The Feral One

The best damn Marvel animated series is 'X-Men: The Animated Series' 1992 or X-MEN SABAN whatever the hell its called now.

I believe Nolan was against the idea of using Robin in one of his Batman films. Later, he tossed out a name for the role and really didn't give any serious thought on it. I'm not the biggest fan there is of Robin, but without Robin the Batman franchise isn't complete. I wouldn't want to see him go straight to Nightwing which sounds like they way most want it to be.

Then it wouldn't be Bane.

You either keep ignoring that I've said several times that their not wearing spandex in the comics, and I'm not suggesting that they wear spandex in the movies.

Despite his super-smarts, Peter is an everyman. That's why he's Marvel's gateway character. In some way we can all relate to him. The thing is, you don't accept improvements. When one is made from comic to film, you blow it off because it isn't like the comics. Regardless of what Raimi's Spider-Man movies want you to believe, Peter Parker is not an everyman character. The movies made him come off as an airhead and was boring. But, hey, you all want to be able relate to these characters, so yes, by all means, let's see more of those types of superhero movies. See, I thought the first two films were great personally. So this whole "accepting shit" angle seems absurd to me. I'm accepting two great films. Sorry you didn't like them. Nothing about Spiderman is realistic. Dude get's bitten by a radioactive spider, gains spider like abilities, becomes a superhero. Changing his web shooters from mechanical attachments to a natural ability that comes with being bitten by a radioactive spider isn't any less realistic. It's not any more realistic either. I think it works better for the film though. It bothers me that people write off superhero movies that would be more faithful to the source material than the one's that have already been made. I didn't say Spider-Man was realistic. That type of talk is coming from the people who makes these movies, especially Nolan. So, you want the movie to be five hours and Bruce and Alfred shopping about for the ebst deal and look for the bat costume? Most people were happy with how long they spent getting the Bat suit read. Frankly any longer and people would have been pissed off about and said, they wanted to see batman begins, not Christian Bale and Michael Caine shop for hats, which I would love to see..... They had to make the costume more realistic. Why would an Insane villian in the real world make a costume out of rubber or something when he has military equipment at hand? What? Why are you assuming that I don't like his costume in the comics? Most people, such as myself several years ago, knew Wolverine from the 90's cartoon, and nothing else. So if they put him in the brown tan outfit, and he looked different from the other X-men they wouldn't be able to answer that as simple as "Well their a team, they have to look alike." These films are set in this millenium when things have changed so much, superheros need to be more than just guys in costumes who fight crime and watch women undress, which is why Superman returns was shit. tell you what, In the fan fiction section, you write the script or just an outline of a realistic comic movie? And when I have the time, I'll do it as well, cause these things are as easy to write as they look. Well, Nolan's films are trying to be realistic, but at the same time be good, and at the same time to help with writing the script and keep it grounded remember that this is meant to be real, if we don't believe it's real then how can the audience? A prime example is Batman and Robin in which every day on set Schumacher would say"remember this is a comic book movie..." Could you name one superhero movie you enjoyed? you never answered that question. Well, Spiders don't use web-shooters do they? Also if you want a realistic story, why the fuck are they doing this shit to spiders and why did a radio active spider bite him and not kill him! Oh, and I was promised a cake? I didn't say I want a five hour Batman movie, a three hour Batman movie would work just fine. And yes, the Batman would be the dominant persona throughout the movies. Not some half-ass version like we got in Nolan's films. He would be driven and not be reckless and not be told what he needs to do in order to better Gotham. He doesn't get everything handed to him. He's obsessive in the sense that it his mission to stop crime on all levels, even street crime and not just a rival who he has personal issues with. There you go with the realism issue regarding the Green Goblin's costume. It would not be unrealistic for someone who is insane to wear a creepy or foolish costume, or whatever term you wish to label such as. I would like for the Green Goblin's to be a scarier version of the costume from the comics. And, the color purple would be included. It wouldn't be made of rubber, it would be materials like kevlar. I have not once said I want a realistic story, more plauible maybe, yes, but not realistic or the fake realism that the film makers use to make these movies.

He wrote off the mechanical webshooters because he believes it would be unrealsitc, yet organic webshooters are realistic? He either doesn't understand that Peter Parker is not an everyman character, or his imagination is pretty sad. How so? They were unrealistic, their inclusion negated Peter's intelligence, it didn't provide the dramatics that the mechanical webshooters do. Please, explain how in the hell it was a better idea. Accept shit as it is and don't suggest for it to be improved. Sound advice.

A lot of you seem to be mistaking spandex for what they wear in the comics. The Batsuit has been given much more technological explanations also explanations for practical use. Now, Nolan and his crew did somewhat honor the source material in this regard, but not honorable enough. The first movie as are the otherse were trash. The only characters who got decent writing were the Green Goblin and J. Jonah Jameson. Though I take issue with the costume choice for the Green Goblin, it wasn't as bad as the choice for Harry's, but not faithful enough for Norman's. Harry's costume as the Green Goblin was trash. Nice attitude towards the costumes in the comics. Real nice. As I said before, I am not suggesting they wear spandex. Just forget about the gold and blue costume for a moment, and try to imagine the brown and tan costume. Oh, that wouldn't work either, huh? Oh, I know! How about black leather? Yes! Those were classic and functionable. Not in the least. I'd like to be on a professional film crew that would be translating the material to film, but hey, it's likely it ain't going to come to fruition. As far as comics go, I don't really have in mind. I just don't have any ideas at the moment in that department. Though, I sure as hell wouldn't bastardize characters as Marvel has the past few years. You sound a lot like Nolan does, tryin' to be realistic and such. His Batman films aren't realistic. I'm not saying translate everything. The core elements and characteristics though should be translated otherwise it's generic, just look at Wolverine in the movies. Generic is what he is. He ain't even close to Wolverine in the comics. I haven't said only this generation's superhero movies are shit films. It goes all they way back to the first productions and even the television series'. The only true greatness of Raimi's Spider-Man films have been when Spider-Man is in action. Other than that, it's shit. Organic webshooters were a very bad choice, not only did it take away from his engineering skills, it was unrealistic even though Raimi wanted to be more realistic in going with that option.

They put their stamp on it because of their massive egos and how much their in love with themsevles. Again I say, it isn't spandex their wearin', and I am not suggesting they wear spandex. Form-fitting is what I'm saying that would match up with the costumes. It doesn't really matter anyways if they don't give Wolverine his costume in the spin-off because it ain't Wolverine. If he's very tall, he ain't Wolverine. If he can't fight without usin' those claws, which he couldn't fight like Wolverine anyways, the movies showed that. I explained this before, it takes more than growling and slashing to play the role of Wolverine. So far, the 1990s animated series is the true, non-comics depiction of Wolverine. Hugh comes off pretty generic. In the movie, he won't look like Wolverine, he won't act like Wolverine and you all will love it. exactly not all the people going to see these films are comic book Geeks! Yeah, that was trash. I spoke on how Marvel has been a shitty publisher, which is why I haven't been reading Marvel for a while. Both their movies and their comics are pretty bad.

Be a quitter then. Accept the mediocre movies for what they are, and never expect better.

I didn't read it, I haven't read a Spider-Man comic for a long time now. I've been done with Marvel for a while too. You mean his ability to come up with web fluid and a web shooter at the age of fifteen? Best go back and read up on some of those Essentials. Regardless of what Raimi's Spider-Man wants you to believe, that fake. Parker is smart, not just in the field of phyiscial sciences, he's smart.

I hate the idea of the movie and what they've done with him, not to mention that Marvel Comics sucks because of their levels of shitiness with their comics nowadays.

Obivously some things would change, like the dialogue and such. But certain changes like having Batman wear a thick rubberized suit instead of being an acrobat that he is, a bad change; clearly Wolverine was bastardized and he is the perfect example of what I am talking about. Leaving out Peter's engineering skills, another bad change.

The comics are not infalliable. Spider-Man 2 was a great movie. Eddie Brock was an amalgamation of Ultimate and 616 Eddie. Topher Grace fit the bill. As a matter of fact, Grace as Brock was one of the HIGHLIGHTS of Spider-Man 3. Sam Rami is a hell of a director, who is a avid fan of the comic, but he understands that when you change mediums, the story has to be adapted. I don't know what's so to comprehend hard about that. That's because Bendis is the master of hackery, Ultimate Spider-Man cannot match up to the Marvel Universe Spider-Man. They couldn't do it right so they had to go an alternative route.

Best go pick up those Essentials then.

Yeah, I would have Peter idiolize Ock, but nothing like what they did.

Why should I give Raimi and his crew so much praise as so many others have? That Spider-Man franchise was tainted from the very start and it needed a reboot from the very beginning. It's not just Spider-Man himself they screwed over. They messed up everything. The supporting cast. The villains. The story. They shit all over it. I mean, look at who they got to play Venom. That is one of the many blatant erroneous decisions they made with that franchise. Not to mention they took practically everything away from Doctor Octopus by having him being controlled by his evil tentacles and having him being portrayed as the friendly scientist and having a pre-existing relationship with Peter Parker. That should have not happened. Oh yeah, there's a lot to be proud of right there.

That really wouldn't require Bruce to use his brain so much, would it? But, hey, they didn't really show the Batman being the World's Greatest Detective that he is.

Yes, lets continue to discuss the awesome Spider-Man movies Raimi gave us. 'Cause you know, those movies are just so great.

Reread what I said. I didn't say he had to be all or even most of those; I said he "can be interpreted many different ways." As long as the character stays true to his roots (RE: dead parents, he himself is not a killer), the vision of Batman can change over time. Yeah, and I just gave the description of what Nolan presented in my previous post.

If by you mean Nolan is presenting a reckless, non-driven full kevlar wearing vigilante afraid of what his childhood girlfriend might think of him taking on weak mob bosses, a not so corrupt justice system, a ninja master residing in the mountains and a psychopharmologist who doesn't wear his costume for half his total screen time and leaving out his behaviour, yeah, I'd say you're right.

One thing you should know about how some are sayin' its the best superhero movie of all time, the same was said about 'Spider-Man 2' and that was pretty much a piece of crap except for the scenes in which Doctor Octopus battled Spider-Man which was the only way I could tolerate watching that movie. And even some of the fight scenes they screwed up.

So I should just shut up and be happy with what I get right?

The difference is, the Batman in the comics is a superhero, so he can get away with tights and light armor. The Batman in the two most recent movies is an urban soldier, therefore he needs more armor than his comic book counterpart. And the best part is he can be both. As I've said before, Batman is one of the very few characters who can be interpreted many different ways: dark superhero, campy superhero, detective, scientist, ninja, soldier and so on. To say one vision of Batman is right over all others limits the character. We got very little detective out of both of those movies. Hardly was he depicted as an inventor in the movies. No one's really wanting a campy depiction of 'em. Most seem to want the modern incarnation.

Anything more than a kevlar vest and a few, minor other points of armour on the costume, it ain't the Batman.

The Batman in the comics wears Kevlar, or the DC equivalent of it. Yes, I know that. He's wearing more than just a vest underneath the costume in 'Batman Begins' and 'The Dark Knight.' The costume used in those movies is for protection purposes rather than allowing for quick movement, acrobatics.