Xorr

Dear lord! Please, someone tell me that the hideous monstrosity of a costume posted here is not going to be the one in the Thor movie! All the shiny plastic techno-plate crap and funky treads on the biker boots is not Asardian at all. He looks silly. If that's how he looks I won't even attempt to give the movie a chance. This is far worse than the silly costume they gave him in the 70's/80's Hulk tv show!

STC wrote: If you have a problem with my posts, then don't read them, moron.

Ganesha wrote: Amen. I hate when naysayers claim "it won't work". First of all, people (ie general audiences) know and understand that superheroes wear colorful costumes! They expect costumes! Not BMX biker jackets, not jeans and flannel jackets. Costumes! It makes no sense to say "oh, well, Superman's costume is timeless and so is Spiderman's, but not Wolverine's or Thor's". Until someone can show me a survey or in-depth study showing that audiences would not accept traditionally costumed characters on the big screen, that excuse is sheer bullshit. It gets parroted eternally, but yet nobody who parrots it ever seems to have looked into the situation or even given it serious logical thought. And I agree with Ganesh about not pointing to the Corman Cap movie and "Show me something that cost more than $100 at Jo-Ann Fabric and several hours on a sewing machine by a hobbyist." Really, we're talking about movies that costs tens of millions of dollars. They can do perfect costumes. For those who claim Wolverine's costume is too bright, look at Hellboy - neon red. The Mask - neon yellow. Dick Tracy - super neon yellow. And let's say for sake of argument (and going against proven, historical fact) that bright yellow for Wolverine is too bright. Ok, why not use his brown costume? Or how about just toning down the yellow like they did for the red in Daredevil? I hear lots of claims about how superhero costumes won't work, but no actual proof or logic. Ganesh wrote: I agree. I remember how that idiot Bryan Singer lectured everyone on how the Xmen needed "realistic" costumes, only to put them in skin-tight BMX biker leather bodysuits. Yeah, lots of range of movement in those! No, or course they won't die of heat exhaustion in summer or stiffen into statues in winter (from stiff frozen leather). Nah, that's certainly realistic! Oh, and Magneto's costume, of course that looked totally normal and "realistic", right? Yeah, a collar-less suit with a bright red cape and a mis-colored/mismatched purplish helmet. Totally realistic!

Iazrod wrote: Because they suck in my area, that's why. And a lot of other people in other areas have the same problem. I have never seen more than a small handful of figures (say 6 at most) at any Wal-mart (or TRU or Target or whatever) in the Chicagoland area. And keep in mind, I hit numerous stores in Chicago and the surrounding suburbs. At least half a dozen Wal-marts in Chicago and these suburbs - Forest Park, Northlake, Hodgkins, Villa Park, Niles, Bedford Park, Bridgeview, Darien, etc. Same for TRU - Chicago, Burbank, Melrose Park, North Riverside, Downer's Grove, Niles, etc. And none of them are ever current. I have not yet seen any of Wave 13, and I have yet to see any of Wave 9 outside of Black Canary, who is ubiquitous, albeit with broken knees in most cases. I finally saw Green Arrow the other day. Just this past month they finally got in 2 figures from Wave 11. I just came back from a vacation out in Dayton, OH, and the story there was the same. The TRU stores had nothing, Walmart had nothing. Just a few old figures from old waves. So really, it's Mattel that sucks the worst, because their distribution sucks more than a vacuum. If not for online ordering, I could never collect this toy line. And I live in the 3rd largest metropolitan area in the country! Go figure!

Which part of those episodes showed him swimming? I sorta fast forwarded through it because I was looking for him in costume. I missed the action.

Superpowers1980, how tall is Ultrahumanite compared to say Solomon Grundy or Grodd? I'm still undecided as to whether I want him, and if he's too big, that will pretty much be the determining factor.

Wheeljack wrote: To be honest, no, I do not understand why certain people get so pissed off simply because I say I don't like the changed costumes or whatever. This is a discussion site, and we're discussing it. It's always the same few people who get upset by anything I write. They're very intolerant of differing opinions, and they cannot disagree or debate without being insulting from the moment they open their mouths. Not sure why that is. My not liking those costumes does nothing to prevent them from enjoying those movies. You don't see me constantly ripping on them saying "Oh here you go again like a broken record about how much you love the new costumes". JohnnyRebelV2 wrote: I could agree that the early 80's still had some ass-kicking comics, but at the decade wore on, comics faded in quality. All the great runs ended, lots of crappy retcons and bizarre changes to characters, poor writing and the company-wide crossover events such as the dreadful Secret Wars became the standard. By the late 80's all I was buying was Thor by Simonson, American Flagg, Jon Sable Freelance, Teen Titans by Perez/Wolfman, and Scout by Tim Truman. That's all that seemed worthy by that point, whereas I used to buy 40+ comics a month in the 70's.

I'm just saying, it's not Aquaman. I certainly won't be watching it. It's just a shame we can't get some real superhero tv shows. I miss the Flash.

Wheeljack wrote: True. But then, they shouldn't market it as Aquaman. It's not Aquaman. If anything, it should have a disclaimer saying "Vaguely based to a small degree on an original idea from DC Comics". That's why I don't like these faux-superhero tv shows. They're not about escapist fantasy as comics are. They're more like soap operas vaguely based on an original idea, minus the costumes, powers, and characters. Nothing "superhero" about it. The aversion to costumes smacks of ridicule for the source material.

That's pretty much what I do. Nothing compares to the fine vintage 60's and 70's comics. That was when comics peaked in quality, and will never again be seen at that level of excellence. I got my hopes up from the Iron Man movie, but seeing how they're gonna destroy Thor and Capt. America, it's not worth paying to see them. If anything, I'll sneak in without paying so as to not support their travesty. That way, when I walk out in disgust, I won't have wasted any money. But you are wrong about changes. I'm ok with changes. Hell, I even liked the armor they gave Iron Man in the first movie even though it's his modern version and not his classic style. Sure, I would have preferred the old style, but I was fine with the new one. But some changes just go too far, Cap being one of them.

The "essence" argument is yet another fallacy. For example, if you wanted to do a story about social outcasts who were "different" yet wanting to help humanity, you could do such a story without resorting to superheroes, and you could do it in any number of ways. What makes that an Xmen/superhero movie is super powers and superhero costumes. Superheroes wear costumes. It's that simple. Without costumes, they're not superheroes. They're visually boring and pathetic re-interpretations.

Lady Jaye wrote: Why does it upset you that I merely pointed out he does not have a costume? Superheroes do wear costumes, you know. That's part of the superhero genre. And besides that, your complaint is inaccurate. This time I am not complaining about an inaccurate costume. I'm pointing out that he has no costume at all!

I hope that if they start the Legion, they finish the Legion. By that I mean all the major characters and villains. There's nothing I hate more than unfinished lines or groups. For example, we are still missing Metron, Highfather, and a few others that are essential to a complete New Gods collection. There's no excuse for overlooking the remaining few necessary characters. When it comes to the Legion, I agree with the old adage "Better not start, once started better finish".

How can he be Aquaman? He doesn't even have a costume! Superheroes wear costumes. This guy is a lifeguard. At best.

JollyMonReturns wrote: I plan ahead. I believe in getting things right the first time. I'd consult if I needed to. Again, I do the prep work. If anything, I believe in over-planning. Leave no stone unturned, figure everything out before you begin, and plan ahead for unforseen circumstances to the best of your ability. The director for the film Lemora, A Child's Tale of the Supernatural (one of my all time faves) mentions in the commentary how he did so many storyboards that people couldn't believe how detail oriented he was. That appeals to me, that's how I am. I know how to tell a good story. I know how to do good dialog. As far as gaming, I am currently working on some material for an out-of-print edition of the game, and one of the founding writers who is considered by most of the knowledgeable people in the field actually gave my writing high praise. He even told me I was good enough to ghost write something for him, which is akin to having James Cameron or Steven Spielberg say "You're good enough to direct the movie in my place". As for writing the movie, it's like anything else. You need a good, compelling story that captures the audience's attention, a good plot, something that gets the audience involved emotionally. A movie is just a fictional story in moving format. So it contains a visual aspect you must appeal to as well. But it's not that hard. I don't consider it misplaced confidence. I know my limits and I know when to say "I don't know that" or "I'm not good enough to do that". With a Thor movie, I truly believe I can pull it off. A producer is in charge of everything. He hires the director, the cast, the talent, etc. The producer pretty much oversees everything. Usually (not always), teh producer has final say in almost everything. He supervises the budget, etc. I'm a natural organizer and leader, so I'd honestly probably make a better producer than director, though I think I could pull off both. I agree, passion isn't enough. I just happen to think I know enough about movies to be able to create a good one. At the very least it would be no worse than any that the major studios have put out, and definitely more faithful.

Superpowers1980 wrote: Boy, go slap your mother upside her head. When she asks why, tell her it's from Xorr for raising such an obnoxious, uncivilized social misfit devoid of manners. I take it you're an American-hating communist then.

WTF?!?! Who is that? That's not Capt. America! That's some guy dressed in a costume that was very vaguely inspired by Capt. America or maybe roughly inspired by Uncle Sam or something. But that ain't Capt. America. If that's the costume they're giving him, I am absolutely boycotting the movie.

God forbid that Xorr should ever be politically incorrect, but that Luke Cage looks like an actor in blackface. I'm surprised no one found it offensive.

Cjflan32 wrote: Fallacy #4 - Compare poorly done movies with low budgets and poor quality control and blame it on the costumes or the faithfulness. We've been over this and covered it a thousand times, so I have no idea why people keep falling back to this fallacy. I've explained how modern audiences don't care about the minutia and trivia of the characters. Nobody who is not a comic book fan cares how Spiderman makes his webs. All they care about is they want to see Spidey slinging webs because that's about all they know about the character...he can climb walls and he can shot webs. So you can definitely make a faithful superhero movie with an accurate costume. Spiderman proved it is possible, even though Spiderman failed to be faithful. For those who doubt that a faithful comic movie can succeed, we can look at Spiderman. Same exact origin (the translation from a radioactive spider to a genetically modified spider is irrelevant), same costume, same powers, same origin (almost...they tampered with it a bit too much and it became contrived). What did Spiderman need in order to have made it a totally faithful comic book movie? Just a few things, none of which would have altered box office: 1. Flash Thompson - Why not give him blond hair and blue eyes? There as no compelling reason to change him. General audiences don't know squat about him and don't give a damn either way. When there is no compelling reason, don't fix what ain't broken. 2. Mechanical webshooters - Again, modern audiences don't give a damn how his powers work, they just want to see him climb walls, shoot webs, and beat up villains. The only two arguments I've heard in all these years that have even the barest minimum evidence of thinking involved is that a) it would take too long to shoot scenes with him inventing his webshooters, and it's unbelievable that a high school kid could invent webshooters. Both are pathetically lazy, thoughtless answers void of both common sense and logic. Cut a few moments of Mary Jane whining like a sick puppy and show Peter creating them. We're talking about less than 5 minutes of screen time. It's not an issue. And as for the second argument, that hold up even less well upon examination. We expect audiences to believe that a man can get bitten by a spider and gain superpowers, but we can't expect them to believe that a near-genius prodigy cannot create a failed adhesive and find a way to use it? Please! Don't insult anyone's intelligence! Neither argument holds water. It was nothing more than Sam Raimi's immense ego and lack of respect that made him chance Spidey into organic webshooters. Again, there was no compelling reason to change it. 3. Green Goblin's costume - His Jet Jaguar costume looks stupid and audiences I was with laughed at it. I mean, the entire theater was chuckling. Here is what he was originally going to look like in the movie, and this is far closer to his real costume (colorized by yours truly): Regardless of what anyone thinks about which costume is better, the one posted above is a better choice and should have been used. Most audience members don't know what the Green Goblin looks like and don't care. So there is no compelling reason to change it. 4. Uncle Ben's death - no need to have the burglar shoot him up in a car outside the wrestling match. Why change that? Why have Spidey confront the villain in the same movie? The story is more effective if he does not find the murdered of his uncle, because he never gets vengeance, he never gets closure. Better to go with the comic version. Once more, no compelling reason to change it. Given those changes, it would not have diversely affected box office by one lousy penny, and no one can honestly argue otherwise. 5. Mary Jane - In the movie she is a whiney wretch instead of a hip party chick/model as she was in the comics. Every scene with her was depressing and creepy. Plus she's ugly. Get a hotter looking actress to play her, and make her more accurate with how she was in the comics. It worked for 30 years in the comics, it can work in the movie. We come back to the same issue...no compelling reason to change her. My only other gripe is taking the Gwen Stacy storyline and mixing her up with Mary Jane. It kills the intensity of the original story where Gwen Stacy died at the hands of the Green Goblin when they water it down, substitute MJ, and let her live. They should have used Gwen Stacy, killed her, and introduced MJ in the second movie. Or else just scrap the whole idea of using that Green Goblin story and do something else. Oh, and speaking of oh, it was pathetic when Green Goblin dies and he says "oh". As if he's just discovered an untied shoe-lace. Stupid. That scene needed changing. At least have him grunt "ugh" or something. Not "oh". See? None of those changes would have hurt box office by one red cent, and we would have had the first faithful superhero movie since Batman (1966). Which is why I am the only person I know who could do a faithful yet well done superhero movie.

I'll ignore all the silly inflammatory taunts from Cjflan32 and Arrow, noting that neither of them can back their claims. But Cjfan did post something interesting: Oh, right. Because you did a study or a survey and figured out that's true, right? Can you tell us why nobody laughed at Superman, Batman, Spiderman, etc? People who repeat that fallacy (Fallacy #3, the Fallacy of Costume Ridicule) don't know what they're talking about. People expect to see superheroes in superhero costumes in superhero movies. Get real.

JollyMonReturns wrote: That's easy. Clearly, I bring passion for the source material and a burning desire to see it turned into a well done movie. That means being faithful to the source material. With that respect comes a lack of ego, which means no bastard son for Superman (good one Master Jailer! ), no warped costume changes, no silly attempt at psychology and tying the characters' origins together. Just a true to the source, well done movie. Have I ever actually directed a movie? No. Have I ever been on a movie set? No. Have I ever worked a movie camera? No. None of that matters. Why? Because I know when a scene is filmed nicely and when the camera angle is off. I know when the pacing of a movie is too slow or too fast or when it's too choppily edited. I know when a scene is indecipherable due to sloppy MTV style "shaky camera" syndrome and when it's filmed properly. I've watched enough movies to know that some scenes need a wider angle, others need to be brought in close. I'm aware of the effects of lighting on mood and how to differentiate between foreground and background action. So yeah, I can film it and know whether it is or isn't filmed well. Fans often know more about an art than those who work in the field. And I have written enough fantasy stories in my life, all of which have been highly praised by friends and acquaintances (most of whom would be honest enough to say "that's crap" if it was). I've written and DM'd thousands of Dungeons & Dragons games, so I know how to pace a story, I know how to get information out there without having to rely on tons of exposition, etc. My games were so popular that everyone wanted to get in. I had to do games in shifts, otherwise I'd have 50 people sitting at my table at once. So yeah, I am totally confident that I can take a character that I have such passion for and do it right. There would be no ego involved, hence no need to change the character because I thought I was better than the creators and trying to improve on perfection. There is no desire to "make the character my own" as so many other directors do. There is no need for me to "reinterpret" the character because I respect the source material and therefore it would be a true portrayal. As for taunts from the likes of Arrow, he can scream till his face turns blue. I've never let anyone bully me into doing something, nor will I appease him by putting a lot of energy into some meaningless youtube creation. He can call it ducking or evading or anything he wants. I don't care. I stand by what I said. I'm the only person I know of who I have faith in to produce a truly well done, faithful superhero movie. Also, note that in my original post I did not necessarily mean I would have to personally film it. I wrote: "I for one refuse to get excited. I'm convinced that the only way I'll ever see a great, faithfully done superhero movie free of silly advertising, tampered-with costumes and origins, race-changed characters, bad camera work, etc, is if I film it myself. Yes, that's right, I'm just gonna say it. I'm the only person I have confidence in when it comes to doing superhero movies. No one else can produce a good one." Note the emphasis on the word "produce". Yes, the other sentence says film it myself, but I clearly also indicated simply being in charge of production, which is what I actually more what meant. As long as I was in charge as the producer, it would be faithful. And as a producer, I need no directing skills. That being said (lest Arrow or Flan accuse me of ducking again!), I still stand by my other claim that if I filmed it myself, ie directed it personally, the movie would be great, and better than anything the studios put out. Finally, I will note that Cjflan32 and Arrow, both of whom keep making outrageous claims about being able to film Thor for "under $1,000", have failed to respond to my repeated calls to show me how much it would cost me to film a Thor movie. I even challenged them to show me how it could be done for $250,000 or less and that if they could, I would do it. Neither of them has been able to back up their outrageous claims of being able to do a Thor movie short of a multimillion dollar budget, because we both know what they're full of. And I'll give everyone a hint...it doesn't smell good. I'm off to the other job, I'll check in later to see if Arrow or Cjflan have summoned the courage to give us a cost estimate on Thor.

Cjflan32 wrote: I'll issue you the same challenge that Arrow keeps ducking. Show me how you propose to do a full length feature film of Thor that's in keeping with modern expectations of quality (ie not a cheap fan-boy youtube thing, but a real movie like Iron Man), with a budget of anything less than $250,000. Hell, try that with anything less than $1,000,000! Either one is fine with me. Show me how you're going to pay for actors, for storyboard artists, for animal trainers, for extras, for stunt men, for fight coordinators, for stages and sets, for cameras and lights and CGI editors and all the other people needed to create a film like this. And show me how you're gonna do that cheap. Then explain to me why, at the end of the Spiderman or Iron Man movies, the credits are 20 minutes long because they have 750 different people credited with working on it, and explain why Marvel had to spend $55 MILLION to film Iron Man when, according to Arrow, they could have done it cheaply and just as well for "under $1,000". I've been consistently arguing about making a feature film of Thor, a full length motion picture. And you and Arrow keep shooting off your mouths about how I can do it dirt cheap. And yet both of you refuse to address the costs I mentioned, repeatedly. Put up or shut up. Cjflan32, you consider yourself a genius, and Arrow claims to have 20 years in the industry. Surely the two of you can put your heads together and back your silly claims about being able to do such a film for under $250,000. Stop deflecting this original challenge from me by countering with silly challenges for me to produce a youtube vignette. Hell, you prove that to me, you show me how I can afford to do a Thor movie at that level of quality for under $250,000, and I'll do the damned thing. I'll find the loans, I'll let Marvel sue my ass, whatever it takes to shut you up once and for all. Stop evading my challenges about the budget and prove your claims that it will take "under $1,000". I clearly stated the going rates directly from the SAG, and that expense for just 9 actors (unknowns) and 12 extras ran the budget up to well over $200,000, and that's just to pay the actors. Come on hotshot. Put your money where your mouth is. Don't cower behind silly counter-challenges. Back your original claim and show me how you can do a Thor movie that cheap.

And ironically, speaking of bozos, Arrow wrote: Uh...here's a clue for you, just a hint of reality. "My film", as you allude to, has always been a full length Thor feature film. That was made clear from my very first post. Try getting some reading comprehension skills. So if you're offering to do storyboards for "my film", that means a full length Thor feature film. I never said I was interested in doing a 5 minute piece-of-s#i+ youtube Thor fanboy vignette, nor would I pay you the outrageous sum of $1,000 to do that. You wiggle and worm, but you cannot evade. Show me how you propose I do a Thor film for "under $1,000" as you originally claimed. If that was not your claim, then answer my replies and clearly state how much you believe a Thor movie, and by this I mean a full length feature film with at least at the quality level set by the Spiderman and Iron Man movies, would cost to do these days using all your infinite insider wisdom on how to make films cheaply.

Arrow wrote: I'm evading nothing. I said that I only have confidence in myself to do a faithful superhero movie. You are being dishonest again. Or simply devious. I have always clearly been talking about filming a Thor superhero movie. From my very first post, I clearly talked about a Hollywood level major motion picture movie. And then, in direct reference to that claim, you stated (and I quote you): "For under $1000, you can do it with a digital camera and a costume, and you can even get some lights that will work for filming at that budget." I was always talking about a major film. And you claimed I could do it for under $1,000. There are no contrivances. You keep evading the issue. I have repeatedly (at least a half dozen times now) asked you to show how much you think it would cost to film a Thor movie. You repeatedly ignore that and keep talking about that absurd "under $1,000" claim. So tell me precisely how you propose to do a Thor movie on a small budget. I'm not about to answer a challenge that involves lots of hours of work taken out of my free time for a guy who refuses to even answer a written challenge in a debate. All's fair. You claimed that I could do the Thor movie for under $1,000 dollars, now prove it or shut up. Yes, you were. I keep talking, in every post and every sentence, about doing a Thor movie. In reply, you keep quoting those ridiculous prices and even mentioned night time shooting for a superhero movie specifically. I even addressed this when I told you yes, I could shoot a simple Blair Witch style Thor movie for $1,000 or so, but not a Thor movie. And you kept arguing. Again, I have better things to do with $100 in this economy than to spend it trying to prove a point to people who most likely will deride it out of principle because they don't like me. Why don't you prove it since you have so much experience and do your own film for $1,000? The challenge can go both ways. Again, you can call it evading, I don't care. You can't manipulate me into wasting my valuable time and energy by taunting me. I'm not about to waste my time with your challenges when you cannot rise to answer my challenge to show me a budget for a Thor movie. No, just not willing to bow to someone else's will. I don't feel obligated to waste my time to answer your challenge. It's that simple. And you can taunt me all day with your cop-out claims, it won't make a difference. You won't even address issues I challenged you with in this debate, so why should I indulge you in a manner that demands far more time and energy from me? On the contrary, that's what I'm counting on. I have to have my heart in it to do good work. When my heart is in something, I do well. When I have to do it without meaning, I'm not as creative, and that shows. Wrong again. I don't need to do a page of script. I don't need to accept a challenge from someone who cannot even answer challenges in a debate. I can do a page of script. I simply am not motivated to do so, nor will taunting motivate me to do so. So prove your talent, since you supposedly know so much about the film industry and answer my challenges about the Thor budget. You have ignored those challenges all night, why should I accept yours? He called me Bozo! Such silly, petty men you are. You and Cjflan32 cannot even follow a simple argument. I've been talking about doing a Thor film that you claim can be done for under $1,000. I point out it cannot be done, and address all the reasons why. You keep arguing how cheap it is, and Cjflan32 writes about a website showing how you can make a movie cheaply, yet neither of you will address the issues and costs I brought up. Why? Because you can't win the debate, that's why. You go back to "well I never talked about doing a Thor movie". Well why then did you keep replying with attempts to back your absurd $1,000 claim when you clearly knew I was talking about a motion picture that demands hundreds of thousands of dollars at the very minimum? Because you're dishonest, that's why. So why don't you just admit that no one can do a proper, full length Thor movie at current Hollywood standards for less than a few million dollars? At least then we'd have a starting point from which to agree. But no, you want to cling to your original, absurd "under $1,000" claim.

Cjflan32 wrote: I clearly am. Maybe it's just a reading comprehension problem on your part or something. Don't blame me for your defects. You're preaching to the choir, son. No one ever said I did not say that, least of all me. You're arguing something already agreed to. Why? No, it's not a dumb thing to say. It's reality. Studios are only concerned with selling toy variants and making huge sums of money off it. The last Iron Man movie proved that. It was nothing more than an action figure selling machine. Only someone who loves the comics, who has respect for them, can make a faithful, well done movie. Anyone else will, as has been proven repeatedly, tamper with the material and make absurd changes to the characters, the costumes, and the origins simply out of ego gratification. Or to sell more toys. On the contrary, what personality defect do you have that compels you to whine and mewl about people having a discussion on a discussion forum? If you don't like it, don't read it. Nobody invited you to join in, and no on will miss you if you bow out. Certainly no one is forcing you to read my posts. If you hate what I have to say so much, learn to ignore me. I'm not even talking to you about this, I'm arguing this with someone else. Why are you the one whining all the time? When did I ever say I was better than everyone else? I never said that. Nor did I ever say I am the only person who can do a great, faithful superhero movie. What I said was that the only person I had confidence in to do a great faithful superhero movie is myself, because I know it would be great and also faithful. I haven no ego that needs to be fed by warping and changing the characters to put my personal stamp on it. Well since you're such a smart-ass, why don't you show us how to afford a Thor movie? Show us precisely how you plan on achieving that level of quality on a budget of under $250,000. I dare you. Cjflan32 won't. Or can't. That isn't the argument. The argument is whether or not I have the skill to do so, whether I have the ability to craft a movie that is both faithful and well done. That I can do. The budget is the one thing that prevents that. Stop whining like a girly-man. If you can't handle the heat of the discussion, stop whining and ignore us. The rest of us want to discuss the issue.