Guest DCAUFan1051 Posted September 24, 2008 Report Share Posted September 24, 2008 It's impossible to get a 100% accurate movie translation. Hell, I'd like to see a Bruce Wayne: Fugitive animated movie, but even if that ever happened, there's no way it would ever be 100% accurate because there is too much to cover. love the signature james as far as reboots and everything I like all the current superhero films well marvel's anyways and the dark knight. I agree with James there's no way anyone can be 100% accurate and not put their own stamp on it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aaron Robinson Posted September 24, 2008 Report Share Posted September 24, 2008 What? Nolan's vision is realistic? Are you sure about that? That’s not really what I’m trying to say. I’m saying I’m happy with the level of realism that’s in the Nolan films. Besides, it’s the most realistic film interpretation of the character so far. It’s free of the wackiness Burton and especially Schumacher put into their universes, and for the most part is pretty well grounded. I’m sure you could find tons of illogical things if you wanted to, but at least Batman won’t be pulling out his bat credit card to win any auctions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackFetch Posted September 24, 2008 Report Share Posted September 24, 2008 I'm satisfied with Nolan's Batman universe. Of course I'm not a fan of the Batman character anyways so I'm not one of those that ran to see it when it came out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slothian Posted September 24, 2008 Report Share Posted September 24, 2008 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. Erm.....why not? Because Nolan put a stamp on it? I couldn't even tell you what a "Nolan stamp" was and I've seen about half his work. Is your qualm that it doesn't absolutely stick to the official DC continuity of Batman's origins? 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. If you think about it, the main villain is Ra's al-Ghul, who's probably the biggest foe of Batman's you can get away with introducing, pre-Joker. Casting any of the other generally recognised villains (from either the 90s films or the Adam West series) before the Joker would be a mistake, so it works for me that Scarecrow got used as a second tier villain whilst being menacing in his own way. The Penguin's a character who'd fit in a more evenly-stacked mob empire than the Falcone-dominated Gotham of Batman Begins, IMO. And it would be real nice not to have a love interest attached to every Batman film. Agreed, although it's true of every blockbuster, really. Studios want a good romance element to reel in the female demographic 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. It's all an interpretation. At worst, with regards to the origins story, there's no real way to do the Hush storyline, but without an X-Men: The Last Stand-sized cast, that couldn't happen anyway (and if it did, it would be a clusterfuck). Honestly, it's virtually impossible to translate the entire mythos of a character into a good Hollywood movie. On topic: I agree with Preston that there are quite a few ways to progress from Spider-Man 3 from where they left it, without needing a reboot. I know the Spider-Man has had several different cartoons and has had his entire marriage rebooted in the comics, but the current trilogy have grossed more than all other CBMs that aren't The Dark Knight, so there's no commercial reson to reboot this franchise until it underperforms, regardless of reactions to the actual quality of the film. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Feral One Posted September 24, 2008 Report Share Posted September 24, 2008 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? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Missy Posted September 24, 2008 Author Report Share Posted September 24, 2008 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Feral One Posted September 24, 2008 Report Share Posted September 24, 2008 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? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuaveStar Posted September 24, 2008 Report Share Posted September 24, 2008 I have to say after the disappointment of Venom in Spider-Man 3, I really hope they go with that Mysterio played by Bruce Campbell idea. They should also just stick to one villian and not try to turn a bad guy to a good guy in the end or make people see the error of their ways or any of that, if you want to do that, pick one of them as you will fuck one of them up. I'm still mad about the Sandman ending in Spider-man 3. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delete Posted September 25, 2008 Report Share Posted September 25, 2008 I just hope in Spiderman 4 that Spiderman is more sympathetic than the villian for once. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 25, 2008 Report Share Posted September 25, 2008 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? Do you hate the Dark Knight Returns because it does not conform to the Batman and Detective Comics continuity? We have this argument in the Dark Knight thread. Don't need it here too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Feral One Posted September 25, 2008 Report Share Posted September 25, 2008 Yes, lets continue to discuss the awesome Spider-Man movies Raimi gave us. 'Cause you know, those movies are just so great. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DCAUFan1051 Posted September 25, 2008 Report Share Posted September 25, 2008 Yes, lets continue to discuss the awesome Spider-Man movies Raimi gave us. 'Cause you know, those movies are just so great. Dude they are just movies no need to get into an argument about them yes some people might not like them and some people might like em. the Spidey movies AREN'T as bad as say Batman & Robin there aint that much camp in the Spidey Films I think Raimi has done a good job so far and yes I even liked Spider-Man 3 sure it had it's bad parts and everything but it's still Spidey on the big screen. I know this is gonna be but I'll put it to everyone this way the 2008 movies in general have not caught my eye at all. The ONLY 2 movies I set a goal to see in theaters this year were Iron Man & The Dark Knight and I loved them both. When the first Spidey came out I was so excited for it I saw it 6 times in one day no joke I spent the entire day in a movie theater watching that movie over and over. Everything else these days that comes to theaters I'll look at it and go "meh I can wait for the DVD" but that's my 3 cents Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Feral One Posted September 25, 2008 Report Share Posted September 25, 2008 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DCAUFan1051 Posted September 25, 2008 Report Share Posted September 25, 2008 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. OK first off it was my understanding that Peter idolized Octavius because he was a scientist. I'm not sure about how that is in the comics because I haven't read a spidey book in a very long time. But I understood it to be before otto was transformed into Doc Ock that they'd had a mutual respect for one another. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Molly Posted September 25, 2008 Report Share Posted September 25, 2008 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. 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Feral One Posted September 25, 2008 Report Share Posted September 25, 2008 Yeah, I would have Peter idiolize Ock, but nothing like what they did. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koete Posted September 25, 2008 Report Share Posted September 25, 2008 Okay... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Molly Posted September 25, 2008 Report Share Posted September 25, 2008 Peter is friends with Harry Osbourne. Ock is working for Harry. Harry knows Peter idolizes Ock. As a friend, Harry sets up a meeting for his best friend, with his idol. I don't see where the problem lies here, at all. As a matter of fact, it actually STRENGTHENS the conflict, and the Harry/Peter dynamic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DCAUFan1051 Posted September 25, 2008 Report Share Posted September 25, 2008 I agree Preston me personally as I stated I haven't read a Spidey Comic in ages I mainly based my love on the movies from the 1994 cartoon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Feral One Posted September 25, 2008 Report Share Posted September 25, 2008 I agree Preston me personally as I stated I haven't read a Spidey Comic in ages I mainly based my love on the movies from the 1994 cartoon. Best go pick up those Essentials then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Feral One Posted September 25, 2008 Report Share Posted September 25, 2008 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. 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Molly Posted September 25, 2008 Report Share Posted September 25, 2008 Because Spider-Man comics from the sixties and seventies reflect what makes a succesfull movie in 2008. If Captain America doesn't punch Hitler in the face in his movie, the movie is awful, because you know: EDIT: And Ultimate Spider-Man is one of the most universally well reviewed comics in a long, long time! Christ! DOUBLE EDIT: And the entire POINT of the Ultimates line is to go a different route! *head asplode* Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Posted September 25, 2008 Report Share Posted September 25, 2008 All right, I have to ask. What's an example of a comic movie you do like? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Feral One Posted September 25, 2008 Report Share Posted September 25, 2008 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Molly Posted September 25, 2008 Report Share Posted September 25, 2008 Except (and this is coming from someone who HATES both Jackman and Wolverine) the character was all but dead on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.