TF Views

Superman II remains to this day, in my opinion, the greatest superhero movie ever.

Which cut--the theatrical, or the revised/"original" Donner cut?

Wolverine. Really? Does Wolvy really need his own movie again? Doesn't this make like the fourth one?

Second, unless you're counting X-Men 3, which you probably should. Also, to be fair, this one is the Japan arc, which none of the movies have tried to do yet.

Also, O6, congratulations, you just found the OTHER Last Action Hero fan in existence.

My brother!

See, Dom, THIS is what it's like for Prowl when writers use Deluxe Insecticons.

Riddick: Really? Again? The first two movies with this character sucked and flopped so God only knows why the fuck they decided to make a third.

Pitch Black was actually good. And apparently the reason they keep making these is: Vin Diesel has a lot of money. (From what I've heard, the video games are actually good.)

Deathy wrote: I really hate it when a unknown guy plays the star of a super hero movie. because most of the time the unknown guy does a poor job at doing the emotions.

To be fair, Chris Hemsworth is in a lot of stuff these days. It's not anything that makes me want to run out and see it, but still. He was in the Red Dawn remake, the beginning of Star Trek, that Snow White movie, and a couple other things I didn't see.

I'm not a fan of Bruce willis,he's a overly obnoxious/rude/macho guy in his movies & his personal life. So I generally don't bother watching any of his movies. My older cousin use to love watching those Die hard movies in the 1990's,I saw a few die hard movies & I thought they were pure torture to watch. the dialogue was bad,the actors chosen were bad,the movies were super long & dragged on forever. no thanks....

Oh man, I'm gonna have fun withh this.

The first two Die Hard movies work as well as they do because they were the first action movies that were treated realistically. Watch Terminator, or Raw Deal, or Commando, or Cobra, or any Schwarzenegger or Stallone movie from before 1988, and then watch Die Hard next to it.

In Die Hard, John McClane gets hurt. He's not wearing any shoes and this becomes a significant plot element. By the end of the movie, his feet are all bloody and he's limping. His guns run out of ammunition. He has to aim. The police aren't on his side. Also, the terrorists are smartly written--they don't have any ulterior motives or any grand plans of being righteous or anything like that; but they are expect to, because they're terrorists, and they use this fact against the police. (At one point, Alan Rickman demands to the police that they release a laundry list of criminals in foreign countries from various prisons. Rickman's henchmen later asks him who those guys are, and Rickman just says, "I read about them in Time Magazine." He didn't want those guys released! He just wanted to waste the police's time!)

I know that a lot of this doesn't sound, well, revolutionary or important. That's because Die Hard did it first and did it the best, and changed the way action movies were made. Action movies in the 90s could easily be described as "Die Hard on a [x]," meaning the plot was basically the entire plot of Die Hard, but you move it from a skyscraper to another location. (Speed was "Die Hard on a bus." Die Hard 2 is "Die Hard on a plane." Under Siege is "Die Hard on a submarine," while its sequel is "Die Hard on a train." Sudden Death is "Die Hard in a hockey arena.") Every action movie released after 1988 ripped off Die Hard. It's that influential.

Also, Die Hard actually makes you feel like the hero is in danger, and could probably fail. You never get that feeling in Commando or Rambo 2.

Dom wrote:"Last Action Hero" was a case study in "do not believe the hype". It was a good, generally approachable, parody of a genre that managed to not completely shit all over itself and its source material. Its biggest crime was being marketed wrong.

Yeah, that's its big failing. I obviously didn't take part in that, because I was too young. I first saw it on TV in the early 2000s, completely devoid of any context. All I saw was a movie where Schwarzenegger makes fun of every action movie cliche that he helped establish, and that was enough for me.

I know a couple of lefty's who *love* Card. They can never reconcile this when I ask them about it. Their fall-back is "well you have to look at the work as distinct form the artist". Even putting aside the inherent bunkum in that way of thinking, it does not work here. (Card's universalist lunacy clearly informed the last 20 pages of "Ender's Game", which ultimately undermined the whole premise of the rest of the book.)

I will likely see it over a friend's house, but I will not give Card any money.

Bingo. Even Card's religious beliefs can't explain some of the weird crap he wrote about though. (Yeah, a race of pigs that turn into trees when they die...and then the trees rape the females to impregnate them...and then the babies eat their way out of the mother...no, that's just fucked up.)

I am not sure that I get all of the hate and derision for movies like "Wolverine". It was not great, but hardly worse than any of the other Marvel films. (Marvel's movies are generally competent, if unimpressive. They are better than average for what they are, but they do not bring much more to the table than other movies.) I will not avoid any of the upcoming Marvel movies, but I will not make a point of seeing them. (Realistically, I will see them on disk at Lewis' house by the end of the year.)

Wolverine is actually particularly bad for a lot of reasons that the other Marvel flicks aren't. It arbitrarily changes things for no reason, or makes them worse. (Deadpool is basically ruined for any movie continuity now, unless they reboot him.)

As an aside: And, with Hasbro getting lazier, the related toys will be easier to skip as well.

This makes me sad.

Fuck Mark Millar. The more I see of his work, the harder it is to remember that he is the guy who wrote "Superman: Red Son".

I read an interview once that basically said all Millar does now is write comics with the intent of them being turned into films. That said, I liked Kick-Ass, so.

I will probably see "GI Joe 2", if only to see how much IDW tries to incorporate movie elements in to their mainline book. (When they first got the Joe license, they tried to use the movie as a foundation for the brand, and then ruthlessly expunged most of it after the movie flopped.) I am expecting this to be even worse than the first Joe movie though, possibly even worse than "Revenge of the Fallen".

What makes you say this? Joe 2 seems like it's actually being made by people who understand what makes GI Joe cool, unlike the first movie. Also, Cobra Commander actually looks like Cobra Commander.

Prowly Prowl wrote:I really just want that Bruce Willis figure, and maybe a decent one of Rockblock.

If you care, they're actually starting to hit now. The Roadblock that's out right now is pretty good, but has a random white holster. We've seen pics of a prototype at JoeCon that has more paintapps and more gear, so you might want to wait for that one.

Part of me’s like “Oh, could be cool, and epic, and cinematic, and defining, and all that shit” but then another part of me’s like “Origin story and Zod AGAIN?!”

To be fair, if anyone needs a new origin story movie, it's Superman. It's been 40 years since the last time we saw one! And that was 'before Crisis ever happened!' Before Byrne's defining Man of Steel run! Before Red Son, before All-Star Superman.

And you shut up, Zod is awesome. Besides Luthor, he's probably the most credible Superman villain you could put on film, besides Doomsday--and you can only do Doomsday if you've already established Supes. (Maybe.)

I went and saw Wolverine Origin purely because I was promised Gambit, and then he was only in there for like fifteen minutes. They aren’t duping me again.

That pissed me off too! Him and Deadpool, man. Thankfully, this movie is totally different from that one, so let's see.

I really don’t know what it is, but while /m/ and about a billion newssites have been creaming their pants over this thing, I just *cannot* get too excited about it, regardless of how hard I try. Maybe it’s the comparatively generic robot designs they’re using. Maybe it’s the pedestrian plot of “monsters pop out of the ocean and the army fights them”. Maybe it’s because, Transformers aside, I’ve really never been too much of a mecha guy in the first place. I dunno, all I do know is I see the trailers for this thing, and all logic tells me I should be like “HOLY SHIT THIS LOOKS AWESOME!” but instead all I can bring myself to elicit is “Meh, might be cool”. I dunno, clearly there’s something wrong with me.

Yes, clearly you are broken.

To be fair--the fact that the mecha are clearly Gigantor and Mazinger-inspired and stuff is probably the point, and while you see "generic," I see "retro.' If they looked like Gundams, or even Evangelions, I'd say they looked generic, but they actually look like they're trying to evoke those older anime designs.

And sure, the plot is probably not going to evolve much past "monsters come out of the water and robots fight them," but at the same time we don't ever get to see that kind of thing scaled up to a big-budget movie. And Bologna del Taco has a habit of making even the basic plots seem cool. Look at Hellboy!

So long as this manages better pacing than the first one, it should be an okay movie. My favorite part of the first one was the suit designs, so the toku fan in me might be motivated enough to check this out if I have nothing better to do.

The big problem with Thor 1--besides Natalie Portman--was indeed the pacing, and also the scale. The movie went from these big huge setpieces to...some random small Midwest town. The Destroyer comes down and it's supposed to be, like, this huge fucking battle and shit...but it's in a town with a population of maybe a hundred on a good day. Who cares?

Thor 2 is apparently excising almost all of that crap, though, and focusing instead of Thor and Loki's journey to the Dark World. (Word is, Thor needs Loki's powers to do...something.)

I still thought Pitch Black sucked. The plot made almost no sense. Especially from an evolutionary standpoint. Really? The only life on this planet can only exist in total darkness for 12 hours every 20 years? I call bullshit. And Diesel's character with his gimmick of being alergic to light or some shit, just really felt gimmicky. And forced. I dunno, it just didn't do it for me.

As for Chris Hemsworth, he has been in a lot of stuff and I inadvertantly got two of his movies for xmas. One was the Avengers where obviously he was Thor. The other was Cabin in the Woods. If you have not seen this movie, you need to. It is the greatest horror movie ever. EVER. Evar. Seriously. Now, generally I hate horror movies. They're stupid and they've all become parodies of themselves. This movie on the other hand, managed to do everything that had come before, while doing something new, paying homage to the genre while at the sametime lampooning it. It really works! Also, two words: Killer Unicorn.

I love the scene where the kid takes Arnold into a Blockbuster to prove that he's the action hero and it has posters of all of Arnold's movies with Stalone in them instead. Hilarious.

Superman II: Which one is on DVD? Cause that's the one I watched lately and I still maintain it's the best one ever. I think it's the extended version.

Yeah, I was counting the third one too. X1 was all about Wolverine, X3 was all about Wolverine, and Origin was actually just titled Wolverine. And now there's another Wolverine coming out? Is Hugh Jackman still playing him? Cause he really did do Wolvy pretty good.

Yeah, the first Die Hard was awesome. And for all the stated reasons.

Ender's Game: What the hell did I just read? Seriously? What the fuck. Just .... wow... I read that and I can't unread that.

Onslaught Six wrote:Oh man, I'm gonna have fun withh this.

The first two Die Hard movies work as well as they do because they were the first action movies that were treated realistically. Watch Terminator, or Raw Deal, or Commando, or Cobra, or any Schwarzenegger or Stallone movie from before 1988, and then watch Die Hard next to it.

In Die Hard, John McClane gets hurt. He's not wearing any shoes and this becomes a significant plot element. By the end of the movie, his feet are all bloody and he's limping. His guns run out of ammunition. He has to aim. The police aren't on his side. Also, the terrorists are smartly written--they don't have any ulterior motives or any grand plans of being righteous or anything like that; but they are expect to, because they're terrorists, and they use this fact against the police. (At one point, Alan Rickman demands to the police that they release a laundry list of criminals in foreign countries from various prisons. Rickman's henchmen later asks him who those guys are, and Rickman just says, "I read about them in Time Magazine." He didn't want those guys released! He just wanted to waste the police's time!)

I know that a lot of this doesn't sound, well, revolutionary or important. That's because Die Hard did it first and did it the best, and changed the way action movies were made. Action movies in the 90s could easily be described as "Die Hard on a [x]," meaning the plot was basically the entire plot of Die Hard, but you move it from a skyscraper to another location. (Speed was "Die Hard on a bus." Die Hard 2 is "Die Hard on a plane." Under Siege is "Die Hard on a submarine," while its sequel is "Die Hard on a train." Sudden Death is "Die Hard in a hockey arena.") Every action movie released after 1988 ripped off Die Hard. It's that influential.

Also, Die Hard actually makes you feel like the hero is in danger, and could probably fail. You never get that feeling in Commando or Rambo 2.

Thank you for being the one to say everything you said here.

Yeah, that's its big failing. I obviously didn't take part in that, because I was too young. I first saw it on TV in the early 2000s, completely devoid of any context. All I saw was a movie where Schwarzenegger makes fun of every action movie cliche that he helped establish, and that was enough for me.

I really need to see Last Action Hero some day since it’s always sounded like something I would be all over.

Wolverine is actually particularly bad for a lot of reasons that the other Marvel flicks aren't. It arbitrarily changes things for no reason, or makes them worse. (Deadpool is basically ruined for any movie continuity now, unless they reboot him.)

I freely admit to hating just about everything about Deadpool, so this is no big loss to me. I’ll admit that the five minutes in the movie where Ryan Reynolds plays him isn’t bad, though. For being Deadpool.

If you care, they're actually starting to hit now. The Roadblock that's out right now is pretty good, but has a random white holster. We've seen pics of a prototype at JoeCon that has more paintapps and more gear, so you might want to wait for that one.

Yeah, my local Targets have them on shelves right now, but it’s just that first wave from last year, with the The Rock with the flash cards molded into his hand. I’ll keep an eye out.

To be fair, if anyone needs a new origin story movie, it's Superman. It's been 40 years since the last time we saw one! And that was 'before Crisis ever happened!' Before Byrne's defining Man of Steel run! Before Red Son, before All-Star Superman.

I kinda get that, but then part of me feels that if you don’t already know Superman’s origin story, you should be deported. Aren’t you the one always harping on about how you shouldn’t have to establish who Superman is?

And you shut up, Zod is awesome. Besides Luthor, he's probably the most credible Superman villain you could put on film, besides Doomsday--and you can only do Doomsday if you've already established Supes. (Maybe.)

But the General Public has to watch Supes fight Luthor or Zod in EVERY MOVIE. What about Parasite, or Metallo, or Darkseid, or somebody? There’s real potential for thinking outside the box.

At least in this one he’ll be up against a guy he can actually punch, so we won’t end up with two hours of Superman lifting things the way we got for Returns.

Yes, clearly you are broken.

To be fair--the fact that the mecha are clearly Gigantor and Mazinger-inspired and stuff is probably the point, and while you see "generic," I see "retro.' If they looked like Gundams, or even Evangelions, I'd say they looked generic, but they actually look like they're trying to evoke those older anime designs.

See, I *do* have an appreciation for that, Gunbuster is one of my favorite things ever, and I dig older Sentai robots. But these things are just kind of these big, grey, featureless, humanoid-with-no-cool-distinguishing-bits lumps. I think if they had more cool, armor-y, angular bits bolted on, or head crests, or glowy bits, or *something*, I’d be more drawn to them. The monsters are in the same boat, being that what we’ve seen of them so far just make them look like generic lizardmonster things. I dunno, just, nothing *grabs* me about it, you know?

I think I’d like it better if the mech-suits were smaller, with more vehicular utility designed into them, almost like Exo-Squad, rather than being these big, lumbering, mannequin-lookin’ things.

And sure, the plot is probably not going to evolve much past "monsters come out of the water and robots fight them," but at the same time we don't ever get to see that kind of thing scaled up to a big-budget movie. And Bologna del Taco has a habit of making even the basic plots seem cool. Look at Hellboy!

I definitely enjoyed both Hellboy movies, but those had a lot more interesting design work going into them than what we’ve seen of Pacific Rim so far.

The big problem with Thor 1--besides Natalie Portman--was indeed the pacing, and also the scale. The movie went from these big huge setpieces to...some random small Midwest town. The Destroyer comes down and it's supposed to be, like, this huge fucking battle and shit...but it's in a town with a population of maybe a hundred on a good day. Who cares?

Exactly, we get these epic scenes in Asgard and big fight in the Frost Giant place, and then the movie just kind of pisses about in Whogivesafuck, Statesota for over an hour, with almost nothing to break it up. Then when we DO get a fight to break it up, it’s a misplaced slugfest that tries to be epic despite looking like it takes place on the back lot of a spaghetti western. I get the feeling the director/writer/whatever had a decent idea for how he wanted this story about Thor learning about Humans and Earth and shit, but it didn’t jibe with also needing to make a blockbuster superhero movie that moved at a decent clip.

Thor 2 is apparently excising almost all of that crap, though, and focusing instead of Thor and Loki's journey to the Dark World. (Word is, Thor needs Loki's powers to do...something.)

A whole movie of a Thor/Loki road trip? Oh god, I can smell the soaking panties of the Tumblr hambeasts from here.

Shockwave wrote:Yeah, I was counting the third one too. X1 was all about Wolverine, X3 was all about Wolverine, and Origin was actually just titled Wolverine. And now there's another Wolverine coming out? Is Hugh Jackman still playing him? Cause he really did do Wolvy pretty good.

As many problems as Wolverine Origin had, Jackman still makes a very good Wolverine, to his credit.

(Also, from the Vietnam segment of the opening of Origin, it becomes clear that he would make an absolutely fantastic Big Boss, or maybe even Snake from Metal Gear!)

Shocktrek wrote:Ender's Game: What the hell did I just read? Seriously? What the fuck. Just .... wow... I read that and I can't unread that.

Yes. And you know what's worse? You read my summary. I read the book.

To be fair, that's all stuff from the sequel. This movie will presumably not have any of that. But it's the same writer, so...

Superman II: Which one is on DVD? Cause that's the one I watched lately and I still maintain it's the best one ever. I think it's the extended version.

Yeah, I was counting the third one too. X1 was all about Wolverine, X3 was all about Wolverine, and Origin was actually just titled Wolverine. And now there's another Wolverine coming out? Is Hugh Jackman still playing him? Cause he really did do Wolvy pretty good.

That is probably the recut Donner version. Since you're unaware, Richard Donner (the director of the first Superman film) was also the director of the second, and they were filmed back-to-back. Halfway through filming, he was fired by producers and replaced with someone else whose name escapes me. His cut was the theatrical cut. Eventually, someone went back and tried to "reconstruct" Donner's original vision, although some of it couldn't be done properly because Donner didn't film the entire thing.

For some more info, check this out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superman_I ... Donner_Cut

And Jackman is indeed still playing Wolverine.

Prowl wrote:I really need to see Last Action Hero some day since it’s always sounded like something I would be all over.

Let's get it on a double bill with Django and kill two birds with one shotgun.

I freely admit to hating just about everything about Deadpool, so this is no big loss to me. I’ll admit that the five minutes in the movie where Ryan Reynolds plays him isn’t bad, though. For being Deadpool.

I am mostly in the same boat you are. Come on though! Dudepeel didn't even look like him.

I kinda get that, but then part of me feels that if you don’t already know Superman’s origin story, you should be deported. Aren’t you the one always harping on about how you shouldn’t have to establish who Superman is?

In a lot of ways, sure. It's important, though, that this film will probably be far less of a case of "This is Superman's origin story as you know it" and more about "This is how we're doing Superman's origin story."

Remember, also, that this film is allegedly supposed to be the start of an entire DC cinematic universe, ala Marvel, that will eventually lead to a Justice League film...if it's successful. So in a lot of ways, the entire tone of the future DC movieverse hinges on this movie. You're not just establishing Superman--you're establishing the universe he's in.

But the General Public has to watch Supes fight Luthor or Zod in EVERY MOVIE. What about Parasite, or Metallo, or Darkseid, or somebody? There’s real potential for thinking outside the box.

At least in this one he’ll be up against a guy he can actually punch, so we won’t end up with two hours of Superman lifting things the way we got for Returns.

I want the next time Luthor shows up for him to build a frickin' mech suit. Big-ass Silver Age shit.

See, I *do* have an appreciation for that, Gunbuster is one of my favorite things ever, and I dig older Sentai robots. But these things are just kind of these big, grey, featureless, humanoid-with-no-cool-distinguishing-bits lumps. I think if they had more cool, armor-y, angular bits bolted on, or head crests, or glowy bits, or *something*, I’d be more drawn to them. The monsters are in the same boat, being that what we’ve seen of them so far just make them look like generic lizardmonster things. I dunno, just, nothing *grabs* me about it, you know?

I think I’d like it better if the mech-suits were smaller, with more vehicular utility designed into them, almost like Exo-Squad, rather than being these big, lumbering, mannequin-lookin’ things.

See, I dunno, it strikes me that they're designed that way because they're more utilitarian in use than anything else. But we'll see!

The monsters are probably being kept secrets. I expect some crazy ones to pop out of the woodwork. (I wish this was a Cloverfield sequel!)

Exactly, we get these epic scenes in Asgard and big fight in the Frost Giant place, and then the movie just kind of pisses about in Whogivesafuck, Statesota for over an hour, with almost nothing to break it up. Then when we DO get a fight to break it up, it’s a misplaced slugfest that tries to be epic despite looking like it takes place on the back lot of a spaghetti western. I get the feeling the director/writer/whatever had a decent idea for how he wanted this story about Thor learning about Humans and Earth and shit, but it didn’t jibe with also needing to make a blockbuster superhero movie that moved at a decent clip.

Bingo.

A whole movie of a Thor/Loki road trip? Oh god, I can smell the soaking panties of the Tumblr hambeasts from here.

Hey, I'm friends with some of those! (The ones that are less stupid. Like the social justice bloggers!)

To be fair, I think I just read that Natalie Portman might be tagging along. Details are...vague, but that'd be a little bit better, I guess.

(Also, from the Vietnam segment of the opening of Origin, it becomes clear that he would make an absolutely fantastic Big Boss, or maybe even Snake from Metal Gear!)

A friend of mine once shared his cast list for his dream MGS movie:

"Solid Snake - Hugh Jackman with his fake American accent
Liquid Snake - Hugh Jackman in a wig with his natural accent
Ocelot - I don't know, why not Hugh Jackman?"

I have nothing against Jackman, and it's clear that he loves the character, since he continues to play him and is actually the driving force behind this new movie.

I'll agree that the 1970's/1980's Superman 1 & 2 movies were geat. Sadly Superman 3 & 4 were epic awful.

The Superman movie from years ago was okay but nothing special. it added nothing new & felt like a 1980's superman 2 & 1/2 movie.

I honestly don't see any future superman movies being epic must see,as they all come off as very generic & repeat the same tired old formula. Lex luther will all be the main villian,Lois lane will always be superman's love interest. It'll always be about lex luthers brain verses supermans muscles. the daily planet will always take up tons of movie time. Clark will act like a nerd & weakling.

Honestly,I'm not a big fan of superman/clark. due to his persona being so generic & barely 1-d in persona. superman/clark's persona comes off as very dull,due to him being so perfect & having no flaws. Also superman/clarks persona is very booring/dull because he is too much of a good guy with no evil streak nor any ambitions of power nor career goals. most of the time the clark/superman you see is the bachelor,so we rarely get to see clark/superman married with kids & having wife/kids problems.

I prefer super heroes like Batman & Wolverine because they have well developed 3-D persona's. they have a equal ratio of good & bad sides in them. they have ambition & drive. often times they get so caught up in the drama fights that they almost evolve into the bad guy. I like seeing how troubled these guys are in the persona & personal lives.

I refuse to see the newest spiderman movie. Because it's not serious enough,too much over the top comedy. I'm not a fan of high school cheesy kiddie movies. this newer spiderman movie seems to have lowered the audience viewership age compared to the previous 3 spiderman movies.

Yeah, Deathy, Spiderman is gay. Spiderman, the dude who regularly gets to hang out with Gwen Stacy or Mary Jane, or that other girl he was dating in the comics before he died and Doc Ock took over his brain.

The 1994 Spiderman script actually had him having sex with Mary Jane in a web he put over the damn Brooklyn Bridge. For real. That's gay to you?

I don't get it--you say Bruce Willis is too macho but Spiderman is gay? You're like the most hypocritical person I know.

EDIT: Also: All-Star Superman. Read it. Then you'll understand Superman.

Tigermegatron wrote:I refuse to see the newest spiderman movie. Because it's not serious enough,too much over the top comedy. I'm not a fan of high school cheesy kiddie movies. this newer spiderman movie seems to have lowered the audience viewership age compared to the previous 3 spiderman movies.

That's ironic, considering the creators of The Amazing Spider-Man made it to be darker and less cheesy than the first 3 Spider-Man films. By 'over the top comedy' I assume you're talking about the jokes Spidey cracks in the trailers? That's part of his fighting style from the comics. It helps to keep the bad guys off balance.

For me, one of the main problems with modern super hero movies is all the CGI costumes. One of the things I really liked about the 80's Superman movies is that his costume was cloth. You know, a material REAL PEOPLE COULD BUY!! The Spiderman movies look of this cgi spandex/rubber suit hybrid crap just makes it less believable. You know, like Parker would really have access to some space age flexy material like that. Bullshit, he'd buy the stuff at Wal-Mart and it should look like he bought it at WM. This is why I get so disappointed when I see images like I've seen for the costume used in "Man of Steel" and the Spiderman movies. Now, Cap's costume in Avengers actually looked pretty decent and beleivable but it's a rarity in super hero movies these days.

Spidey's recent costume in AmSpidey is made out of a wetsuit, so!

And hey, Supes' costume looks okay. It'll look better in motion, like these things always do. (Now GL, that's a bad costume, even if the weird "vein" energy shit worked in context.)

Bingo. Even Card's religious beliefs can't explain some of the weird crap he wrote about though. (Yeah, a race of pigs that turn into trees when they die...and then the trees rape the females to impregnate them...and then the babies eat their way out of the mother...no, that's just fucked up.)

As Borat would say, "Whuuuuuaaattt?"

I had no idea. (I was saying that the last 20 pages of "Ender's Game" were bad for undermining the whole plot of the book by making the aliens "exactly like us"....despite the fact they were so alien that they were inherently dangerous to humanity merely by existing and....)

Card's wacky ass universalism is bad enough when it ruins what would have otherwise been a good book. But, damn, his non-fiction writing is even nuttier that what O6 posted. (Sadly, policy makers are all too willing to go along with his, and similar, lines of thinking.)

As an aside: And, with Hasbro getting lazier, the related toys will be easier to skip as well.

This makes me sad.

But, it makes my wallet happy.

What makes you say this? Joe 2 seems like it's actually being made by people who understand what makes GI Joe cool, unlike the first movie. Also, Cobra Commander actually looks like Cobra Commander.

Well, initially, the movie was considered done, but was apparently so half-formed that they could go back and add Sgt Ballerina to the script.

Even putting that aside, I have low hopes for this movie, simply by virtue of its genre.

The Destroyer comes down and it's supposed to be, like, this huge fucking battle and shit...but it's in a town with a population of maybe a hundred on a good day. Who cares?

I liked that scene actually. Besides featuring a special effects monster walking around in the daylight, it featured a big fight in an open area, which is rare in this sort of movie.

I kinda get that, but then part of me feels that if you don’t already know Superman’s origin story, you should be deported. Aren’t you the one always harping on about how you shouldn’t have to establish who Superman is?

There is something for having a story that can be self-contained.

Honestly,I'm not a big fan of superman/clark. due to his persona being so generic & barely 1-d in persona. superman/clark's persona comes off as very dull,due to him being so perfect & having no flaws. Also superman/clarks persona is very booring/dull because he is too much of a good guy with no evil streak nor any ambitions of power nor career goals.

But, the whole point of Superman is that he has immense power and has to limit himself, constantly wrestling with the question of when his help becomes tyranny, and when him letting people make mistakes and learn becomes negligence.

I don't get it--you say Bruce Willis is too macho but Spiderman is gay? You're like the most hypocritical person I know.

Hey! "Moonlighting" was a very manly show!

EDIT: Also: All-Star Superman. Read it. Then you'll understand Superman.

I would recommend "Red Son" as well.


Dom
-"Bruce Willis. Richard Lewis. This summer. Action Men!"