Jump to content

Jmacq1

Members
  • Posts

    929
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Jmacq1

  1. The biggest problem is that George Lucas has no sense of subtlety or nuance as a director or screenwriter. I've honestly wondered if he doesn't have some degree of psychological disorder (or has developed one over time) that prevents him from even registering that things don't always have to be explicitly played out/explained for the audience to understand them. Or maybe he's so far removed from reality at this point that he doesn't realize that even the "kids" that he often claims the Star Wars movies are for are smarter than he gives them credit for. Personally? I've long stopped caring about the changes to the special editions/blu rays, whatever. I might not agree with all of them, but I find them a lot less annoying than the legions of butt-hurt fanboys that can't. let. it. go. Ironically in light of my first paragraph there, it's the small changes that most people LIKED about the special editions. Things like the more expansive backgrounds, more fighters attacking the Death Star, a sense that Mos Eisley was more than a couple buildings and a few dozen people. Not to mention the backgrounds on Cloud City. These kinds of things were, arguably, good changes that helped the setting feel more alive and "real." It's the dialogue changes and scene additions that become jarring and unnecessary.
  2. Theres an underground area where you get you use the frost grenade to make ice platforms to ride in the water. In that area there is another part where you have to use your batarang to short circuit a switch box to open the area thats blocking your way. Ive hit the thing a million different ways and nothing happens. I got too aggravated and no where to go so i just said eff it and quit for now. I havent got back for about 2 weeks. If this is where I think it is, it involves a trick that I didn't figure out until very late in the game: To short circuit a fuse box with a batarang, you first have to have the batarang fly through an electrical arc to "charge" it. If you look around the area you're in (maybe even around the corner or back a room or so) there should be one of those broken electrical conduits around (with the electricity sparking between wires). You have to navigate a remote control batarang through the electrical arc, then back around and to wherever the circuit box is. It's definitely a pain in the butt. I'd seen those broken electric cables throughout the game and never realized you could actually interact with them. As for my game of 2011: It barely squeaked in before the end of the year, but my #1 would be Star Wars: The Old Republic MMO. Arkham City would be a close second, and honorable mention to Saint's Row the Third, LA Noir, and Skyrim.
  3. While I think it's unlikely they'll "let Batman lie" for 10-15 years (especially coming off the massive success of the Nolan Trilogy...at this point even if TDKR didn't make a single cent the trilogy would still turn a profit), there's a lot of room for interpretation in that statement: As x69 notes above, there will still be Batman in animated series, comics, probably video games, etc... It also doesn't preclude the possibility of introducing a new Batman in a "Justice League" movie/franchise (but at this point it seems like any potential Justice League film is a long ways off...with Nolan involved in the Superman franchise now, it's unlikely he'll want to play the "shared universe" game with Superman any more than he did with Batman. Personally, I'd say let the Nolans spend the next 6 years or so reinvigorating Superman, then once they've moved on that'd be "long enough" to wait before rebooting Batman. I think the ONLY way WB would be able to keep their hands off Batman for a decade and a half is if they start seeing some major success from the other DC comics characters (thus lessening their "need" for Batman). Otherwise, I'm going to chalk this up to a combination of ego-stroking for Bale and Nolan (to keep Bale playing nice during the press junket and Nolan game for other projects at WB) coupled with hype-building for the final Nolan Batman film ("No really folks, it'll be 10 years before you see another Bat-film! Better go see this one!"). After all, you have to do something to try to make this movie an "event" in a similar manner to The Dark Knight...but without the publicity of Heath Ledger's death/final complete role. Personally I don't think they need the help (I think TDKR is going to do extremely well regardless...probably the top-grossing film of the year). I would also note that Batman dying at the end of TDKR would be quite thematically appropriate for the Nolan Bat-franchise...especially if someone carries on for him "in spirit" (The whole "symbol being more important than the man" theme).
  4. You're entitled to your opinion, but would the addition of a two-minute montage of Thor being happy-smiley cuddly with the people of Puente Antigua New Mexico have made his transition really feel any less "rushed" to you? I mean, yeah, it takes place over a couple days at most, but people can and do have epiphanies in shorter amounts of time...that's the whole point of epiphanies in the first place...they're sudden and momentous, like a light switch being turned on in your head. It's the "a-ha" moment. For Thor, it's (ironically) Loki's lying to him about Odin's death and Thor's "perma-banishment" following his inability to lift Mjolnir that finally makes Thor realize, "Damn...I really have been an ass and deserve this punishment." So from that point forward...he tries to do something about it. Oh, and they already confirmed most of the next Cap movie takes place in the present day, though i believe they've said there will be WW II flashbacks as well. I can get the Hawkeye criticism, but I also think from a filmmaking perspective it was done in the manner it was because Renner was cast after most of the filming for Thor was already done. They knew they wanted an "Avengers" cameo so they filmed it after the fact and that's why the Hawkeye stuff does seem "detached" from the rest of the film. So to an extent I agree with your criticism there, but also see why (for example) he didn't show up to get blasted aside by the Destroyer later on in the film, since that would have required additional re-filming and editing. Personally I could have done without the Hawkeye cameo, but ehn...some folks liked it and Marvel Studios wanted to get Renner's face out there in front of the cameras. Hardly a deal-breaker as the rest of the movie goes, just as I said, weirdly detached from the rest of the film. As for Evans, well...he's -not- the iconic Cap yet, and shouldn't be. The iconic Cap is the Captain America that's been running around in the "present day" for 10+ years and is the veteran leader of the Avengers, etc... He does seem more authoritative by the end of the film, though, and from the previews for the Avengers seems a little more assertive there, as well (though we'll see). I do agree that Captain America could have done with at least one more fully fleshed out "mission/action" scene to show a little more of Steve progressing as a leader, but again...the constraints of running time often aren't even in the hands of directors, but mandated by studios that want the movie to be shown as many times per day on a screen as reasonably possible.
  5. Sorry, I never understand the whole "they're just rushing it through to get to the Avengers" criticism that's aimed exclusively at the Marvel films. Virtually every movie in existence "rushes" the character beats in a similar manner because they're limited by their running time. Were people expecting that there would be three or four Captain America movies meticulously chronicling the entirety of World War II before they brought him to the modern day? Were they expecting the Marvel movies to be four or five hour marathon films so things weren't "rushed?" Did they think Marvel was going to spend twenty years building up the Avengers before they made the film (by that point with the second or third set of actors in all the lead roles)? What, to the minds of those criticizing it for being "rushed" could have been done better if they were not "rushed?" What would have been significantly and inarguably better about the movie? More importantly, how much time do they need to be "not rushed?" What's the arbitrary number that means it's "not rushed?" Bearing in mind the Marvel movie production timelines have thus far not been particularly unusual for modern filmmaking.
  6. Actually I'm pretty sure the next game will complete an "Arkham/Batman Trilogy" before they move on to any other heroes. There's mention of other places in the game, sure, but there are far more references and easter eggs concerning "things yet to come" for Batman and Gotham.
  7. Youre taking this pretty seriously for a world that has Ras Al Ghul and Lazarus pits If you prefer a second-rate replacement that makes this game pretty much meaningless within the context of its' own universe, then be my guest. Or just assume Paul Dini is the kind of guy that'd piss on a two-decade+ partnership. Or maybe you should just, I dunno, actually play the game and see for yourself why the ending is fitting.
  8. A little bit underwhelming, honestly, though I suspect that's likely due to most of the FX work still being unfinished than anything else. Still this movie just feels "smaller" than it should to me. Maybe they just didn't give enough information about the threat to explain why they need all the Avengers (it can't just be Loki...Thor can beat Loki on his own).. Plus it makes it look like the Avengers are saving one city street from explosions and that's about it. It feels a little too "confined" at this point. Totally awesome to see the characters together, but I want a little bit more than just Tony Stark being a jerk to everyone. But as I said, maybe that will change with further trailers. Still, even X-Men: First Class had initial teasers that looked more "epic" than this does so far.
  9. I think the Wind Raider's due to come out that day, too.
  10. Actually, it sounds like they realized all the dirty pool they played during the original sub could leave them open to some serious litigation. I'd love to see someone try. I can pretty much guarantee Mattel can hire much better lawyers than they can.
  11. Merely providing context for your misrepresented post. Furthermore, if you go back to my original post in the Thor vs. Superman thread, I clearly stated that under normal circumstances, SUPERMAN WOULD WIN. Just like in my post in this thread I said SUPERMAN WOULD WIN. But feel free to continue arguing with someone that supported your position just because they don't bow down worship at the altar of DC and actually try to have rational, objective debates. All I'm doing here is pointing out that you're not debating honestly or objectively. Here you go, I'll provide an example of the same thing from the opposite side of the spectrum: Hulk was Captain Universe, so the Hulk could just rearrange Superman's molecules to turn him into a mushroom. Hulk wins. See how that DOESN'T work? Well you are arguing and picking apart my comments when I am mearly responding to others who are using plot devices and such. I was providing proof on Superman's potential to others -- NOT YOU -- other people were using Hulk's potential so I showed an example of Superman's potential, whether gamma fueled rage or solar energy why only example and combat mine? Because the Hulk "getting stronger as he gets more angry" is a standard part of the Hulk's powerset. It's not something he has to do anything "special" to have happen. Objectively speaking, the reason Superman wins this fight is because the Hulk will not get mad enough to match his strength before he gets KOed, much like what happened in the 90's crossover. Hulk (who had his full intelligence at the time) even knew it, that's why he sucker-punched Superman to start, trying to beat him down before he could recover and use his superior strength against him. Banner knew his only chance was to try to catch him by surprise and take him down early. What's NOT going to happen? This: Superman: "Wait wait, hold on Hulk. I need to go fly into the sun for a few hours so I can supercharge myself to sub-planet moving levels." Hulk: "Oh, cool, no problem man. I'll just sit here and work on getting more angry while you're gone." The OTHER reason I keep "harping" on you is because you really don't NEED to counter all the plot device arguments to provide a good explanation for why Superman wins. Superman is a bazillion times faster, and starts out a great deal stronger than the Hulk's "default" power levels. None of this requires any special "tricks." The Hulk has nothing that can counter Superman's speed, and the combination of that speed and superior "starting strength" ends the fight before the Hulk even gets strong enough to challenge him. Hulk's "potential" is irrelevant unless he somehow starts the fight already extremely angry. As I said before, if you bring in every alternate continuity, retconned, or plot-device "showing" into the debate, then the debate is pointless because both characters end up with "unlimited power" due to rare showings. Stalemate.
  12. Merely providing context for your misrepresented post. Furthermore, if you go back to my original post in the Thor vs. Superman thread, I clearly stated that under normal circumstances, SUPERMAN WOULD WIN. Just like in my post in this thread I said SUPERMAN WOULD WIN. But feel free to continue arguing with someone that supported your position just because they don't bow down worship at the altar of DC and actually try to have rational, objective debates. All I'm doing here is pointing out that you're not debating honestly or objectively. Here you go, I'll provide an example of the same thing from the opposite side of the spectrum: Hulk was Captain Universe, so the Hulk could just rearrange Superman's molecules to turn him into a mushroom. Hulk wins. See how that DOESN'T work?
  13. It's from the 2000s sure. And required Superman to spend a good amount of time sitting in the center of the sun to "supercharge" himself so he could pull off that stunt (and almost cost him his humanity/sanity in the process). It was NOT under his normal power levels. Also, Warworld was the size of Pluto. Pluto isn't considered a planet anymore. So yeah...might want to provide a little context before you start boasting. If this contest includes "when characters pull plot devices out of their butts to save the day" or "every single alternate reality showing counts" power levels, then there's no point, because at some point or another just about every character has at least momentarily enjoyed "infinite cosmic might" even if it was only for a few seconds or in an Elseworlds or "What If?".
  14. Superman takes a fight vs. the Hulk pretty easily, unless somehow the Hulk starts out angry enough to match Superman's strength. Even then it's highly unlikely Hulk could beat him because Superman's mobility vastly outstrips him. That's not even bringing his other powers into play. Now it's unlikely Superman could -kill- the Hulk short of some plot-device trickery (like when he ported Doomsday to the end of the universe), but he could KO him before the fight gets too serious. This was one of the few battles that the 90's DC/Marvel fan-voted crossover "got right" in terms of how it was written.
  15. It'd be a bizarre scenario, that's for sure, particularly when the rights to the "Superman" character don't necessarily include his supporting cast or rogues' gallery. The last I'd heard, the families had sort-of gained the rights to "Superman as he appears in Action Comics #1, and elements of the character that originate in that issue." So basically it's a massively depowered Superman (Bulletproof but "bursting shells" could pierce his skin, super-speed but only at a level that could let him outrun locomotives, and being able to leap 1/8th of a mile or hurdle a 20-story building...and that's it), and I think the only supporting elements that we're familiar with are the Daily Planet, Lois Lane, and Perry White. Everything else? So far still in DC's hands, to include Lex Luthor (and the rest of his Rogues' gallery), Krypton/Kryptonite, Jor-el and the other members of the "Super family," X-Ray vision, heat vision, super-senses, the ability to fly (as opposed to jump really high), much of what we know about Krypton, etc... etc... It's amazing how much we consider intrinsic to Superman actually originated later on (and particularly from the radio show). Superman as he originally appeared would basically be a "mid-level" character in Marvel. Now if by some strange twist of fate the family got the rights to "the whole shebang" it would be kinda awesome if somehow Marvel kept it "hush-hush" that they'd gotten the rights, and then at the end of some issue of a big crossover or storyline: BAM! Superman! As noted above, I think Marvel would be respectful of Superman if they had the rights, and would put him squarely in the "top tier" of Marvel powerhouses. However I also think that under the circumstances (the character having to be licensed from the family for a share of any potential profits) Marvel/Disney might actually not even be interested. They're doing fine with their own characters (especially now that the Kirby family lawsuit appears to have been dismissed), without having to share the money with other entities, and introducing Superman "fresh" to the Marvel universe, like the Sentry, may cause more problems than benefits.
  16. Aren't those the same people that also made the original trilogy a success back in the late '70s and early '80s? No one thought there was anything wrong with movies then? Sure. But the point is that these folks don't mind "Special Editions" or the prequels or whatever, because they're not that emotionally invested in them. The like them well enough to own them on video/DVD/Blu-Ray but may not even notice the changes unless someone points it out to them. They own the movies because Star Wars is one of those franchises that "everyone should own." The more simple way of putting it is this: Star Wars is a mainstream pop culture franchise. The group you hear complaining about raped childhoods and boycotts online is the "geek fringe" of the Star Wars audience: The people that take it far more seriously. While that "geek fringe" for Star Wars is far larger than for most other big pop-culture franchises, it's still dwarfed by the millions upon millions of "general audience" folks that like Star Wars enough to buy the Blu-Rays, but aren't so attached to it that every change from the original theatrical release is a tragedy of the highest order. In other words, there's a legion of soccer moms, ordinary joes, and other "non-geek" people out there that keep fueling the Lucasfilm juggernaut. It's not just held up by the "hardcore fans."
  17. It really doesn't matter what the hardcore fans say or complain about. While Star Wars has one of the largest collector/hardcore fanbases around, there is a HUGE "silent majority" in play where Star Wars is concerned. Ordinary folks that think the Prequels were perfectly OK (if not great) and don't really give a crap if Han shot first or if Vader screams "Nooo!" or whatever. They're the same people that helped push the Prequels to a few billion dollars in box-office take. They're not the kind of people that get on message boards and complain, either. They'll buy the Blu-Rays just to have Star Wars on Blu-Ray. To say nothing of the legions of hypocritical "fans" who'll scream "boycott!" online while confirming their Amazon pre-order despite their "outrage." Star Wars is a freight train that can't be stopped at this point. It's a permanent part of the pop-culture bloodstream, and no amount of tinkering by George Lucas is going to change that. Oh, and my prediction: We won't get the original theatrical versions in proper High-definition remasters until after Lucas dies. They'll probably come out following the announcement that either: A: Episodes 7, 8, and 9 will be filmed and released. or B: The whole saga is going to be "remade/rebooted."
  18. OK then, go ahead and say the samething-- to the many stroke victims that have been victims of intense rage and stress.... Anger does have a limit from person to person, because if it didn't, people would not die from heart attacks caused by intense anger or rage... A stroke or heart-attacked caused by rage, is the body's way of saying "OK tough guy, you've hit the limit...and I cant take no more".... Except the Hulk gets more durable the more angry he gets, so he would never reach the point that his body would fail due to rage. You can't apply the standards of normal humans to a gamma-irradiated superbeing. Superman beats Hulk though, again mostly due to speed and being able to KO Hulk before Hulk gets mad enough to match him. Basically exactly what happened in the old DC vs. Marvel crossover (one of the few fights in that crossover that was written reasonably well).
  19. I'd rather be "insane" then so stupid that I can't tell the difference between "take him there" and "protect him." But I guess Superman's power of "flight" and "invulnerability" are the same power, huh? Since apparently in your mind they're the same thing.
  20. Really? Where's your proof for this statement? Mjolnir got him there, but does not inherently increase Thor's durability. Of course, if you knew much of anything about Thor, or bothered to do any ACTUAL research you'd know that. Furthermore, Mjolnir is a fundamental and omnipresent aspect of the Marvel Thor character. Making any argument about him "without" it is indeed akin to saying, "Superman vs. Thor in a Red Sun system." Or "Iron Man vs. Steel, except Iron Man doesn't get his armor." Once again, if you have to start stripping characters of their fundamentals just so your guy can "win" you're just being a fanboy and not really debating. Almost everything you talk about Superman accomplishing, Thor has done as well (which you either already know and pretend not to, or are ignorant of so don't bother mentioning it). The difference being an objective debater acknowledges that BOTH characters have their strengths and weaknesses, and doesn't just talk up their favorite while casually dismissing every aspect of the "opposition." It IS possible to have an objective analysis. As noted above, in a purely objective analysis, Superman should win virtually every time based on a significant speed advantage. But ONLY if based on a virtually never-seen "no holds barred" attack from Superman. An attack he doesn't even use on the being that KILLED him, which means it's generally out-of-character for him to use it. Ergo, in pure black and white, Superman wins...but once you start factoring in the characters' typical patterns of behavior and fighting tactics the outcome becomes considerably more murky. You argue that "Superman holds back" which is true...the difference being that if he holds back against Doomsday and Darkseid and other such entities (as he routinely does), then there's absolutely no reason whatsoever he wouldn't equally hold back against Thor. Of course, if you follow the "keep them written in character" logic any fight between them is likely to be a minor dust-up before they team up to go beat down the REAL big bad of whatever story they're sharing.... You silly little dweeb, I have seen the comic you are talking about. Thor states that the hammer has to take him to the place where Akum or whatever his name is at. In the end, Thor got punched out from a crotching position Superman right after he stopped his hammer in which the mightiest of nine worlds couldn't do what Superman did. Superman beats Thor plain and simple. I have read enough Thor from his own books, to the Avengers to know his limits, hell, he got his you know what handed to him by the Red Hulk so there, Superman already beat him and Superman can easily topple to guys who beat Thor. Also yes Thor may have Superman's measure but do you not think Superman has Thor's even more. Superman once stated to Ultraman that the reason Superman is more powerful is because he learns from every battle, while Thor still just swings his silly hammer, now put your skirt back on and make some cookies you pansy!!!!...............just kidding!!! @smilepunch@ Yes, his hammer GOT HIM THERE. There' isn't jack or #$## in that comic that says he needed the hammer to stay alive there once he arrived. One doesn't equal the other. Yeah, Superman beat Thor in a non-canon crossover (as all crossovers are). Another writer could have had a different outcome and been perfectly justified in doing so, and the WRITER WHO WROTE IT IN THE FIRST PLACE said Thor was capable of beating Superman, so that crossover showing is -doubly- irrelevant. Thor came back for the Red Hulk and the Red Hulk KNEW Thor could kill him if he wanted, but hey, if you want to count every time a character jobs, it's not like Superman has EVER jobbed to anybody, right? Oh wait....he's jobbed to Batman at least a half-dozen times, and that's just the start. So "puny mortals" can kick Superman's ass. Heck, his number one nemesis is an ordinary human. What's that say about Superman? "Superman learns from every battle" is what's often referred to as "narrative hyperbole." If you want to keep oversimplifying and being dismissive, I can just as easily say, "Superman solves all his problems with nothing more than brawling and lifting heavy objects" which is in fact how he wins about 80-90 percent of his battles. He's every bit as "simple" as you claim Thor is, except on rare occasions. See how easy that is to do? WRONG, we have Lex Luthor for that and in a crossover, Dr Doom. Also, I bet Batman could beat Thor. Now you're just trolling.
  21. Yes, the "Batman beats Superman" thing is WAY overplayed. Sadly only one story that I know of had the nerve to turn that on its' ear (The "Sacrifice" storyline in Wonder Woman. When Max Lord controlled Superman, he had him speed-blitz Batman and broke almost every bone in his body before he could even start to react...almost killed him (the only reason it didn't is because they said even a mind-controlled Superman subconsciously keeps himself from killing). He had to be put under a magic healing ray to recover. So yeah...logically/objectively speaking, there's no real way Batman should be able to beat Superman under anything approaching normal circumstances. Only via plot devices (and I'm not even talking about Kryptonite, which logically speaking Superman should be able to heatvision from beyond its' area of effect) does Batman have a chance.
  22. Really? Where's your proof for this statement? Mjolnir got him there, but does not inherently increase Thor's durability. Of course, if you knew much of anything about Thor, or bothered to do any ACTUAL research you'd know that. Furthermore, Mjolnir is a fundamental and omnipresent aspect of the Marvel Thor character. Making any argument about him "without" it is indeed akin to saying, "Superman vs. Thor in a Red Sun system." Or "Iron Man vs. Steel, except Iron Man doesn't get his armor." Once again, if you have to start stripping characters of their fundamentals just so your guy can "win" you're just being a fanboy and not really debating. Almost everything you talk about Superman accomplishing, Thor has done as well (which you either already know and pretend not to, or are ignorant of so don't bother mentioning it). The difference being an objective debater acknowledges that BOTH characters have their strengths and weaknesses, and doesn't just talk up their favorite while casually dismissing every aspect of the "opposition." It IS possible to have an objective analysis. As noted above, in a purely objective analysis, Superman should win virtually every time based on a significant speed advantage. But ONLY if based on a virtually never-seen "no holds barred" attack from Superman. An attack he doesn't even use on the being that KILLED him, which means it's generally out-of-character for him to use it. Ergo, in pure black and white, Superman wins...but once you start factoring in the characters' typical patterns of behavior and fighting tactics the outcome becomes considerably more murky. You argue that "Superman holds back" which is true...the difference being that if he holds back against Doomsday and Darkseid and other such entities (as he routinely does), then there's absolutely no reason whatsoever he wouldn't equally hold back against Thor. Of course, if you follow the "keep them written in character" logic any fight between them is likely to be a minor dust-up before they team up to go beat down the REAL big bad of whatever story they're sharing....
  23. Hate to be the bearer of bad nows, SP, but Thor's gone right into the center of the sun and carried on a nice conversation with the Elder Being that lives there while he was there. Didn't even get a sunburn for his trouble, nor was he equipped with anything beyond what he normally has (Mjolnir). So yeah, he could "sit in the sun a while" if he wanted, and has actually done so. Of course, if you had actually bothered to read beyond my first sentence you'd see that generally my arguments favored your beloved Superman, but you're so goddamn defensive that you couldn't be bothered, could you? None of this absolves you of your utter ignorance of Thor's character and capabilities, but your ignorance doesn't mean Thor would win. NEWS FLASH: If you have to downplay, insult, ignore, or discount the other characters' abilities entirely just to make your argument for your favored character, you're not really debating, you're just being a blind fanboy.
×
×
  • Create New...
Sign Up For The TNI Newsletter And Have The News Delivered To You!


Entertainment News International (ENI) is the #1 popular culture network for adult fans all around the world.
Get the scoop on all the popular comics, games, movies, toys, and more every day!

Contact and Support

Advertising | Submit News | Contact ENI | Privacy Policy

©Entertainment News International - All images, trademarks, logos, video, brands and images used on this website are registered trademarks of their respective companies and owners. All Rights Reserved. Data has been shared for news reporting purposes only. All content sourced by fans, online websites, and or other fan community sources. Entertainment News International is not responsible for reporting errors, inaccuracies, omissions, and or other liablities related to news shared here. We do our best to keep tabs on infringements. If some of your content was shared by accident. Contact us about any infringements right away - CLICK HERE