Jump to content

Jmacq1

Members
  • Posts

    929
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Jmacq1

  1. Anyone claiming "Thor is just a brawler who swings a hammer" is so utterly ignorant of Thor's demonstrated capability that they invalidate any argument they make before they make it. This statement is irrelevant as to whether Superman or Thor would win in a fight. Additionally, with Mjolnir Thor actually has a lot more powers ("tools in his arsenal") than Superman does. The question is whether he can or will deploy them. Objectively speaking, speed kills. However this ONLY applies if Superman goes all-out and uses his Super-speed in a manner inconsistent with how he NORMALLY uses it (which is basically just to get from place to place faster and occasionally intercept attacks). In other words the "writer" has to have Superman act differently than he normally does. In a flat-out balls-to-the-wall no-holds-barred maximum power slugfest, Superman wins purely due to superior speed. There are a few rare instances of Thor demonstrating "faster than light reflexes" but they are far more inconsistent and rare compared to Superman's speed feats. Superman hits Thor at full strength a hundred times (or more) before Thor even knows he's being attacked. But again...that's only if Superman acts differently than he's normally portrayed. It's VERY rare for him to "speed blitz" his enemies even under extreme duress (he never once tried it on Doomsday, for example). Primarily because his stories would be boring as hell if all he ever did was use the combination of super-strength and super-speed to end every fight in the blink of an eye (despite being technically capable of doing so). Superman's vulnerability to magic is similarly inconsistent. Sometimes it's a trump card (as when Captain Marvel knocked him out cold with one punch), other times it's not. I don't think there's any denying, however, that getting hit with one of the most powerful magical artifacts in the Marvel Universe is going to hurt a hell of a lot for Supes, and quite likely would be capable of doing serious damage. That's not even counting the blasts of mystic energy and lightning or the immensely powerful "godblast" (which quite frankly would probably vaporize Superman if it hit him, but Thor uses that even less than Superman "speed blitzes" people). Nor does it count the possibility of (as noted above) Thor teleporting Superman to the heart of a red sun. Thor's default strength is less than Superman's, however Thor has access to his belt of strength which doubles his physical strength, which at the very least puts him at equal if not superior to Superman. Again though...the Belt is rarely seen or used just like Superman doesn't just heatvision pieces of kryptonite from orbit or constantly wear his anti-kryptonite armor. Of course we're also not considering whether or not Thor is empowered with the Odinforce at the time. If that's the case the cosmic-level reality alteration that power grants him makes it an easy win for Thor. Fortunately, Odinpower is not considered Thor's "default" state any more than "I've hung out in the center of the sun for several hours" super solar-charge is Superman's normal state (which I would note, is the only time in post-crisis continuity that Superman has moved a planet (Pluto)...he's never done so unaided in his "normal" state in regular continuity). The real truth is that any genuine comic writer is going to make it a roughly even fight, probably without a clear winner, or close enough that "it could always go either way." The same way Kurt Busiek handled it: With Superman being so exhausted by the effort that a handful of lesser-powered Avengers were able to pound the crap out of him immediately afterwards, and as Busiek himself has said "If there were a rematch, it's entirely possible Thor would win, now having a better measure of his opponent." In the final analysis, the real answer is "Whoever the writer wants to have win."
  2. The Club already said that the entire lineup except the 13th "bonus" figure will be announced before subscriptions are taken, so those of you whining that the Club wasn't going to tell anyone what they were going to get were a wee bit off the mark. Those of you complaining about price don't seem to realize that smaller production runs = higher prices. PERIOD. Even the average SDCC exclusive probably has far more pieces produced than these figures will. Even MotUC probably has a higher number of units produced (especially when you start getting into re-releases, etc...). Yes, the figures are (supposedly) going to be available (in limited quantities) for club members to buy individually rather than subscribing to the whole lot, at least from what I recall hearing early on...but yes, you'll still need to be a member. Don't forget that being a member also nets you another figure above and beyond the subscription, and opens the door to being able to buy other club exclusives (IE the Joe-Con exclusive sets). They've confirmed that (at the very least) several new headsculpts are being worked on, so no, not just "crappy repaints." We may not know how the final products will turn out, but it's in the Club's best interest to put out the most awesome figures they can within the constraints they're operating under, the better to entice people to buy further subscriptions. For that reason alone, I suspect we'll be getting a lot more figures that are closer to "Land Ops Wet-Suit" in quality than "Quarrel" or "Nano-Bat." Yes, I agree the first two offerings are underwhelming, but we'll know more before they actually start soliciting money. Price? Well, that's up to the individual. For some, $25 + shipping for a genuinely rare/exclusive figure is worth it. For others it might not be. There's a chance the individual figures will cost somewhat less (I heard they're trying to get the pricepoint down to $20), but it's still going to be expensive no matter how you slice it.
  3. It's not. But some people who just want to blame Mattel for everything think otherwise. People blame the toy companies cause it's the easiest target but honestly I don't think they really care that much who is to blame they just know something is to expensive for what they get and therefore quit buying it. You can justify till the cows come home why things are the way they are but in the end you get to a point where you just have priced yourself out of the market, and that point I think is fast approaching with action figures. I think that's what happened with the comic book industry and now your seeing it with these things. Well it's a good thing TNI doesn't represent toy buying America because the less intelligent members of our community are pinning every problem DCUC has on Mattel when the big chain retailers, DC and Warner Brothers all have vested interests ERRRR money involved in this license. You're right about pricing though. At some point one has to wonder if you'll be able to afford to walk down the toy aisle. Logically speaking, there will have to be a breaking point where people will simply stop buying in enough numbers to justify any given lines' existence. When that happens to enough lines, the retailers and manufacturers will have no choice but to lower prices or go out of business. Toy prices have risen disproportionately to inflation, but that's largely because there are a lot of other things that go into toymaking that bump up the costs (their manufacture is more petroleum-heavy than many other products, for example). It's also worth noting that most retailers are selling toys for anywhere from $1-$5 ABOVE the manufacturer's "suggested retail prices." Basically, from what I can tell, the retailers, who are hurting in a bad economy, are desperately trying to pad their profit margins on "luxury" items like toys. I guess they figure if folks still have the money to buy toys they should have the money to pay a little extra for them. Plus that "padded" price allows the retailers to occasionally put the items "on sale" without really sacrificing that much profit. Then again, we're talking about a community that has segments that eagerly shell out $20 (and nowadays often $40 or $60 or more) per month, plus shipping for whatever MotUC stuff Mattel is putting out that month. I would have scoffed at the idea even a year ago, but I'm honestly beginning to wonder if the future of collector-oriented action figures is indeed in "online subscriptions" catering solely to the hardest of hardcore.
  4. Yes, the DC license almost certainly costs a heck of a lot more than Ghostbusters or Voltron. Further, the DCUC line has thus far not been terribly successful with its' online-only offerings on Mattycollector, which made them rightfully cautious. Caution that is clearly borne out by the fact that this subscription is almost certainly not going to happen due to lack of interest.
  5. Many people don't buy an entire wave. Some just pick and choose the characters they like. Having to buy two lines of figures just to get 3 random figures you may want just isn't economically reasonable in a healthy economy much less a bad one. Re-read what I said. I said Two Waves' WORTH of product. Not just "Two Waves." In other words, between single-card figures, two-packs, exclusives, multipacks etc... etc... based on your prior buying habits for the DCUC line, and current financial situation, were you likely going to spend about $250 bucks (or more) in the last three quarters of next year on DCUC product? If the answer is "yes" then you can afford a sub and are lying if you say otherwise. If the answer is "no" then like I said, maybe the sub isn't for you. No, it is asinine. It has nothing to do with "passion" or being "less of a fan." If you say "The economy is bad so I can't buy these toys!" Then you shouldn't be buying ANY toys. To do otherwise is irresponsible. If you simply don't want the sub, then say you don't want the sub and don't care what might come in the future. Don't blame "the economy" in one breath and in the other go ordering DC Direct figures from another online retailer. IF someone is saying, "The economy won't let me buy a subscription" but still buying toys, they're lying. What they really mean is "I don't like or want the subscription enough to shift my toy-buying budget to paying for it." The simple truth would be fine (again, assuming that they don't fall into that category that probably would have spent $250+ on DCUC next year anyway, in which case they're again lying to themselves as their "toy buying budget" would have been going to DCUC anyway).
  6. If you flat-out can't afford the subscription then that's fine. Of course, when totalled up the subscription costs roughly the same as two waves of DCUC...so the question is: Were you going to be likely to buy two waves' worth of DCUC product in the latter half of next year? If the answer is "yes" then you're pretty much lying to yourself about "not being able to afford it." If the answer is "no" then you're right, maybe the subscription isn't for you. PS: Bringing up "the economy" in an argument about toys is asinine. If you're out of a job, or having trouble making ends meet with basic necessities, then you shouldn't be buying toys at all, and I highly doubt any sane person would suggest otherwise. Toys are ultimately luxury items. By the logic you present, Mattel (and all other toymakers) should cease business operations altogether until the economy improves, which is a ludicrous expectation. That having been said, if your personal finances are in order and you DO have the money to spend on toys, then there isn't a damn thing wrong with spending it on this subscription, "bad economy" or not, and bitching about those that do just shows your own petty jealousies. If you're going to use "the economy" as the reason you're not getting a subscription despite supposedly being a DCUC "fan" , then I sincerely hope you're not buying ANY toys right now (To include DC Direct) , because otherwise you're a hypocrite. PPS: Not all of us collect or care for DC Direct figures. Good on you if you do. Me? I don't care to spend more for generally less-articulated, generally out-of-scale figures.
  7. Found it at Wal-Mart yesterday and picked it up. Definitely the best 5-pack so far (probably has the most new tooling of any 5-pack so far, too). Owlman is one of the best DCUC figures yet made, Ultraman is a vast improvement over his previous 2-pack version, and the paint apps are sharp on all the figures. My only wish/disappointment is that I'd have preferred the Frank Quitely/Grant Morrison versions of Power Ring and Johnny Quick (especially since Johnny Quick's bio even mentions his helmet). Or at least a helmet for Johnny Quick. A lasso for Superwoman would've been nice, too, especially for the price of the overall pack. I'm sure this will end up on clearance after the holidays if it ships in the same numbers as the last five packs. Then again it's entirely possible orders for this one were much lower than the other two, "caveat emptor" and all that. I wanted the figs and could afford them, so I paid full price. If some of the rest of you manage to get a deal later on down the road, good on ya. Also a bit bittersweet, as the arms and legs for Owlman would make it pretty easy for Mattel to make a "modern" Dr. Mid-Nite (a character I was really hoping to see at some point) but with the subscription likely not happening, that's unlikely to happen anytime soon.
  8. From the Hall of Justice blog: "The new retail line will be a mix of the DCnU and some classic figures but this new subscription program was announced to get collectors the figures we really wanted for our collections. Figures that just wouldn't work out in their new retail program." Jay C and The Fwoosh reported this as well. From a marketing pov it's brilliant. The reboot is aimed at younger readers and it's logical to tie this in with the comics. From the collector's pov? This is trash. The overall reaction is resoundingly negative and considering it takes a long time to put together new figures it's a safe bet the first few waves of this "rebranding" will more than likely consist of repacks and quick retools. One of the reasons DCUC is better than Marvel Legends is because they didn't go nuts with Batman and Superman but it's also the reason why it's vanishing from retail stores. If collector's want to put their faith in this "rebranding" that's fine. But don't expect to see too many collector friendly figures. That's what really gets me about this situation: The folks apparently assuming that "if the sub doesn't happen, they'll just put these figures back into the line." Aside from the fact that Matty has basically said "maybe we'll be able to slot some of these figures into the new line starting in 2013 or 2014 if the line continues and they fit in with the new "brand"" the subscription is already showing us exactly what kind of figures DON'T make the cut: Jay Garrick - Understandable as the JSA is not part of the DCnU to start. Starman/Starboy - Likewise, plus the LoSH is already seen as so "niche" that they can only be sold online (IE not popular enough for regular retail). Atrocitus - This is the one that's telling and the most worrisome. Atrocitus IS part of the DCnU and is even getting (more or less) his own series to start...yet he's not "good enough" to make the cut for the rebranded line. What does this tell us? It tells us to expect a whole hell of a lot of "core characters" in the new line, because "non-core characters" are flat-out, at least to start (I see him as most likely to be released if the sub doesn't go through...but again not until 2013 or 2014). Poison Ivy - An A-List Bat-Villainess whose presence just reinforces the above, plus gives us a good clue that female villains are likely to be few and far between in the new line, if not females in general. Indeed, villains may be stuck back into "core character" mode once more, too (say hello to yet another Joker, Lex Luthor, etc...before you get anybody else!). Add to that no more "oversized" figures because the build-a-figure is going away, and you lose even more character variety (You wanted a BAF Doomsday? Too bad....). In short, the "rebranded" line is looking like it's going to be a heck of a lot more "mainstream" than the previous line was. Maybe some people are totally OK with getting the new designs for old characters, and that's fine, but folks thinking that DCUC is still going to be putting out these "niche" characters in the new line really aren't reading between the lines. Likewise the folks just kicking back and saying, "Oh, they've already got enough subs, that thermometer thing is just BS, I'll just snag the extras on sale days" are gonna be SOL when they find out the thermometer wasn't BS (though it was very poorly updated. I really doubt that it hasn't moved at all since Wednesday or Thursday of last week).
  9. You're missing a key detail: If the Subscription does not go through, these figures are NOT going to be offered on Matty's "sale days" because they're not going to be produced. Matty has said that there's a chance they could start slotting "some" of the figures (read: The ones that fit into the "new" DCU, so the JSA is out) into the "rebranded" line starting in 2013 or 2014...if DCUC survives that long, but they are not going to be produced in 2012 if the subscription doesn't happen. So the "I'll just order from BBTS" scenario falls through. But if you prefer statues, that's your business.
  10. Too me the worst sub out there is the MOTUC sub I have said many times they make you buy all the figures Who wants all the figures? I sure as hell don't want them I only want a selected few and only can afford a selected few..I swear they should consider the times we are in and stop being pigheaded fools Apparently quite a few people given how successful the subscription has been and how coveted the line continues to be on the secondary market. Of course, one should also bear in mind that without the subscription there'd likely be no MotUC at all. "You can only afford a selected few?" If the price of 1-3 figures a month breaks you, then you have financial worries that should preclude you collecting toys at all. They don't charge you for the whole subscription at once, and added up across the whole year it's probably only a fraction of what many collectors spend per year on toys. Now, if it's a matter of prioritizing your collecting, then yeah...that's fine. You like some things better than others (IE You'd rather buy Marvel stuff over DC, or Transformers over G.I. Joe) and if there's not enough money left over for a subscription, that's cool. Then you just run the risk of not getting the "select few" you want, or having to pay secondary market prices for them. That's the nature of collecting. Even if the sub didn't exist there'd be a good chance the figures would sell out every month before you could get them, especially the "select few" you probably want (the main characters, most likely). Either way you're stuck going back to the secondary market. I have seen VERY few, if any complaints about the subscription from people that are actually subscribed, much less serious complaints. Figures they don't want? Sell or trade them...there's almost always interested buyers/traders. Did you ever think the people who are subscribing have good jobs make good money where this wasn't an issue? I'm sorry there are people who don't want all the figures that's why they get on each month and complain about the WSOD and i'm very sure they outnumber the people with Subs. Even if I had the money I still don't need figures of characters I never heard of. I think the line would go on even without subscriptions. Make it so people can order them later in the day .People get subs because they work and cannot be online all the time.Or another idea is let people pick and choose what they want with the subs. Believe me I wanted to buy a sub but to hear in Jan I would have to buy a 3 piece set for $60 and the Sorceress for another $20 before shipping and handling charges? Thats near $100 I can't do that I live on a budget I no longer have my own paycheck to use on toys.It's a wonder to me how people are still able to to do this with the price of gas skyrocketing and jobs loss get higher. From my pov I have a right to be pissed I wanted Shadow Weaver...But is real tough right now So my main argument is not to push figures on me I don't want.If you guys want them all I don't care but they should let us make a choice on what we want each month and not force us to buy it And once again...if you're that broke, or you don't have a job, you probably shouldn't be collecting toys at all. Toys are a luxury item no matter how you slice it. Certainly you should not get a subscription, and should probably focus your time on getting a good/better job so you can take care of yourself and/or your family and (hopefully) start buying all the toys you like again. If it's not a matter of being broke or jobless, but a matter of your toy collecting budget being spent on other things, then like I said that's your choice, and you deal with the consequences (both good and bad) like everyone else. Again...if you spend $20 on a figure you don't want in the MotUC line, there's about a 99 percent chance SOMEONE out there will pay you cost+shipping for that figure, so you get your money back either way. Hell, most of them you could sell at a modest profit and actually bring some money in to collect more stuff. Or trade for items you want from other lines so you're saving money that way. But I guess that's too complicated for some folks. I'm not trying to get anyone to buy a subscription to anything. That's your choice. I chose not to get a MotUC subscription the first two years it was offered, and instead picked up those "select few" that I wanted in re-releases and the regular online sales. However once I realized that I had bought 9 out of the 12 monthly figures and several of the additional items, I figured buying a subscription was worth it for me. Even the ones I didn't buy I wouldn't mind having (in most cases) and I know that I'll have no trouble selling or trading anything I really don't want (particularly if I do so at cost). All I'm pointing out is that the "it's too expensive!" argument is generally bullshit. Most active collectors spend considerably more per month than the cost of a subscription, and if they don't because they don't have a job or are "on a budget" then refer back to my first statement in this post. PS: "Hangers on" don't outnumber the subs by a long shot, and in fact most of the people I see complaining about the WSOD are actually subscribers buying extras or out-of-subscription items.
  11. To answer the question: Because Collectors are always their own worst enemy.
  12. Too me the worst sub out there is the MOTUC sub I have said many times they make you buy all the figures Who wants all the figures? I sure as hell don't want them I only want a selected few and only can afford a selected few..I swear they should consider the times we are in and stop being pigheaded fools Apparently quite a few people given how successful the subscription has been and how coveted the line continues to be on the secondary market. Of course, one should also bear in mind that without the subscription there'd likely be no MotUC at all. "You can only afford a selected few?" If the price of 1-3 figures a month breaks you, then you have financial worries that should preclude you collecting toys at all. They don't charge you for the whole subscription at once, and added up across the whole year it's probably only a fraction of what many collectors spend per year on toys. Now, if it's a matter of prioritizing your collecting, then yeah...that's fine. You like some things better than others (IE You'd rather buy Marvel stuff over DC, or Transformers over G.I. Joe) and if there's not enough money left over for a subscription, that's cool. Then you just run the risk of not getting the "select few" you want, or having to pay secondary market prices for them. That's the nature of collecting. Even if the sub didn't exist there'd be a good chance the figures would sell out every month before you could get them, especially the "select few" you probably want (the main characters, most likely). Either way you're stuck going back to the secondary market. I have seen VERY few, if any complaints about the subscription from people that are actually subscribed, much less serious complaints. Figures they don't want? Sell or trade them...there's almost always interested buyers/traders.
  13. Yeah, Perry is generally seen as something of a comic relief character. It's hard to see Fishburne in that kind of role. He's a fine actor but he'll either be playing a much different Perry or it's just going to seem...kinda weird. Oddly, I'd more easily see Samuel L. Jackson in the role than Larry Fishburne. Sammy L. at least does the "scenery-chewing anger" a lot more often.
  14. This isn't DC/Warners doing. This is Matty trying to milk the consumer for every last cent they can. For DC/Warner's part, especially considering the reboot they're trying to sell, I expect they'll get real tired of Matty's little "subscribe or such-n-such won't be released in retail" games. DC wants their characters out there, in public, getting to as many people as possible. Matty, once you get past the CIA mentality and over-inflated sense of self-importance, is just another licensor. Just like the companies that made my Super Powers boxer-shorts or those Green Lantern activity books at the Dollar Store, it's Matty's job to get those characters out there. If DC decides Matty isn't doing their job . . . they're out. No more Four Horsemen, no more Fangirl, no more 80 dollar five-packs. Hasbro gets another billion dollar property and Mattel's living off welfare and Barbie money. How is Mattel not doing its job? Because they don't produce DCUC the way YOU want it to? This is how clueless fanboys like you are. We're all supposedly adults expressing our valid opinions here. Let's try and steer away from the name-calling okay. Nice of you to reduce the facts he proved you wrong with to "name calling." An opinion is indeed quite invalid if the facts supporting it are proven incorrect. Continuing to hold to said opinion in the face of those contradicting facts makes one willfully ignorant. Not an uncommon phenomenon on the internet, though. Make no mistake, virtually all of this mess is absolutely DC/Time-Warner's doing. Anyone thinking otherwise is really not reading between the lines and applying common sense. Then of course the so-called "fans" start getting upset that Mattel isn't telling them what the entire year's worth of products for both mass retail and the subscription will be...despite the fact that they have NEVER disclosed a full-year's worth of product at any single time. But once again...read between the lines - The first few figures for the subscription almost certainly were intended to be another wave at retail. Now? They're not. Why is this? Because DCUC is going in "a different direction." Gee...what could that direction possibly be, given the semi-recent revelation of a universal reboot for the DCU and a major marketing push impending from Time-Warner to support it? Time-Warner wants the "new" designs on shelves as fast as possible, and late next year is "as fast as possible." They also clearly want "major characters only" as even Atrocitus, who's confirmed as being part of the "new" universe and even has (sort of) his own title didn't "make the cut." That should be a red flag right there that we can basically look forward to a whole lotta the "Big 7" starting next year...and probably not much else besides the occasional villain. Does Mattel want to squeeze more dollars out of DCUC collectors? Damn right they do. They'd be an absolutely crappy business if they didn't and there isn't a toy company in existence that does things purely out of the goodness of their heart (at least not that's going to be in business long). The point, however, is that Mattel wanting to make money and wanting to provide fans/collectors with some figures they might not otherwise get aren't mutually exclusive. Mattel the corporation wants money. The Four Horsemen and the DCUC "team" probably do (to some extent) actually give a crap about the fans/collectors, but ultimately their influence is limited by corporate control, and always will be (same with any other toy line). It's doubly-difficult with a licensed brand like DC, where product has to be approved not only by your corporation, but by the owner of the licensed property as well (in most cases). Toss in the need to please the retailers enough to buy the line and you're looking at a heck of a lot of fingers in the pie. With the subscription, the need to please retailers is removed from the equation, and replaced with the need to please subscribers so they will continue to subscribe in subsequent years. This actually does give fans/collectors far more influence over the line than they would EVER enjoy otherwise.
  15. Any chance they will be less than $17.50 per figure? (the price you get when you take the outrageously priced TRU 2 packs and divide by two) If not, they can make all the cool figures they want, won't matter to me. Sorry, I'll stop being synical now. Signs point to "no." Given that DCUC figures and Iron Man Armored Avenger Legends have been bumped up to $17.99 at TRU, I'm betting Marvel Legends will follow suit.
  16. To my amazement, found these at Wal-Mart yesterday. Snagged all but Skallox and Medphyll, though would have grabbed Skallox if I knew about the symbol issue. *mutter* Stel is awesome, but I didn't realize he was going to be quite that big (was thinking more "Bane" sized).
  17. I am trying to think of Superman villians, and I can't think of any drugged-out jewelry theives, so what role could she possibly be up for? With all of the drama that is attached to her, I don't think the studio would want to take the risk of putting her in any kind of key role. But what do I know, maybe Charlie Sheen could be cast in a major role as well and filming could be scheduled around rehab. http://www.comicvine.com/magpie/29-20999/ (Though I'm quite sure the Lindsay Lohan rumor is bogus unless it's the bittiest of bit parts).
  18. I thought I'd heard 222 million...if even one-quarter of that number (55 million, give or take) go to see the movie you've advertised at roughly $7 a ticket, your movie has now made $385 million dollars in domestic box office...which undoubtedly makes it a pretty massive hit. If it's the 111 million number, then one quarter of that is still nearly $200 million. Enough to make most movies a "blockbuster." (And that's not even considering repeat viewings) In that light, suddenly dropping $3 million on a super bowl commercial makes perfect sense. I admit I was surprised that Green Lantern and X-Men: First Class didn't drop trailers/teasers on the Superbowl.
  19. That "sense of ownership" thing has always puzzled me. Ownership implies that something will be DONE with the thing....not just holding in place or crystallizing it. Fandom doesn't do anything with creations like Superman--all they do is consume them--which I suppose is where the hallucination comes into play. Even as a creator working on stuff like Superman, I don't feel like I have ownership of the characters. If anything, I get to play with them for a bit, but they are NOT mine. Most pros are like that. Maybe its a sense of custodianship there, but its certainly a step up from just fannish consumption. I think that is why most fans are simply ignored in the process (which incenses them, of course) but that is how it is. To that end, I don't have a problem with this new casting. I think the guy looks the part.........we'll see in time if he can act the part. I don't think he has to step into Chris Reeve's boots--because there's been several different Supermen since Reeves so there's freedom for his own interpretation. I confess I don't fully understand it myself, but I think it's something to the effect of feeling like they've "invested" so much in the character that they feel they should be catered to almost exclusively. Or something. Like I said, I don't really know.
  20. Well, before I begin, I would like to note that I don't think Robin is going to be in the next Batman movie (IE I think this rumor is inaccurate). That having been said, I don't think it's impossible either. Nolan said he didn't want Robin, but Nolan can change his mind. So can Bale. If Nolan came up with a story and a purpose for Robin that he felt "fits" his movie universe I don't think he'd hesitate to use it. Maybe Nolan has recognized how critical to the overall Batman mythos Robin is. Maybe he realized that where Batman was left off in the last movie is almost a perfect point to introduce Robin, a character that can "pull him back from the brink" so-to-speak. Robin is bigger than Nolan or Bale. He's one of the most highly recognized and beloved comic-book characters in existence. Yes, there's instantly an image of Burt Ward in his little green speedos exclaiming "Holy Stereotype Batman!" but images can change. Michael Keaton's Batman coupled with Frank Miller's Dark Knight Returns changed the image of Batman for the general public away from the Adam West/Burt Ward TV Show. A good, well-played introduction to Robin in Nolan's Bat-verse could do the same for the Boy Wonder (or Teen Wonder as would be more likely). Once again, though...I don't think this rumor is true. I just wouldn't dismiss the possibility out of hand. Sadly, the bat-sidekick who would probably work best in Nolan's Bat-verse has virtually zero chance of showing up: Cassandra Cain/Batgirl III could easily be tweaked as a League Of Shadows "tyke bomb" that Bruce has to defuse. Not quite as "uber" as the comics but clearly skilled enough to handle herself doing what Batman does.
  21. I was 12 when the first Christopher Reeve movie came out.The only Superman we had to compare was George Reeves....and that was from the 50's at that point in time Chris was a refreshing change That's all well and good, but my point was more about the nature of the internet/fandom than Christopher Reeve's ability to pull off the role. You also didn't have the internet back then...because I'm betting there would have been plenty of people making those exact claims (especially since by many accounts Christopher Reeve really WAS scrawny when he first won the role). Superman, and in all truth most superheroes in general are IMPOSSIBLE to cast "perfectly." There will always be a contingent that hates any casting decision made (Even Bale as Batman and Ledger as Joker have plenty of detractors). The reason for this is simple: Superheroes are perfect. Physically, morally, often intellectually. I don't mean to imply that the characters don't have flaws, but more in the sense that they are idealized in ways that no actual human being could ever hope to emulate. Nobody can ever truly "bulk up" to the level that comic-book superheroes traditionally have without becoming rampant steroid abusers, because real people aren't built that way. Add to that the sense of "ownership" that the most fervent fans feel over the characters they're passionate about, and it often becomes nearly a no-win situation where the "hardcore" fanbase is concerned. That's why movies are geared towards general audiences, who will normally be happy with "good enough" as opposed to segments of the entrenched fandom who demand absolute perfection and decry any decision that does not mirror what THEY would have done if they controlled the property as "crap" sight-unseen.
  22. Heh, I can almost guarantee you that if Christopher Reeve were just starting as Superman today, and someone popped up a picture of him in the original suit he wore in his movies, you'd have fanboys crying from one end of the internet to the other that he's "too scrawny" or "needs to seriously bulk up" or "looks gay." It's just the nature of the beast at this point. Anyway, as for a Brit playing Superman: They're actors getting paid to act a role. While I do believe that casting the "proper" national origin/ethnicity can be a bonus for certain roles (mostly the roles of genuine historical figures), most superhero roles (with the possible exception of the "national" heroes) aren't among them. Superman isn't kind, just, and responsible simply because he's American. He's kind, just, and responsible because he's a good person that was raised by good people, immaterial of their national origin. Ma and Pa Kent didn't stick an American flag in little Clark's hand and spend 18 years telling him "Rah rah America we're the greatest!" They taught him about the fruits of honest labor, about being kind to your fellow man, and about using your gifts and talents responsibly. More importantly they accepted and loved him unconditionally despite his strange origins and abilities. These virtues are not exclusive to Americans. Superman fighting for "Truth, Justice, and The American Way" was a great sound-bite during the Cold War but you know what? It didn't even exist until the 1942 Radio serial, and even then it disappeared when World War II started turning in the US favor, only to be revived during the Cold War in the 1950's George Reeves television series. In the old Max Fleischer cartoons (the first on-screen incarnation) he fought "A never-ending battle for truth and justice." In the 1948 serial he used his powers "in the interests of truth, tolerance and justice." The 1966 cartoon had him fighting for "truth, justice, and freedom." Lois and Clark brought it back to just "truth and justice" and I don't recall people making a political stink about it at the time. Another funny bit of trivia? If you look back at the earliest Superman stories from Siegel and Shuster...Superman is seriously a borderline Socialist. He was big on "redistributing wealth" to poor people during the Depression, often facing down corrupt slumlords, politicians and businessmen as often as he faced down "super-villains." What is "The American Way" anyhow? Not to get too political, but it seems like even the people of our country can't agree on just what it is. So anyway, I'm fine with Cavill. He looks good, he's a decent actor from what I've seen of him on The Tudors. 8-10 years ago I would have said cast him as Dick Grayson/Nightwing, but he looks to have grown up into "Superman" well enough. Now if you'll excuse me, I need to write up my "Rachel McAdams for Lois Lane" and "Jon Hamm for Lex Luthor" petitions. PS: On a side note, much of my information on "what Superman has fought for" was gleaned from a New York Times article you can find here if anyone's interested, though it's mostly re-iterating what I said above.
  23. As I said, I was talking about "major/main" suits. There's still quite a few specialty suits, one-offs, and suits that he only wore for a few issues that could still be made. The Thorbuster falls into that category...it was only around for one issue. Thorbuster Classic Hydro-Armor Space Armor I Space Armor II (Operation Galactic Storm) "Panther-Buster" An accurate Stealth-Armor/Stealth Armor Mark II (The Stealth Armor wasn't just a repainted red and gold...it had slightly different gloves, boots, and shoulders) Telepresence Armor "Teen Tony" Iron Man "The Crossing" Iron Man Etc... Etc... I think there's something like 65+ Iron Man suits total, though several of them are virtually indistinguishable (outwardly) from other models (for instance, his classic red-and-gold actually went through several versions that looked the same but packed in new abilities/features/power-ups, etc....)
  24. I wouldn't be totally surprised if it looked like this. I suspect Hasbro will be looking at it as a reboot of sorts, especially since they're getting rid of all the TB molds. I do think we'll definitely get some "core characters" in pretty much every wave. That's just the way Hasbro (and action figures in general really) do business. So these lists are a combination of personal "wants" and attempting to be realistic about it. No BAFs, though I'm not opposed to the idea if they bring them back. The waves aren't completely "themed" but are heavily weighted towards certain teams/aspects. Females and villains are less plentiful than heroes. Wave 1 (Avengers): Bucky Captain America Spider-Man (Classic) - CORE CHARACTER SLOT Hawkeye (Modern, possible "Dark Hawkeye" variant) Modern Luke Cage The Hood - VILLAIN SLOT Ms. Marvel (Possible "Dark Ms. Marvel" variant) Wave 2 (X-Men/X-Force): X-23 (Modern/X-Force version) Archangel (Regular and X-Force variants) Wolverine (Brown n' Tan and X-Force variants) - CORE CHARACTER SLOT Fantomex - (Original and X-Force variants) Magneto - VILLAIN SLOT Namor (Modern Black suit...regular and X-Men variants) Wave 3 (Avengers 2 - 2012 being the Avengers' year, after all): Extremis Iron Man (Iron Patriot Variant) - CORE CHARACTER SLOT "Commander/Super-Soldier" Steve Rogers Mockingbird (Modern) Ultron - VILLAIN SLOT Iron Fist (Modern) Wasp (Hank Pym version) Wave 4 (Fantastic Four): Reed Richards Invisible Woman (Regular and clear variants) Human Torch (Flame on and Flame-off variants) The Thing (All of the above in "modern" uniforms) Doctor Doom - VILLAIN SLOT Black Panther (Modern) Wave 5 ("Cosmic"): (Yeah, this one's probably a pipe-dream) Silver Surfer - CORE CHARACTER SLOT Gladiator Nova (Modern) Thanos - VILLAIN SLOT Quasar (Wendell Vaughn) Moondragon with pack-in Rocket Raccoon Wave 6 (Thor): Modern Thor - CORE CHARACTER SLOT Odin Loki (Classic/Male) - VILLAIN SLOT The Enchantress Thunderstrike The Destroyer (Possibly with "Thorstroyer" variant) Wave 7 (Captain America): Captain America (Rogers) - CORE CHARACTER SLOT The Falcon (Modern) Baron Zemo (Modern) - VILLAIN SLOT Sin (Regular and "scarred" heads) Nick Fury (Comic Version) AIM Soldier So...yeah, not likely to happen that way, but I think that'd be a good way to do it.
  25. Given that they're rapidly running out of "major" suits (read: Worn for more than a couple issues) suits for Tony, I'd say there's a very good chance the 90's modular armor will get made. I mean really, all they have left for major/primary suits are: Mark II (Gold repaint of comic Mark I, preferably with Skirt and possibly a redesigned head/helmet) Modular Armor Heroes Reborn Armor Heroes Return/"Retro" Armor Aaaaand....that's about it.
×
×
  • 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