Open Discussion – July 12, 2013

Published 1 year ago by

sr open discussion Open Discussion   July 12, 2013

As usual – talk about whatever you like as long as it’s related to movies, TV or Screen Rant itself – just remember to play nice. icon smile Open Discussion   July 12, 2013

Get our free email alerts on the topics and author of this article:

150 Comments

Post a Comment

GravatarWant to change your avatar?
Go to Gravatar.com and upload your own (we'll wait)!

 Rules: No profanity or personal attacks.
 Use a valid email address or risk being banned from commenting.


If your comment doesn't show up immediately, it may have been flagged for moderation. Please try refreshing the page first, then drop us a note and we'll retrieve it.

  1. It’s time!!! Happy Friday, Scranters!

    http://x.co/heyyo

  2. T.G.I.F.!

  3. “CLOAK & DAGGER”. please MARVEL, make a low budget, well-scripted flick for the fans!

    • I am all for Marvel adding 1 movie a year with a $50m budget and releasing in December/January. You could get some solid characters…

      However I don’t believe small budget movies are in Marvel’s plan right now. They seem to be in the “go big or go home” mentality.

  4. Can we just talk ‘Sharknado’ today? Please?

    :D

    • So funny how much attention it’s getting. It’s even trending on twitter.

      This is just going to greenlight stuff like ‘Hurrisnakes’ and ‘Killer Earthquales’.

      • It was on last night? Did you see it?

        One of those: “It’s just so damn awful somehow that makes it a blast” type of films.

      • I can’t wait for Sharknado vs. Hurrigator.

        I didn’t see it. But I have enjoyed all the jokes on Twitter about it.

    • ^^It was on last night.

      That wasn’t supposed to be a question. I watched it and it was so awful it was delightful, somehow.

    • I didn’t watch it but everyone was talking about it… I missed it!

    • 2 hours of mindless freaking stupid fun!

      • My guilty pleasure for B movies that make you laugh was fully satisfied.

        Didn’t know someone could fall out of a helicopter in a tornado, get eaten whole by a shark flying through the air in that tornado, and survive…

        A classic!

    • Sharknado was AWESOME!

      ***SPOILERS… sort of***
      ***SPOILERS… sort of***
      ***SPOILERS… sort of***

      My favorite parts were when Fin shot a shark that was in the tornado. The shark then falls to the ground as if it were simply flying. Also loved the part at the end when Fin cuts his way out of the shark that swallowed him with a chainsaw and the other chick was still alive. Did NOT see that coming!

      • Who knew I would see someone cutting themselves out of a creature twice in two different movies in less than 24 hours.

        Who knew.

  5. I am actually getting to really like Defiance.

    It was a slow burn and there were a couple of episodes that were bleh but it is trying to tie them together and the current storyline with the political slant is interesting. Grant Bowler surprises me at times.

    Too bad Screen Rant doesn’t review it.

    • I tried to like that show. It didn’t work for me. Maybe it’s the sci fi western feel? I didn’t like Firefly for that matter and its similar. More of a Trek/Gate kind of sci fi fan.

      • Trek??!! Who in their right minds would like that show?! :-D

        I almost stopped watching Defiance but BigNerd is right, they have finally started doing some interesting stuff. To bad we have to wait almost a year for the next season.

        • As long as the prostitute stays dead, as she was one of my least favorite characters.

          This show steals too much from Firefly, as well as some other shows, but it is not nearly as good. It makes me long for Firefly, or at least a sequel to Serenity.

        • I am a huge believer in that if the show can’t catch your attention in the first 3 episodes, it deserves to be turned off. That show lost me after the second.

  6. So… I don’t think Screen Rant wrote up an article about this, and they only briefly mentioned it in an article yesterday, but I’m curious to hear everyone’s thoughts on it.

    Andrew Garfield brought up that idea of “What if MJ is a dude”. Now, from reading the source article, it seems that Garfield isn’t actually offering this as what he thinks Marc Webb should do in the upcoming movies, but rather just bringing up an idea of something he thinks wouldn’t be a big deal if changed.

    I know we’ve had this discussion with race (Jamie Foxx as Electro, Michael B. Jordan as Human Torch, Idris Elba as James Bond, etc.) and I think the only discussion about changing gender was with Jimmy/Jenny Olsen, but I don’t think we’ve had a discussion about changing a character’s gender, which will in turn change the protagonist’s sexual orientation is some way.

    I know that it’s generally the opinion of the writers here that as long as the character is not defined by their race, sexual orientation, etc, then why not change it. We’re living in a very different world than the one when these characters were created. It’s not just heterosexual white males that we can relate to. We can root for and relate to characters of any race, gender, sexual orientation, nationality, etc.

    So what do you guys think? Can MJ be male? Can Garfield be gay or bisexual? Personally, I don’t think it alters his character that much, so, while it would certainly be different, I think I’d be ok with it. Thoughts?

    • In the last paragraph, that should be “Can Parker be gay or bisexual?”

    • Also, here’s the source if anyone is interested: http://insidemovies.ew.com/2013/07/10/andrew-garfield-spider-man-gay/

    • Brings new meaning to “web slinging” doesn’t it?

      • http://x.co/1KWvb

        I can go all day with these…

        • ^^ I’m not clicking on that link :P

          I know exactly where it will take me…

          No. Thank. You.

          • I wouldn’t post anything that is inappropriate. Funny and silly, yes. But it’s G rated… PG if you get the joke.

            • …okay I bit.

              Is that Spiderman answering the question -

              “What do you feed a gay horse?”

              • LOL! I thought the same thing!

        • lmao!

        • ::face palm::

    • It can work, I guess. Do I think that’s where they’re going? No. Just because there would be monstrous slurs left and right from some audience members. If people can’t get behind the idea of an African American Human Torch, I don’t see them playing along with a bi-sexual Peter Parker.

      It’s sad, but true.

      • @Ultimate ACW:

        Yeah, I seriously doubt Sony would risk it anytime in the next few years, as I don’t think society is ready for that.

    • I could care less. But as I always state the question… why? What for? What are you trying to prove by doing this? What is so integral about the story to make this drastic of a change? If that can be answered logically… then Id buy into it. If not… then GTFO.

      Like for instance, Daken. (Wolverine’s son). If they didn’t use his bisexuality in his film, Id be like, WTF!? It’s a crucial part of his story, who he is, and how he manipulates people.

      Just my two cents.

      • @LC3000 & Stark:

        Well, first off, there’s the whole reason of changing his sexual orientation simply in order to be more diverse, and connect with a wider, more modern audience, but I understand that that’s not really a good reason to change it.

        However, thematically-wise, I think it could work, especially with a character like Spider-Man. Peter Parker is essentially a metaphor for every teenage boy going through puberty and becoming an adult. The changes in physique, the new interest in girls, and do I really have to explain the white sticky goo which shoots out of his body, at first uncontrollably, and eventually he learns to control it and do it on command? Even the whole storyline in the first film how he doesn’t need to wear glasses anymore (i.e. doesn’t WANT to wear glasses anymore). Peter Parker is essentially a representation of an adolescent male going through changes. I don’t think I’m the first person to make this connection, and I’m pretty sure that it’s one commonly accepted interpretation of Spider-Man.

        So, perhaps giving Peter a male love interest will represent the fact that teenage boys sometimes explore their sexuality with both women and men. It’s controversial, sure, but it’s pretty interesting. Maybe you can even play up the whole idea that deep down, Peter keeps his identity and his powers a secret not only to protect those closest to him, but because he’s ashamed of who he is and ashamed that he’s different. (Again, I don’t think I’m the first person to argue this.) And there can be a whole metaphorical connection between Peter keeping his identity a secret out of shame, and keeping his sexual orientation a secret out of shame. Revealing who he is to the world = coming out of the closet. The podcast crew made this connection between homosexuality and Man of Steel, where he’s very hesitant about revealing his true identity to the world, because people will shun him and look at him like he’s different.

        Maybe they can do something similar with Spider-Man. Just throwing out ideas here.

        • @ezra

          Being gay is a very natural thing. Just as natural as being straight. It’s not forced. (unless your in prison). Peter Parker isn’t gay. To turn him gay would be doing the exact opposite of natural law.

          If he was gay to begin with, then I’d be upset if they made him straight. Just to sell more tickets. Like I said about Daken, if you take away an important part of a character, you’re doing a disservice.

          • it’s not really going against natural law if it’s a fictional person. it’s not like making an actual person be gay. but i agree that maybe just turning an established character gay is forcing the issue. make a new hero. make their origin as a gay person. i’m sure marvel/disney has no issue with that, since disney was one of the earlier companys to allow healthcare benefits to same-sex couples.

            • LOL At least you understood what I was trying to convey. I know he is a fictional person and the same rules don’t apply. But if its not written by one of his creators or current writers, then don’t change it just to be “edgier”.

              • @LC3000 & Jeffro

                I’m not gonna get into the issue of whether being gay is natural or not, because that’s a debate I’d rather not have on this forum.

                I agree with you guys, that ideally, if a studio wants to make a movie about a gay or bisexual superhero, they should create one, rather than change the origin of a character who has been heterosexual for decades. And they certainly should not change him just to be more diverse and “edgier”. However, if there is a really good reason, story-wise, to make someone like Spider-Man gay or bisexual, then I’m all for it.

    • IMO, I would rather they just leave him as he is in the comics. I dont see any reason to change the character in this way, or any other way for that matter, he is beloved as he is.

    • @ezra – dependent on the character, these type of adaptations to a known character could work. Would it work for Garfield’s version of Peter Parker…no. He really seemed REALLY into Gwen Stacey and didn’t seem at all into Flash Thompson. The chemistry between Stone and Parker was one of the best things about the Amazing Spider-Man.

      I’m sure if they want change the character with the next reboot, they could. I’d be fine with it (and I’ve been a Spidey fan since my 80s childhood). Honestly, it could be a new perspective that the franchise should look into for the next reboot. Or have Peter be another ethnicity. But for the current franchise, it would feel forced and be a bit far-fetched.

      • @Professor Procrastination:

        Yeah, it probably wouldn’t work with this franchise. But I don’t think Garfield was suggesting they would realistically make changes for his franchise, but planting the idea of making a future incarnation of Spider-Man, or any other iconic superhero, homosexual or bisexual.

        • Right now the internet is thanking Garfield for all the AD SPACE he created for any site that covers this.

          • LOL!

    • I don’t think the stuido should risk it, at least not now with such an iconic character. IMO it wouldn’t change anything, spiderman is spiderman regardless of what Parker does outside the mask, but as soon as a movie takes an iconic character and changes his sexual preference, the so called “controversy” behind it is gone take away from the actual point of the movie. People aren’t gonna go to the movies to see a Spiderman movie, but to see how gay they made it. It’s sad but true.

      • @Clap yo hands:

        Yeah, you’re probably right. It’s gonna cause more controversy than good. But it would certainly be interesting.

      • If they were to create yet ANOTHER Spider-Man, like maybe use the new black guy, or just write up a new one named “Fancy McSillypants”, (Joking) then absolutely. They can do it for Batman. As long as its not Bruce Wayne because over the last 80 years, he hasn’t been gay yet. But maybe one who takes over the mantle, sure.

        • @LC3000

          Um… have you seen Batman & Robin?

          • @ezra — Bruce Wayne can be compared to Michael Jackson. Super rich guy inviting little boys over to his mansion to sleep over… Oh I know.

    • @ ezra

      And what if changes were made to DC’S popular heroes such as Batman being bisexual or changing Hal Jordan’s career from pilot career to something less. Flash’s costume no longer has the bolts on his headmask & aswell around the waist. Hawkman having metal wings,etc.

      • judging by the racists comments made in regards to changing a characters race from a comic, doing something like this would produce so much vitriol it would be funny & sad.

      • @WallyWest

        Like, I said, as long as the character is not defined by their sexuality (or whatever else is being changed, such as race), I believe it’s acceptable to make changes, if one desires.

        Hal Jordan is kinda defined by being a pilot IMO, so if one would change that, it would significantly change his character. Regarding Flash and Hawkman’s costumes, while the bolts and wings are iconic and I don’t think I’d want to see an incarnation of them without them, they’re not strictly speaking defined by them, and if they’re changed I don’t think it’s a big deal. We have Cap without the winged helmet, Supes without the trunks, even Batman with a barely visible bat symbol on his chest.

        And regarding Batman, sure, make him bisexual. As long as he’s a genius, master-strategist, martial-artist, detective who’s parents were killed and who dresses up like a bat to fight crime in Gotham city, that’s fine with me. If he’s into girls and guys, that’s ok.

        • Ezra…

          Well said…Also, if Bruce possessed all of those other elements, I too would have no problem with him being bisexual. Admittedly, it would initially (momentarily) throw me off, just because of the novelty of the approach. The fact is, though, that such a trait would STILL fit in well with Bruce’s public image as a playboy…just with a larger playing field. ;)

  7. I love superhero and CBM’s, but how much longer do you guys think this genre will be popular? It will always be popular with us, we love comics and superheroes, but I’m talking about the general public. Marvel releases a CBM about every 6 months, Fox is picking up the pace, Somy making Spiderman movies as fast as they can and even WB/DC is showing signs of life.

    I’m just concern about over saturation and the bubble bursting. I love the way things are now and really hope they stay this way, but how much longer do you think it wil go on?

    • I think it took over the Arnold/Sly type of action movies. In a way, I think the general public can connect with an average person having imaginary powers than being ginormous. Until another type of action movie comes out the changes the game, I think Superhero movies will stay.

      Worst case scenario, everyone scales them back and we only get 1 or 2 a year total.

    • I’d give it 20 more years at most. 20 or 15. There will come a point where we’ve seen enough and it will die out. There just isn’t any care and love put into half of them lately. No one is thinking about what the fans would be interested in seeing. It’s all revolving around money. I have faith for about 10 more years, but nothing more. Until they buckle down, and I do mean they as in both Marvel and DC, superhero films are going to die out slowly.

      It’s the simple reason I believe James Bond is going to last another 50 years. Everyone at EON cares about the character.

      • I agree with what you said about Bond… but I think CBM’s will be around for at least twenty more years. A few lackluster CBMs this year doesn’t point towards a lack of quality, or the dying out of the genre, movies fail all the time. Look at Green Lantern. That movie sucked and yet everyone seems to want another reboot. There will always be an audiance for the movies… what if they make new, ultracool characters that everyone loves?

    • I think the problem is going to be the over estimation on the part of the studios about how much Superhero and Comic Book Movies can generate in ticket sales. Part of the reason Green Lantern failed is that they spent $200 million to make the movie. That works for Superman, Spiderman and Batman but not for every hero. Apparently Wolverine was (smartly) made for about $100 million and is tracking for a $70 million opening. While that would have been mediocre for Green Lantern it is excellent for Wolverine. Another example is The Lone Ranger which cost $215 million to make and bombed with a $48 million opening. Django Unchained cost $100 million and was a success with a $30 million opening.

      My point is that if studios understand the real market value of their CBM movies and budget accordingly then CBM’s will be around for a long time. If they think that every CBM should perform as well as Iron Man and spend crazy amounts of money on them, then they will bomb and it could be lights out for CBM’s.

      • +1

    • I think it will go on forever.

      I don’t really think of these as strictly as “comic book” movies, just an extension of the sci-fi/fantasy/action genre.

      Hancock, Unbreakable, The Matrix trilogy weren’t comic books, but they are similar type movies. As is any movie where the protagonists have super powers (or even cases where they do not).

      I think Hollywood is concerned about “original” movies in this genre, but by using established comic sources, they have a semi-guaranteed box office following.

    • I honestly think it can go forever. Now the reason behind my thought process is exactly what WB/DC is doing with their CBM’s. They are not making them campy, sci fi, fun filled action. They changed the formula. Its no longer the same movie as the rest. TDK was compared to “crime thrillers”. MoS was an alien invasion sci fi thriller.

      As long as the feel of the movie changes, and keeps us fresh, then they can go forever. If you stick to the same formula, someone will get burnt out.

    • @ Stark

      Thing on my mind is how many changes will be made in the years to com e. You have the die-hard fans & general audiences of today that like comics & CBM. Some prefer the older comics over The New 52 comics. MOS for example, die hard fans know WB/DC don’t need to fix whats not broken. Im speaking of Superman’s costume design & colors. They could of Modernized Reeve’s costume for this generation. It’s just people who use Batman as a excuse for change & Routh’s costume aswell. Imo, id take Smallville’s season 11 Superman’s costume over Cavill’s to break up the blue more & make the costume lighter. I know some people prefer Aquaman with the Conan look over the Orange/Green costume of his. Some don’t even want him in the Justice League films.

      I always prefer Hawkeye over Green Arrow, that’s just me.

      • Wally…

        There you go again with “die hard fans”. You, for some odd, inexplicable reason, keep harping on that idea. I don’t understand why you don’t grasp the very simple idea that MANY die-hard fans DO like and appreciate the changes that MOS and the DK trilogy brought about to the respective character franchises. You have it in your head that the fans who hold to YOUR way of thinking are the only true fans of these heroes.

        You are wrong.

        • @Archaeon:

          I think it depends on your definition of “die hard fans”. If you’re talking about “comic book purists”, I don’t know many who like how the movies are done because in most cases, they don’t adhere strictly to the comic book material.

          You know, the people who complained about the Mandarin, or that Spidey had organic web shooters, or that Bale’s Bruce Wayne was horrible (that’s me), or, as mentioned, that Supes’ costume isn’t more blue.

          This doesn’t mean they don’t see or don’t like the movies, they just complain about them all over the IntarWebs.

          My nitpick on MoS, final fight scene drawn out too long and the conclusion of that fight would have been more impactful if:

          a. During the fight, Supes had to keep saving people from collateral damage (similar to Superman II)

          or

          b. The person Zod is “eyeing” is someone Supes knew (like Lois)

          But that’s my semi “die-hard” opinion.

          • For me, personally… the only thing I would change is the dialogue at some parts, which does have me cringing and wondering who the hell thought that was the best choice of words at certain times.

            My biggest gripe:

            The Air Force Captain, little Ms. Ferret-face, needs to have “terraforming” explained to her, which is followed by such a bland and flat exposition of spelling out plot-details including the General making a reference to “Krypton” without any previous indication that someone had informed him where they are all from.

            That does bog the movie down and keep it no higher than 4 out of 5 for me.

            With a little polish, it could have been 5/5… but what kills me is there seems to be this idea that because the movie wasn’t a 5 out of 5 it isn’t on pace to make a billion dollars that makes it a disappointment.

            • Unfortunately, I have way more problems with it than just the dialogue even though that is one of my issues. At BEST I would give it a 3 out of 5.

            • @ Dr. M.,

              “…including the General making a reference to “Krypton” without any previous indication that someone had informed him where they are all from.”

              didn’t Zod say where they were from in his big “you are not alone” speech?
              also, we didn’t see/hear what happened/what was said after he broke the handcuffs, so he could have explained it to them at that point.

              • @ Jeffro

                No, no mention of Krypton in YOU ARE NOT ALONE.

                I’m hoping that in the extended version (usually a guarantee with anything by Zack Synder) that interview scene is probably longer and that is in fact where the General gets informed of Krypton.

          • Big Nerd, Wally, anyone else who thinks I was downplaying another’s opinion…

            I happen to think MOS was excellent, in parts brilliant, and THAT is at the heart of me stating that Wally is wrong. I neither said nor implied that his opinion of the DK trilogy and of MOS was wrong. However, he did not merely give his OPINION. No, he instead very clearly indicates that anyone who is of a different mind is not a “die-hard”, or TRUE, fan of these characters. THAT assumption is patently false. How do know? I know because I and quite a few other people are dedicated (AKA true) fans of both Superman and Batman (in fact, Batman is, and has always been, my favorite comic book hero) and LOVED the presentations, changes, costume designs, and characterizations in the four films. How are we any less passionate fans of the characters than Wally and his ilk supposedly are?

            To clarify: Wally’s opinions about MOS and the DK trilogy are not wrong…they are, after all, opinions. His presumption, however, that those who do not agree with his opinions do not love the characters as much as he does IS wrong.

            I stand FIRMLY and certainly by that.

            • @ Archeon

              MOS imo was good but was’t great even with all the action it had. I noticed how it done like Batman Begins, go figure. Some people were miscasted in their roles such as Amy Adams,Lawrence Fishbourne & I thought Jenny Olson was pointless since you didn’t see much of her. We didn’t see Superman save many people from falling debris from buildings or falling from the sky from Zod & his forces attack within Metropolis. Theres other things. Imo that’s where I think MOS is little overhyped & of-course divided amongst fans because what transpired in the film. I only mentioned Batman’s costume changes, as in the comics. Never said anything about TDK trilogy in my first comment to Stark. It sounded like what I said that implies to you regarding TDK trilogy or MOS film, im wrong about.

              Superman is my first & always will be my favorite superhero w/ Batman coming in as 2nd. It seems like I have to love the New 52 comics or LOVE Nolan’s DK trilogy along w/ Snyder’s MOS film. Otherwise I’m not a true fan of neither Superman or Batman in Archeon or anyone like him eyes. If the case may be. If people love change to costumes such as Superman, why not do the same for Flash by losing the bolts on his head aswell as on his waist. WonderWoman having her legs covered,etc. If change is good, does WB/DC plan to have the next Justice League animated series look like their New 52 comic counter-parts or will Superman still have the red trunks? Just curious.

              • Wally…

                So, you REALLY don’t get that I’m not talking about your opinion??? I am only saying that you do not have the right to say YOU are more of a fan than I am just because I liked the changes and updates, and you did not. You’ve been claiming that on multiple threads, but it just is not true. I neither said nor implied anything about you not being a real fan if you disagree with me…YOU did.

                I don’t know how to make it any simpler than that.

                • Calm down you two… We all know I’m the biggest fan here…

                  • No I am…and I hated it!

                    :)

                  • I am staying out of this one.

                    • I’d rather have Zod give me a big bear hug than get into this conversation. :-P

                • @ Archaeon

                  I never claim to be a real fan & claim other people weren’t fans at all. I never claimed I was more of fan than anyone in here or anywhere, that’s YOU. I do go around saying “im more of a comic book fan than Archaeon or Stark or anyone in here”. Sounds like my words are getting twisted around ya because I dunno how I can make it crystal clear to you.

                  • Wally…

                    Look below at my response to Big Nerd. The quotation you said is the evidence ON THIS THREAD that tells me different. That’s EXACTLY what you said…whether you MEANT to or not is something else. The ONLY thing I’ve been pointing out is that we (you and I) AND our like-minded responders have different opinions, and NONE of those opinions are wrong. However, implying that one side is more “die hard” (your words) than the other IS wrong.

                    I am now done with this pointless back-and-forth.

                    • @ Archeaon

                      You never understood what I was saying. Ive pointed out everyone on here & elsewhere have different opinions about comics, not just the films. I simply implied theres the “die hard” fans & there’s the regular fans aswell general audinence that go to the films. Not one time have I said etheir side is wrong, that is you makin that claim there.

                      There is has grown tiresome, so i’m done with this debate aswell.

            • @Archaeon:

              Maybe I missed a conversation where Wally said that anyone who does not agree with him is not a die-hard fan. I didn’t see that characterization in his first post you replied to and I don’t see it in his other replies to you either.

              That’s why I prefaced my reply with how you define a die-hard fan. To me, a die-hard fan is a comic book purist, and they will have issues with the movies as I explained. It doesn’t mean they will all dislike them, but they will have more to disagree with then general fans.

              I see that as a fair assessment.

              • “…die hard fans know WB/DC don’t need to fix whats not broken.”

                That’s what Wally said above. On other threads, he has said similar, or even more specifically arrogant, things. Die-hard fans are not JUST those who “know…” They can also be, and often are, those who know that older and settled are not always better…or even still realistically viable for continuing interest.

                Again, I stand by my comments.

                I really don’t know what you two are finding so hard to understand. It’s a simple concept: People have different opinions, ALL perspectives (at the very least, all that are reasonable in some manner) are legitimate, and each is as worthwhile as ANY other…whether you agree with it or not.

                Good grief…it’s not rocket science.

                • @ Archaeon

                  It is a simple concept, what you don’t understand when I say, “why fix something that isn’t broken” is you can modernize Superman without drastic changes & that not everyone favors changes made to him in the comics & in film. That’s what you don’t understand I think & should realize why fans are divided over MOS film. Superman is supposed to be the flipside of Batman.

                  Not everyone wants to see every DC hero Nolanized just because of TDK trilogy. WB sees it that’s the way to go for more a profit sure route. Not so much about what characters they will end up using in the future.

              • @ BigNerd

                Exactly,regarding your second paragraph. For example there were things I didn’t like within the Burton/Schumacher Batman films just as Nolan’s trilogy. Same goes for Reeve’s Superman films & MOS. And theres things in Marvels films I didn’t agree with, whether it from Fox,Sony, even Marvel Studio’s films.

                • @ Wally

                  If I may…

                  … I believe Archaeon has a problem with this statement, as do I:

                  Wally West wrote-
                  “MOS for example, die hard fans know WB/DC don’t need to fix whats not broken.”

                  Here, you are suggesting that die-hard fans think that change isn’t good, and therefore suggesting that if you like the change then you aren’t a die-hard fan.

                  • Dr. Mindbender…

                    THANK you. Is that really SUCH a difficult or confusing concept???

                    EXACTLY.

                  • In my opinion, this is a case of the often Internet interpretation gone awry. While Arch and Dr may see Wally’s comment as an absolute, I somewhat agree with that statement.

                    Maybe it would have been better said as:

                    “MOS for example, *most* die-hard fans *think* WB/DC don’t need to fix whats not broken.”

                    When commenting, I don’t expect everyone to use the exact words they are thinking or try to derive intent without clarification. I made a comment on how I thought someone taller should have played Supes and someone pointed out another actor who was a few inches taller and another poster said that I am complaining over a few inches. That may have been their read of my comment, but that was not my intent.

                    From what my definition of “die-hard fan” of wanting everything to match the comic book exactly, I agree that Wally has a point, they won’t want WB/DC to change anything. A “die hard fan” of Superman itself (ie not a “comic book purist”), won’t care as much about the comic book canon, will love the movie, but will have complaints about it if it doesn’t agree with their personal vision of who Superman is.

                    I think he implied that distinction but as you can tell by my wall of words, probably didn’t want to explain it.

                    And I could be wrong, which is fine, I just think that this is pretty minor and that we are probably agreeing more than disagreeing.

                    I still think it’s Wally’s opinion, regardless of using the word “know” or any other absolutes.

                    I actually hate Nolan’s Batman and I think I’m a die-hard fan both in comic book form and Batman in general. Many would say I am “wrong” and that’s fine. I still watched the movies, I liked TDK, but I’m glad Nolan and Bale are done with Bats.

                    • @ BigNerd

                      Come to think of it. I probly left out the word THINK in “MOS for example,*most* die hard fans *THINK* WB/DC don’t need to fix what’s not broken. Yes, sometimes I do leave out some words I intend to put in because I type little fast & don’t always go back to read what I typed.

                      You’re right. I enjoyed Nolan’s Batman trilogy for what it was on it’s own tone on things but wouldn’t like every DC hero done that way. I thought Batman Begins was the best in the trilogy which im in the minority in but who cares. Im hoping with the new reboot we’ll see more villains not seen on film yet & see the Bat-family on screen again. Because im a die-hard fan of both of the Batman comics & the character aswell. Bottomline all Burton/Schumacher & Nolan Bat-films had things I didn’t like in them. I realize they’re probly won’t be a perfect CBM for everyone, but I have my opinions as anyone.

        • @ Archeon

          Im just stating my opinion, What makes you right? MOS is more for this generation audiances & fans of the character who wanted changes that DC announced & later WB for their films such as MOS. The Dark Knight trilogy is overhyped & people know it. DC had Superman renounce his citizenship & had the original Green Lantern come outta the closet. If they chose Batman DC would be crucified for choosing him or one of most popular heroes like Barry Allen or Hal Jordan.

          Point is theres no reason to fix something that isn’t broken & can’t keep Using Nolan’s film’s influence to justify future projects. You can tell beause MOS was divided amongst fans. Theres’s the die hard fans & just fans along with the general audinces.

          • Well to counter your statement with the “die hard fans” comment I’ve been a comic book fan for as long as I can remember and there are many of us who appreciate what TDK trilogy and MOS have done.

            It seems that you question the integrity of a person’s “love” about comic book lore if they accept change(s) and that it some how degrades from being “faithful” fans.

            • Timmy…

              YES. Thank you…you said, much more succinctly, what I wrote above.

              Exactly.

            • @ Thimmy

              I talked to people online who are comic book fans who are older than me & around your age aswell who feel the same as I do. Theres need to modernize heroes, but not drastic changes for one such as Superman. Like anyone in here I was speaking my opinion & those who favor change for a iconic hero like Superman claim im no fan or im in the wrong about the new films that have come out because I don’t agree with this or that. If you & Archeon favor drastic change, would accept Bruce Wayne or Superman having blonde hair? Maybe Bruce with brown hair. Same goes for their costumes. Not just for those two but everyone in the DC universe.

              • ^^ Now this is just silly.

                You are flat suggesting that Superman shouldn’t have been changed and IN YOUR OPINION if you don’t have a problem with the change that doesn’t make you die-hard.

                That’s nonsense.

                First of all, Superman was not “drastically changed.” He lost the red underpants. *GASP* So what? A drastic change would be a green outfit. A drastic change would have him be the last son of Jupitor instead of the last son of Krypton. A drastic change would be his switching his alias from Clark Kent to Schteven McShleedle.

                What we just saw in MoS was far from a drastic change, if we are going by the comics. And no, not just the new 52. Superman has been whooping ass and taking names for the last 20 years since “Crisis.”

                The only “drastic change” that occured was a swap from the smiley campy Donner stuff to a more “what if this REALLY happened” version.

                I couldn’t disagree more with your MoS assessment.

                • @ Dr. Minderbender

                  It ain’t just about the red underpants, but the darker costume & tone within the film all because TDK trilogy made $$$. Jenny Olson in the film? I bet people would freak if Bruce Wayne had blonde hair,lol. Or Flash’s costume no longer had the bolts on his mask or around his waist or changed Hal Jordan’s costume design aswell as his flight pilot career. Think anyone flip out because of those changes? If not why, because they’re not popular as Batman or Superman?

                  MOS had some changes from comics whether you want to admit it or not. Superman isn’t about just whooping ass, never has been. He had his dark times but that’s as far as it goes. Imo, it seems like people want Superman to be dark as Batman.

                  I don’t care if you disagree with my MOS assessment because I know fans are divided about that film for what everything took place in it.

                  • BTW. As I told Archeon, im done with this debate as he is.

                    • No you’re not. You’ll be going on like you have for the past three years. You’re never done Wally.

        • MANY die-hard fans can be on either side of the argument. he didn’t say THE MAJORITY OF…

    • As long as people enjoy science fiction, there will be comic book movies. But I think Patrick Bayard made the most valid point about studios knowing the market value of their properties. And because we all know that studio executives aren’t that bright, we’ll probably end up seeing a few less blockbuster budgeted comic book films after some more box office flops happen. Still, we’ll always have something in this genre…especially since Batman, Spider-Man, Superman, and now Iron Man all are considered money making franchises.

    • I give the big budget, hype era we see now five more years if the box office returns start to diminish. At this point the characters that are left who have not been on film only get more obscure, & not even past or present comic book fans will flock to go see them.

      Just like any other fad it won’t last indefinitely, & with Star Wars on the horizon Disney is playing both sides against the middle by riding two popular IP’s.

  8. Anyone pick up DC’s trinity war storyline this week ?

    • It’s piqued my interest but I gave up on DC’s New 52 earlier this year and switched to Marvel NOW!, which I do recommend to people.

      • I see, I also picked up wolverine #6 and Thor: the dark world prelude comic. What marvel now titles are you currently reading ?

        • I’ve been liking many of the X-Men titles. All-New X-Men and X-Men are probably my favorite. Uncanny X-Men is decent. I just got into Guardians of the Galaxy and I’m liking it thus far.

          I’ve heard really good things about the Thor title but I haven’t gotten into it yet. I heard that the Thor: The Dark World prequel title wasn’t very good but we’ll see.

          • I also picked up GOTG to familiarize myself with the characters since its being adapted to MCU. I’m looking forward to watching the film when it releases. I like the xmen but haven’t picked up any of the current titles other than wolverine. My current titles from marvel are deadpool, wolverine and gotg. I’ve been wanting to pick up the iron man and thor titles to add to my list though.

    • Yes, and it looks to be fantastic crossover, if this intriguing beginning is any indication. :)

      Of course, so far, I’ve been, over all, very happy with the New 52…

  9. Has anyone started “Batman: Zero Year” yet? It’s actually quite good, I had strong doubts it would succeed.

    • Even though I did quit on the New 52, I was tempted to get it while at my comics shop a couple days ago. I might just wait for the trade paperback, though.

    • @Ultimate ACW

      I agree, I picked up Batman Zero Year and really like it.

      • Loving Batman Year Zero, it’s a great read.

    • So far, so great on “Year Zero”…

      • Is it “Year Zero” or “Zero Year”? The labeling is quite confusing

        • Oops…no, you had it right. I simply typed it quickly with my fingers “remembering” the “Batman: Year One” titular construction…

  10. Anyone else wish that Screenrant would convert their comments to Disqus?

    • @ Mike

      Actually, I like the way Screen Rant does because it not Disqus.

    • Personally, I do not like Disqus.

    • They did for a while a few years back. Personally I don’t feel it added anything, and features such as a “like” button just become a lazy substitute for actual commenting. Many people also have a number of privacy issues with Disqus concerning information tracking and sharing, as well as user following. These are some of the reasons (along with Screen Rant’s feel and layout, and the quality of its writers and commenters) why I don’t post regularly on any other site.

      • I like Disqus-type systems because it allows edits.

        If there is a problem with Disqus, how about Live-Fyre? Or one that allows you to choose your method of commenting but also allows the anonymous commenting like SR currently does. I believe BGR employes that type of system.

        • Editing’s the only thing I miss about it.

          Livefyre seems to limit the design of a comments section and create auto-formatting problems (which can interfere with everything from simple line breaks and paragraphs to posting links, not to mention causing the good Robert Palmar no end of trouble with his unique and poetic line style!). It only allows replies to go four levels down before just stacking them, and is subject to a lot of “like spam”, where the spammer’s avatar with a link to their site appears on the bottom right of the comment they’ve “liked”. That sort of thing happens here, but it’s far more obvious and easier for a moderator to deal with: you know, the “As Mildred said I am so amayzed that my divorced cousins musk ox makes $50, 000 etc etc”, or sections of other people’s legit comments hijacked wholesale. Also from the moderators’ point of view, there’s no way to bulk-block a known spammer or troll.

          I’m not keen on real time commenting or third-party registration either.

          Doesn’t BGR use Disqus now?

          Oh yeah, and as I understand it, Livefyre doesn’t render emoticons… :-(

          • In addition to editing, I do like how the other systems tell you if someone has responded to you directly.

            And you can clink on the email link to go directly to a comment to reply to it.

            I think BGR has a mixed system where you can reply with Facebook, Twitter, Disqus or even an anonymous post. They used to be just Facebook but that reduced the comments by quite a bit.

    • I just wish the mobile site was more mobile friendly. I can read all day long… comment… not so much.

  11. Coming back to the previous comments I must say that as long as there are good stories told, there will be people who will be willing to watch films. More importantly, we do need honest well informed sites that can tell us if a film is being done because it was part of the studios plans or because they have to do it otherwise they will lose the rights. Alien 3, The Fantastic 4, Terminator 3 are very good examples when things go terribly wrong.

    • For the most part studios don’t seem to want to take a risk with something new, there are some many untold original stories, and the sources of those stories is varied, from graphic novels, other comic book related stories and just books in general.

      They take the easy route and do remakes and sequel after sequel, they just love to flog a dead horse, and then flog it some more.

      But I agree, if a story is good then it will find an audience, and if it’s really good word of mouth and good reviews will put butts on seats.

      • *so many*

  12. I was reading the reviews, and I scrolled through it to look for anything higher than 4 stars, and the 1st was Jurassic Park 3D, and there was discussion of what Spielberg film should be next on his to-do list of post 3D conversions, and someone said (Robert Palmar i think)Close Encounters, but I was surprised no one suggested Jaws. As old as that film is, I think a 3D upgrade could do wonders, maybe even applying a bit of CGI to ole’ Bruce, to smooth out some of the “robotic” look. As dated as the 1st half would look, once they are on the boat, it could have been filmed yesterday.
    I was only 3 weeks shy of 8 when that was released in ’75, so I never got to see it on the big screen, (my parents heard it was too scary) and, in fact, I saw Jaws 2 in the theaters on my 11th b-day, and had not seen the 1st one yet (this was way before vhs rentals or cable tv) i don’t recall when i did see it the 1st time, but anyway…I’m just saying I think it could be a cool re-release. Anyone agree?

    • Re-release the gun barrel from “Die Another Day” alone and maybe people will finally find something to like about that film.

      • What’s ‘the gun barrel’?

        • It’s the classic opening/closing to a James Bond film, which puts the camera in the POV of a gun barrel and follows Bond across the screen, making it seem as if someone is about to shoot him. Once Bond reaches the middle of the screen, whips around, and fires. Blood drips down from the top of the screen and the sequence is finished after it covers the entire screen.

          In “Die Another Day”, we actually see the bullet come through the gun barrel and fly straight at the screen. Which is stupid (fits with a crap film, I guess), but that sequence looks like it was made for 3D.

          • I see, you had me confused because I thought the topic was Steven Spielberg films and which one to do a retro 3D treatment of next.

            So in that regard not sure how the James Bond opening relates to the topic, which would be my next question as I must be missing something.

            • It was just a joke

    • Because of how old Jaws is… I can’t bare to like it. I think its terrible. It needs a remake. Spielberg should do it as well.

  13. I was reading a comment from someone on another site, it related to Stormtroopers in Star Wars wearing full body armor but still dying with one shot.

    I never saw it as armor but simply their a uniform, I mean modern soldiers wear kevlar helmets and body armor yet it doesn’t exactly prevent them from dying.

    A blaster is an energy weapon so, unless the Stormtroopers had some form of personal energy shield it would probably never work as armor anyway.

    Luke Skywalker says it himself, on the Death Star in Leia’s prison cell, she looks at him and says “Aren’t you a little short for a Stormtrooper?”

    His reaction, “Oh, the ‘Uniform’!”

    So I don’t see at as being armor, and if it was then rather pointless because it fails every time, but no different to Police, soldiers, security guards, its what they wear to work.

    • Stormtrooper armor is not built to stop a blaster bolt directly. It does offer some protection from glances and low powered hits (ie a blaster bolt that passes through a table first). If I remember correctly, it does have some energy dispersal properties which allow it to spread the energy from a blaster bolt out across the armor. A direct hit is still a kill, but it does have more of a purpose than a uniform.

    • That is one thing that has always bothered me. Either the lack of armor that the “soldiers” would wear, or the fact that the armor didn’t do much of anything. I understand that for Star Trek, they are explorers and don’t normally wear any armor. But still… I wouldn’t go around exploring without armor. And as for Stormtroopers or any other for that matter, its just bulky and useless attire.

  14. So any idea of what all suppose to be going down in FAST AND FURIOUS 7, I mean I get that there’s going to be revenge of someones death, but anything else?
    And Johnny Depp, another ALICE IN WONDERLAND movie, and his future movie too, Mortdecai, is this going to be a big hit for him?
    PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN 5, another one? I mean, don’t get me wrong, I love the P.O.C. movies but is this it?
    Will any of these movies bring him back up from those last 2 box office failures?

    • Depp has turned himself into a character actor. And not a good one. I liked Depp in movies like The Ninth Gate, Donnie Brasco, and the recent Rum Diary. Of course F & L. Don’t get me wrong… Pirates is fun. But it’s a career ender almost. He will for now on always be known as weird Jack Sparrow. Everything else is shadowed. His fault though.

      • I’m not liking where Johnny Depp is heading, either.

        I loved him as Jack Sparrow. I cried for him in Blow. I watched him die a long time ago on Elm Street. I watched him do all of the above in Fear and Loathing…

        … I’m not ready to give up on Depp just yet, but Pirates 5 is a thing?

        Really?

        • Its real. According to Jerry Bruckheimer, its very much real. I will watch every Pirates installment in theaters as well. I love them. BUT I can only wonder if this is all that Depp has left.

          • I hope not.

            Call me crazy…

            … but why doesn’t Disney just get Depp to voice Rocket Raccoon?

            Think of the much needed “street cred” *snicker* Depp could bring to GoTG.

            • I’m the wrong person to ask about GotG. I know nothing about it and I don’t think I’m going to see it.

        • So your saying of what Depp is doin now days he’s going downhill? That his thing is mainly Pirates of the Caribbean movies? I’m a huge Depp fan, hopefully him doing another Alice in Wonderland and Pirates movie along with the new one he’s been wanting to do Mortdecai? Are they going to bring him back up?

        • So your saying of what Depp is doing now days he’s going downhill? That his thing is mainly Pirates of The Caribbean movies? I’m a huge Depp fan, hopefully him doing another Alice in Wonderland and Pirates movie along with the new one he’s been wanting to do Mortdecai? Are they going to bring him back up?

        • So your saying what Depp is doing now days, he’s going downhill? That his thing is mainly Pirates of The Caribbean movies? I’m a huge Depp fan, hopefully him doing another Alice in Wonderland and Pirates movie along with the new one he’s been wanting to do Mortdecai? Are they going to bring him back up?

          • Pirates is pretty much hit a wall after the second one and went down with on Stranger Tides. If you actually think that movie was good, well.

            I do not know what to tell you, Depp is getting typecast as an actor best known for being made up.

            Here is the one thing…Johnny Depp, last role, where he was not made up and actually had his real face shown, not covered in makeup, not greased back, not with silly glasses on.

            21 JUMP STREET CAMEO

            His last full movie without any makeup Public Enemies.

  15. Hopefully, there will be a more direct comment thread for this coming up in the next day or two, but I wanted to get the balling rolling while my impressions are fresh…

    I watched the premiere of “Beware the Batman” earlier, and I must say…YESSSSSS!

    I thoroughly enjoyed the cgi look (as I’ve said before, very sleek and quick), the fluidity of the animation, the characterizations, the flow of the story, and the neat Easter egg they threw in (Michael Holt).

    I will DEFINITELY be tuning in next week to see episode two. I look forward to seeing Katana in action and the eventual introduction of Anarky…

    : D

  16. I forgot my box office predictions:

    1/2: Pacfic Rim / Grown Ups 2 (too close to call, but probably PR)
    3: Despicable Me 2
    4: Lone Ranger
    5: The Heat

    • Boy was I off, I really like the DM franchise but I didn’t think it would be number 1 again beating scifi and Sandler.

      Poor Lone Ranger, Sandra Bullock > Tonto.

  17. Went into Pacific Rim thinking it would be bad but I was very surprised at how much I liked it.

    Same goes for Superman.

    My top movies of summer go…(the ones I’ve seen)

    1. Iron Man 3 4.5/5 stars
    2. Star Trek into Darkness 4.5/5 stars
    3. Mud 4.5/5 stars
    4. This is the End 4/5 stars
    5. Monsters University 4/5 stars
    6. Man of Steel 3.5/5 stars
    7. Pacific Rim 3.5/5 stars
    8. The Croods 3/5 stars
    9. Fast and Furious 6 (way over-rated..) 2/5 stars

    • My ranking of summer-ish movies is:

      1. “Man of Steel”
      2. “Pacific Rim”
      3. “The Croods”
      4. “Despicable Me 2″
      5. “Monsters University”
      6. “Oblivion”
      7. “Star Trek Into Darkness”
      8. “Much Ado About Nothing” (I love Shakespeare but love SF even more in terms of films)
      9. “The Lone Ranger”
      10.+ most other films I’ve seen down through the years

      THEN: “Iron Man 3″ REALLY far down the list…

    • For me, basically three tiers (starting in May):

      1. Star Trek: ID, Despicable Me 2 and Lone Ranger (yes… I said it)

      2. Man of Steel, Iron Man 3

      3. Fast 6, After Earth

      Haven’t seen Monsters U, WWZ yet.

  18. Oh yeah…

    Seventh Son looks like a cool movie!

    • It DOES look like it will be entertaining…

  19. How does JJ Abrams intend on filming Star trek 3 in 2014? When is he doing Star wars ep. 7? I’m really having doubts about one guy handling both SW and ST, one will be sacrificed for the other. Maybe he’ll realize his limitations and pass off Star trek 3 to another director with a little more free time.

  20. All I have to say is… Haha. I knew I left it out of my top ten for the summermovieleague.com tournament and I’m glad I didn’t go back and add it.