The Feral One
-
Posts
49 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by The Feral One
-
-
Honestly Feral One, I keep trying to see where you're coming from, but stuff like "Scarecrow should have had a full scarecrow outfit and a big scythe" and "Wolverine should have been running around in yellow and blue spandex" just make me
He's not wearing spandex, dammit! Do you recall what the X-Men wore in Singer's movies? Black leather. Do you know how difficult it would be to move in such attire and the heat exhaustion that comes with it?
Form-fitting wear is the proper way to go, with the colours matching up with the colours on the costumes in the comics. Yeah, it maybe difficult to portray Wolverine in his gold and blue costume, but the brown and tan costume shouldn't pose as difficult of a task.
-
He looked good in the animated series because it was a cartoon. Things don't work the same way in live action.
There's really no way to prove it cannot work.
-
Nolan didn't contribute anything really new to the mythos that can be considered good. Dawes wasn't. Scarecrow was a joke.
How was Scarecrow a joke exactly? They got a great actor to play him and followed his origin and modus operdandi really well. Hell, even his look was slick.
But, wait, he was in a suit and not in a straw hat and he should have had straw and a pitchfork. Also, the ears on Batman's cowl were three tenths of an inch too short compared to the Year One art.
Movies =/= Comic Books. Hell, they're not even close. Batman Begins and The Dark Knight were both very solid movies, but just because they're NOT the Killing Joke or Long Halloween, they must suck, right?
They didn't tell The Scarecrow's origin, they left that out entirely.
A burlap sack doesn't cut it. The Scarecrow has always worn an entire scarecrow costume. Always. I very much liked how he looked in the animated series. For a live action version, he should wear a full scarecrow costume, and have a wicked, long scythe.
I'm not asking for the entireity of the stories from classics to be told, although that would be nice. Putting together 'The Man Who Falls' and 'Year One' is what they should have done with 'Batman Begins.' Though, I haven't been to happy with some of Miller's contributions in 'Year One.'
-
I can't really believe Nolan cared a great deal about the characters, especially Scarecrow. His vision comes off more as a bastardization all because of his ego.
-
Nolan didn't contribute anything really new to the mythos that can be considered good. Dawes wasn't. Scarecrow was a joke.
Are you tryin' to tell me people don't want to see a Batman movie in Batman acts like how the Batman should, a well written crime story, and villains be translated to film as they should be and not fractions of what they are instead?
-
From what I've seen of the trailer, which was in low quality, and some of the images of Sabretooth, it's looks pretty bad. There is no real way to save this film from being a complete bastardization.
I guess I can't blame Hugh entirely though because of his build, however, they couldn't use some sort of techniques to make it appear that he is at least close to what Wolverine looks like. A six duece, black leather wearin' typical badass isn't representing Wolverine from the comics at all.
-
I said it was wrong to leave her out of a Ra's al Ghul story.
Having Talia being a love interset is far better than Miss Dawes because Talia is an established character.
Which way do you want it: do you want there to be a love story or not? You've said both.
Talia is established to us: comic book readers. But the majority of the people who see comic book movies don't read comics, so most of the characters (outside of the iconic ones) aren't established in their minds. To them, Talia would have been just as new as Rachel Dawes.
There's nothing wrong with a three plus hour Batman movie if it was done right, I'd sit throught it as long as it was done right.Studios tend to frown at movies that push or break three hours, because it means less screenings, which means less money. Another thing to consider is that most moviegoers can't sit through a film that long.
Preferably, no love story and definitely not one with a love interest that is attached for the general audience, those who are not familiar with the Batman.
-
If they didn't attach a love interest such as they did by adding Miss Dawes, then they could have shown Bruce training in a faithful manner.
So, take out Rachael and the love interest. So the movie losses one character and one plot line. By furthering the training scenes you kinda add in a plot line. However, Bruce need to be trained in many different areas and by many different people. These trainers would be adding in characters that would get crammed in and not get any sense of development. It would almost go into a training montage area that no one would like.
Bottom line question here is how long do you want this movie to be? I see no way you can add in all the training and not get to a 3+ hour movie.
There's nothing wrong with a three plus hour Batman movie if it was done right, I'd sit throught it as long as it was done right.
-
If they didn't attach a love interest such as they did by adding Miss Dawes, then they could have shown Bruce training in a faithful manner.
Elsewhere you've said Talia should have been in the film, but you're also saying Bruce shouldn't have had a lover. You can't have it both ways.
I said it was wrong to leave her out of a Ra's al Ghul story.
Having Talia being a love interset is far better than Miss Dawes because Talia is an established character.
-
If they didn't attach a love interest such as they did by adding Miss Dawes, then they could have shown Bruce training in a faithful manner.
It's not just the origin of the Batman that they screwed up, there are massive screw ups throughtout the film.
-
More specifically, he should be shown learning from Willie Dogget, Ducard and Master Kirigi. That should be able to be done within an hour.
-
You'd need a television show to cover all of Bruce's training. A movie only has so much time, and Batman Begins did an excellent job covering enough of his past to convey where he acquired some of his skills.
How long of a movie was 'Batman Begins'? Somewhere around two and a half hours or so? If they made a three hour Batman movie, they could cover the origin of the Batman within a hour or less. It could have been done right in 'Batman Begins' but Miss Dawes got in the way of that.
-
You'd need a television show to cover all of Bruce's training. A movie only has so much time, and Batman Begins did an excellent job covering enough of his past to convey where he acquired some of his skills.
But enough of that in this thread. If you guys want to talk about Batman, do it in the Dark Knight thread.
Well, then, I just have to respond to that in the proper thread then.
Regarding Raimi's whiny Man-Spider bastardization of Spider-Man, whichever villains they choose to go with in the upcoming film, it won't be anything like the comic books. I really wish they would have stopped after 'Spider-Man 2', but they couldn't could they?
-
Ultimate Wolverine is a fraction of the classic Marvel Universe Wolverine, which is probably why they went the direction they did cause they couldn't do it right.
I'll give you a little leeway regarding Wolverine's gold and blue costume. The brown and orange costume though is doable.
Regarding Sabretooth in this film, it looks bad. I just think back to those pathetic fight scenes in X-Men between Wolverine and Sabretooth. They didn't even come close to the fight scenes in the animated series that Wolverine and Sabretooth had.
-
It's not just Nolan alone putting his stamp on these characters, it's every other director and film crew who have made a superhero film.
Ra's al Ghul didn't train Bruce. The reason why they decided to bring in Ra's al Ghul and The Scarecrow is because no else did it before. They should have shown Bruce learning from detectives, manhunters and ninja masters. The only showed how Bruce aquired half of his skills, if that. And is borderline criminal to leave out Talia in a Ra's al Ghul story, but, hey, it wasn't Ra's al Ghul anyways, so what does it matter?
-
Define "bastardize" because, Hugh Jackman hate aside, Wolverine was done really well in the movies.
He cannot be Wolverine if he is six duece. There's no way. Wolverine is 5'3", and that's one of the distinctive characteristics of Wolverine. He's the shortest adult male X-Men. Also, they took away his costume. The only possible true arguement they have for not giving him his costume in this spin-off because of days as a non X-Men member, in which he didn't wear a costume in the Weapon X stories if that's what their drawing from. And the costume they did use for the X-Men movies was in poor taste.
It doesn't matter anyways. It ain't Wolverine. It takes more than growling and slashing to play the role of Wolverine.
-
Why?
Because their going to bastardize Wolverine again as they bastardized him in the bastardized X-Men films.
-
And it would be real nice not to have a love interest attached to every Batman film.
For some reason Hollywood thinks every movie needs a love interest, especially hero action movies. It's my biggest gripe about films. I can't wait to see The Punisher fall in love and her get killed cause you know it'll happen
It is a formula that needs to be dropped from superhero films. It probably won't be though because it's part of how Hollywood tries to make these characters more relatable.
-
What? Nolan's vision is realistic? Are you sure about that?
-
I. Hate. The. Idea. Of. This. Film. Being. Made.
-
How in the world does the Nolan Batman need a reboot?
Does Iron Man need a reboot, too? Hulk might as well start over again, too, while we're at it.
See, thats just the thing. The way you phrased it, Nolan's Batman. I would have such great respect for a film crew who would translate the source material accurately to film instead of a director putting his stamp on it and material getting watered down. 'Cause that's what happens.
I liked 'Batman Begins' a hell of a lot, but it shouldn't be hold in such high regard as a highly respectably made Batman film.
Scarecrow would not have been my choice for the first movie's villain. It should have been The Penguin since he fits with a organized crime story better than The Scarecrow. The rendition of The Scarecrow pretty muched sucked anyways.
And it would be real nice not to have a love interest attached to every Batman film.
There's no way in hell they would listen to the option of a reboot, especially one with the first installment detailing the Batman's origin accurately. A shame that they couldn't get more right than they did from the beginning.
-
This Spider-Man franchise is in need of a reboot badly just as some other the others are. I would suggest the same thing for the current Batman franchise as well, and I know there are some who would frown upon that idea.
I really don't want to see any of the characters that they decide to bring into the next film get the watered down treatment.
-
The best thing to do is to reboot the franchise. But they won't do that just like they don't have any interest in getting anything right.
The Dark Knight
in Comic Book Adaptations
Posted
Hey, yeah, thanks for brining up a shit movie into this by trying to justify that costumes from the comics can't be translated.
What's next? Going to post an image from the 1960s Batman and try to justify that the Batsuit cannot be translated to film? Because it's much better to show the Batman wearing an all black rubber suit which constricts his movement. Yeah, we're much better off with that.
He ain't Batman if he needs to wear a bodysuit composed of kevlar when he goes out into the night.