPH-L720 using proboards
|
|
|
|
Post by mavcon75 on Dec 5, 2013 2:59:44 GMT -5
Hey all,
My only hope is that EVERYONE they cast outside of Superman and Batman are cameos. The best way to handle all of this even if they cast 6 or 8 superheroes is at the end of the film, in the aftermath of....whatever happens....Supes and Bats are together and Batman refers to a "group of anomalies" that he's been tracking over the past year or so and you see the pictures of the heroes on his computer screens in the Batcave (assuming there will be one or wherever he works out of) You see each character on screen and then it shows a brief 2-3 minute clip of them, sorta a mini intro to the character itself which could serve as a mini origin for each....effectively getting all of the JLA intro'd before they get their own movies and JLA movie itself. That way they've not only jumped their entire roster of the A-listers into the movies all at once, but trumped the "after credits scenes" by the Marvel movies by a lot all in the span of one movie.
Now will they do this....probably not even a thought in their head is close to this....but it would be cool at least in my opinion if they did this.
Mavcon
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,078
|
Post by Metallo on Dec 5, 2013 10:59:54 GMT -5
Well that's why I'm not a fan of it. It doesn't really explain anything. 'Magic' is just aspects of reality that we don't understand as is 'God'. I'd rather they came up with something unique than attribute stuff to religious beliefs people actually have, which also in some way validates them within the science fiction universe. A god, sure. 'God', no. Indiana Jones is different, in my opinion, because it's a tongue in cheek fantasy. It's not about tongue in cheek but presentation. Set up the rules and adhere to them whatever they may be. World building. It's not like people didn't buy the exorcist or the omen because they were cheesy. It's fictional and fictional stories have used the supernatural since the beginning of time. This real world scientific explanation to everything will fuck DC Right up the ass. Not everything has to be Nolan. Captain Marvel is tongue in cheek but it's magic. That's the appeal. The Spectre isn't tongue in cheek. Neither is heckblazer. But they both depend on the supernatural. It would be ridiculous to say WB shouldn't do them because they involve magic and the supernatural and aren't believable because they can't be scientifically explained. It's the bag of goods people have sold that just isn't true. Etrigan could be a great medieval action horror flick. But someone would have to go for it and embrace the concept. That's why WB shouldn't limit their possibilities. |
|
|
|
Post by Jor-L5150 on Dec 5, 2013 11:10:42 GMT -5
I can undertand the negativity from some, as some are generally negative anyway~
heck~ I was pretty negative in the early parts of MoS production.
But for those who liked MoS...i am surprised. This is all very exciting. I'm happy to see things escalating.
fanboy consensus: "wb/dc should do x,y,z"
Wb/dc : "well let's do x,y,z,"
Fanboy consensus: "fuck you!"
|
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Dec 5, 2013 11:13:51 GMT -5
Well that's why I'm not a fan of it. It doesn't really explain anything. 'Magic' is just aspects of reality that we don't understand as is 'God'. I'd rather they came up with something unique than attribute stuff to religious beliefs people actually have, which also in some way validates them within the science fiction universe. A god, sure. 'God', no. Indiana Jones is different, in my opinion, because it's a tongue in cheek fantasy. It's not about tongue in cheek but presentation. Set up the rules and adhere to them whatever they may be. World building. It's not like people didn't buy the exorcist or the omen because they were cheesy. It's fictional and fictional stories have used the supernatural since the beginning of time. This real world scientific explanation to everything will fuck DC Right up the ass. Not everything has to be Nolan. Captain Marvel is tongue in cheek but it's magic. That's the appeal. The Spectre isn't tongue in cheek. Neither is heckblazer. But they both depend on the supernatural. It would be ridiculous to say WB shouldn't do them because they involve magic and the supernatural and aren't believable because they can't be scientifically explained. It's the bag of goods people have sold that just isn't true. Etrigan could be a great medieval action horror flick. But someone would have to go for it and embrace the concept. That's why WB shouldn't limit their possibilities. I think if Goyer is the guy that WB is really kneeling towards each step of the way now- (I have a feeling if Geoff Johns was indeed in charge, Green Lantern killed all his credibility with the execs)- then WB will be limited by Goyer's imagination. Unfortunately, Goyer started off with dark material, and is always most comfortable with dark material. Goyer isn't (always) as bad as Akiva Goldsman, but.... It's sad that Marvel was able to be somewhat fearless in making different kinds of superhero films (Iron Man, Thor, Hulk, Captain America)and find ways to really recognizably embrace the past, rather than run away from it (Thor could have been hokey, also Captain America- but both work really well despite the challenges- maybe because they didn't feel handcuffed to reality) --- and in a masterstroke got the only guy to blend these into the Avengers. If Guardians of the Galaxy is horrible (I think James Gunn is NOT an A-list director, but more of a Troma guy)- Marvel gets a pass for all the right choices they made in my book. Still.... At least DC/WB is making SOMETHING. While I know SR is not popular here- I would have rather Singer be in charge of the DC universe, but under Goyer- at least it's not going to be (intentional) slapstick like if it was under Richard Lester (who actually would have been ideal for the innocent Captain Marvel) If Goyer writes each and every DC superhero adaptation- then if it has the right director to balance him out, it could be good- but if not- at the very least--- again--- DC/WB aren't in limbo with nothing to show. |
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,078
|
Post by Metallo on Dec 5, 2013 11:20:03 GMT -5
I can undertand the negativity from some, as some are generally negative anyway~ heck~ I was pretty negative in the early parts of MoS production. But for those who liked MoS...i am surprised. This is all very exciting. I'm happy to see things escalating. fanboy consensus: "wb/dc should do x,y,z" Wb/dc : "well let's do x,y,z," Fanboy consensus: "fuck you!" Embrace the concept and respect the history while modernizing and adapting it for another medium. That's why it worked for Richard Donner and Jon Favreau. Even Nolan. People aren't negative because they aren't getting what they want. They are hesitant because even the people who made MOS said what they wanted to do with a SEQUEL to fix the issues with the first film and that doesn't seem to be happening. It's a series of gimmicks for WB not doing what's the best story It's a matter of execution vs intent. I'm not sure why some people can't understand that. I'm AM sure lots of people would love to see WB eventually get where they want to go but the execution is looking lazy and rushed so far. Let it all breathe, WB. Right now it looks like a rush job to cash in ASAP. You don't go from crawling to running. You work your way up and learn. WB has no intention of learning to walk before they run. |
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,078
|
Post by Metallo on Dec 5, 2013 11:27:24 GMT -5
It's not about tongue in cheek but presentation. Set up the rules and adhere to them whatever they may be. World building. It's not like people didn't buy the exorcist or the omen because they were cheesy. It's fictional and fictional stories have used the supernatural since the beginning of time. This real world scientific explanation to everything will fuck DC Right up the ass. Not everything has to be Nolan. Captain Marvel is tongue in cheek but it's magic. That's the appeal. The Spectre isn't tongue in cheek. Neither is heckblazer. But they both depend on the supernatural. It would be ridiculous to say WB shouldn't do them because they involve magic and the supernatural and aren't believable because they can't be scientifically explained. It's the bag of goods people have sold that just isn't true. Etrigan could be a great medieval action horror flick. But someone would have to go for it and embrace the concept. That's why WB shouldn't limit their possibilities. I think if Goyer is the guy that WB is really kneeling towards each step of the way now- (I have a feeling if Geoff Johns was indeed in charge, Green Lantern killed all his credibility with the execs)- then WB will be limited by Goyer's imagination. Unfortunately, Goyer started off with dark material, and is always most comfortable with dark material. Goyer isn't (always) as bad as Akiva Goldsman, but.... It's sad that Marvel was able to be somewhat fearless in making different kinds of superhero films (Iron Man, Thor, Hulk, Captain America)and find ways to really recognizably embrace the past, rather than run away from it (Thor could have been hokey, also Captain America- but both work really well despite the challenges- maybe because they didn't feel handcuffed to reality) --- and in a masterstroke got the only guy to blend these into the Avengers. If Guardians of the Galaxy is horrible (I think James Gunn is NOT an A-list director, but more of a Troma guy)- Marvel gets a pass for all the right choices they made in my book. Still.... At least DC/WB is making SOMETHING. While I know SR is not popular here- I would have rather Singer be in charge of the DC universe, but under Goyer- at least it's not going to be (intentional) slapstick like if it was under Richard Lester (who actually would have been ideal for the innocent Captain Marvel) If Goyer writes each and every DC superhero adaptation- then if it has the right director to balance him out, it could be good- but if not- at the very least--- again--- DC/WB aren't in limbo with nothing to show. I agree. Marvels success is partly because they are willing to allow different creative minds in to contribute. Different writers and directors. WB doesn't seem to be pushing for as much variety yet. Goyer and Snyder shouldn't be handling everything. They need someone at the top who isn't the primary creative person but who can shepherd the creative types. If Goyers writing everything who is there to be objective? Feige is the objective eye making sure the Marvel ship stays on course. WB needs someone like that and if Goyer is writing everything too he can't be that. |
|
|
|
Post by SupermanUF on Dec 5, 2013 15:29:18 GMT -5
I am very disappointed in the WW casting. Gal Gadot is a good lookin' chick, but I don't see WW there. I am also disappointed that WW is even in this movie at all, but eh. We'll see.
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,078
|
Post by Metallo on Dec 5, 2013 15:51:37 GMT -5
Right now I'm just wondering how she of all people got it. I mean I never expected the more well known rumored candidates like Olga Kurylenko (who I think would have been an overall better choice even though she wasn't quite right either) or Jamie Alexander or Gina Carano to get it but surely there must have been better unknowns who tested for the role. I don't see what Gadot brings which made it see like it had to be her they chose.
|
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Dec 5, 2013 18:43:15 GMT -5
Right now I'm just wondering how she of all people got it. Zack Snyder.... the king of questionable choices.  |
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Dec 5, 2013 18:46:10 GMT -5
I think if Goyer is the guy that WB is really kneeling towards each step of the way now- (I have a feeling if Geoff Johns was indeed in charge, Green Lantern killed all his credibility with the execs)- then WB will be limited by Goyer's imagination. Unfortunately, Goyer started off with dark material, and is always most comfortable with dark material. Goyer isn't (always) as bad as Akiva Goldsman, but.... It's sad that Marvel was able to be somewhat fearless in making different kinds of superhero films (Iron Man, Thor, Hulk, Captain America)and find ways to really recognizably embrace the past, rather than run away from it (Thor could have been hokey, also Captain America- but both work really well despite the challenges- maybe because they didn't feel handcuffed to reality) --- and in a masterstroke got the only guy to blend these into the Avengers. If Guardians of the Galaxy is horrible (I think James Gunn is NOT an A-list director, but more of a Troma guy)- Marvel gets a pass for all the right choices they made in my book. Still.... At least DC/WB is making SOMETHING. While I know SR is not popular here- I would have rather Singer be in charge of the DC universe, but under Goyer- at least it's not going to be (intentional) slapstick like if it was under Richard Lester (who actually would have been ideal for the innocent Captain Marvel) If Goyer writes each and every DC superhero adaptation- then if it has the right director to balance him out, it could be good- but if not- at the very least--- again--- DC/WB aren't in limbo with nothing to show. I agree. Marvels success is partly because they are willing to allow different creative minds in to contribute. Different writers and directors. WB doesn't seem to be pushing for as much variety yet. Goyer and Snyder shouldn't be handling everything. They need someone at the top who isn't the primary creative person but who can shepherd the creative types. If Goyers writing everything who is there to be objective? Feige is the objective eye making sure the Marvel ship stays on course. WB needs someone like that and if Goyer is writing everything too he can't be that. Exactly--- There needs to be a Feige at DC. (I would have added that as a backup, Joss Whedon could/should also be in charge of Marvel properties- but after seeing how bland and disappointing "Agents of Shield" has turned out under his name, I'm not so sure...) |
|
|
|
Post by SupermanUF on Dec 5, 2013 19:12:01 GMT -5
It seems Hollywood has forgotten what a real woman looks like.   They better get some meat on this fuckin' stringbean lollipop-head. |
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,078
|
Post by Metallo on Dec 5, 2013 19:39:17 GMT -5
Yeah. I'm sure Snyder will get her in shape and have her gain weight but now she's a twig. Olive Oil indeed. I don't even see the great acting talent that would've gotten her the job. And she's good looking but not that good looking. I agree. Marvels success is partly because they are willing to allow different creative minds in to contribute. Different writers and directors. WB doesn't seem to be pushing for as much variety yet. Goyer and Snyder shouldn't be handling everything. They need someone at the top who isn't the primary creative person but who can shepherd the creative types. If Goyers writing everything who is there to be objective? Feige is the objective eye making sure the Marvel ship stays on course. WB needs someone like that and if Goyer is writing everything too he can't be that. Exactly--- There needs to be a Feige at DC. (I would have added that as a backup, Joss Whedon could/should also be in charge of Marvel properties- but after seeing how bland and disappointing "Agents of Shield" has turned out under his name, I'm not so sure...) I don't think he has much to do with that show. Seems like it's mostly his brothers show. Problem with Shield isn't that it doesn't have enough superheroes. It's just not enough like SHIELD. A proper SHIELD show would be mind blowingly awesome. The Helicarrier, the wing suits, Fury personally whipping some fuckers ass in a fight, huge Sheild vs Hydra throw downs. Even on a tv budget some of this could be done every once in a while |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 5, 2013 20:58:50 GMT -5
I could throw her like a javelin, if she stays still for it.
Sent from my SPH-L720 using proboards
|
|
