And we won't even get to see WW snap his neck. :tlol:

Yeah, it feels like 10 years since the last movie.

WB's DC decisions never cease to amaze me.

Looks nice and should be better than part 1.

I hope for the final cheetah design, they go for my favorite version of her
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/Ytgs9HNABXA/maxresdefault.jpg
Hubba hubba!

Man, that moment was all sorts of wrong... at yet, somehow so, so right. :tlol:

What do you mean wrong? her appearance or what? she's a person, not a lower animal creature.

Only a dumbass would think raping animals is the same as consensual sex between adults.

This promises to be one of those "It's terrible but the general audience is too dumb to understand why, and it's bright and silly so it'll make huge money by piggybacking off of the first movie's goodwill, and people will only realize it's awful after they've already paid to see it" kind of movies.

Too bad. First one was really good.

Definitely getting a very, very bad feeling about this movie.

Definitely. But I will say that upon repeated viewings it does drag in parts a bit, and the melodrama at the end when she "Christ-Figures" the guy to death was a degree of "Twilight melodrama" I could do without.

It is a good movie, but that also made some of those moments stick out like a sore thumb. I don't have high hopes for a great story in 1984, but visually I think it'll be great and I'm hoping for 2 hours of comic book fun and not being preached too. To the first movie's credit, I didn't feel much agenda being thrust forward.

In 2020, the least we can expect from any comic book movie is that it will be "visually great". Heck, that's the sole reason a lot of 'em get good reviews in the first place. I never doubt that any of them will be great to LOOK at, but again, CGI doesn't razzle-dazzle me so I don't really grade based on that.

By all accounts, they've mangled the characters in similar fashion as BoP did, so by rights it deserves to fail in similar fashion for wiping their ass with the source material. Max Lord, in particular, could have been a great long-form villain over several films, who instead promises to be done away with in one movie before ever hitting his stride a'la Zsasz and Black Mask. The fact that he's another Trump expy just makes it all even worse.

Man, I can't even get over how that character COULD have been used in the DC film universe... say, introduced in JL2 (or some other film) as a government liason to the League due to the world's increasing unease at the metahumans operating unilaterally and unchecked (a plot line introduced in MoS and then doubled-down on in BvS before being handwaved away entirely in Whedon's JL movie, despite it being pretty much THE main sublot up until then). They go under Lord's direction from being a simple "Justice League" to an expanded "Justice League International" and being sanctioned by the UN. But THEN we find out that it's all been manipulation and misdirection, and that Lord, like Luthor, is really a humanist who thinks the metahumans are too dangerous to operate unchecked and untethered, so the UN oversight and "JL International" stuff was all a way to keep them handcuffed and under his control, and oh, by the way, he's secretly got mind control powers and has been subtly influencing everyone since the jump, including Superman. Spin it off from there into loose adaptations of "Sacrifice" and the like. Maybe he was working with Luthor and his "League" in this version to eventually exterminate the metahumans and together they were simply moving all the pieces into place. There's a lot they could have done.

Could've been epic. Could've gotten a lot of miles over about a half dozen movies out of the Max Lord character, if not more. But nah, let's do "Donald Trump with a Monkey's Paw", because it's "topical" and lets Wonder Woman "take the fight to the patriarchy" and whatever. :roll:

You just KNOW that they nixed his mind control/nosebleed thing in the writer's room because "Doesn't that kid on Stranger Things do that?" :roll: I can't get over these people and their dumb decisions, and furthermore, the even more dumb "Why" of their dumb decisions.

Basically, if a person cares at all about these characters and stories PAST the visual element - and sometimes they don't hold up even then - then the movies just really don't execute. I'm an outspoken enemy of "In Name Only" adaptations, so I really don't see myself ever enjoying a comic book movie anytime soon. Fidelity doesn't matter anymore, all that matters is being topical and cramming in lots of jokes. And that just sucks.

Yup. Would've been terrific. And it could've been used to explain Superman killing Zod - it turns out that was an unbeknownst at the time psychic suggested from Lord.

This all could've easily been JLA 1 and it might've righted the ship for the DC flicks.

Would be a bit of a cop-out. He killed Zod in the comics, so they should've just owned it. Make it the big "this is why he doesn't kill" story, leave it at that and don't apologize.

That'd be fine too - that's I think what a lot of us expected. But then like we were saying earlier - 900 years later Superman Sequ..... errrrr... I mean never. ;) So who knows if it ever would've been properly addressed.

Along the lines of owning it, that's how I felt about JL. That movie was fine enough - it wasn't a franchise killer by any means. They should've just kept pushing through and did the Batman Affleck movie with the kind of Batman content we saw in Dawn of Justice, and a Cavill Superman sequel that was brighter in every way.

Yeah, nah, that bit of him killing Zod is best left alone as it is. If you don't get a pass for killing Space Hitler, then I'unno. He didn't need to have that explained away as anything more than, "It was the Right Thing to do even if it was messy", even if making it someone else's fault would have made some of the man-babies on the internet happier that there was an "excuse" for it. Plus, of course, he hadn't met Lord yet in that movie, so it would have been a real ass-pull to later reveal it as such. In the comics Lord explicitly stated that getting in Superman's head took years and years of up-close and personal mental conditioning and subliminal suggestion, and that it was very nearly impossible. It might be the kind of thing that would make kids and cartoon fans happy, but it would completely fall apart under more than two seconds of thought.

However, they could easily have started to show Superman behaving more aloof and such across some of the newer films to set up the reveal, like they did in the comics, then have him "snap" and do something really bad while fully under Lord's control, thus exposing Max's role in things. In the comics, he nearly killed Batman while being tricked into thinking he was fighting Brainiac, Doomsday, etc., so they could easily have done something similar in a movie eventually, and there'd be a trail of crumbs across a few earlier ones making the viewer go "Oh, wait, it all makes sense now".

OH, wait, I forgot... DC movie "fans" have no patience for long-form, slow-burn narratives that take place over several movies before a big payoff, and they absolutely hate stories that aren't crammed full of needless "humor" that remove any sense of stakes or dramatic danger, character development, what have you. "We want our one-dimensional cartoon archetypes, and we want 'em NOW!" They'd never settle for waiting three or more films to see a guy like Max pretend to be a good guy only to be revealed as a villain, nor would they settle for seeing someone like Superman behave even 1% "out of character" even if it was going to be revealed as mind control later on. "That's not how Chris Reeve behaves!" :roll:

It'd be nice to see, but it'll never happen. Apparently "Justice League: Mortal" was going to tinker with a kinda/sorta similar version of "Sacrifice", way back when, but again, I feel like Max Lord is completely wasted if you introduce him as virtuous and then reveal him as a secret bad guy (and presumably kill him off) in the SAME movie. The comics got 20+ years of mileage out of the character (mostly because the villain reveal was a major retcon, but still); if you're gonna use him, it should be for a slow burn and not a cheap pop on a one-and-done appearance.

That's another thing. Max Lord isn't immortal, is he? If they were to ever want to use him again beyond WW1984, he'd be 40 years older in the present.

He's also never been mentioned by any other character during any of the movies set in the modern day, not even in passing, which tells us that:

1. Whatever he does in 1984 during the Wonder Woman sequel must not have been terribly important because it's never going to come up again, so the stakes for this movie must be ultimately pretty damn low.

2. He's probably dead by the end credits. Given how DC movies treat their villains, this is a pretty safe bet even if it's not Diana herself who does the deed (Can't have the one universally-praised DC movie character be anything less than "perfect", after all, even though she definitely killed people in the first movie and it's entirely handwaved away by fans and critics alike, whereas with Superman and Batman it's a mortal sin and the films are derided as trash because of it. :roll: Double-standards out the ass with people and these movies, I swear to God).

Using Max Lord for this kind of a story is just like using Black Mask and Zsasz for a BoP/Harley Quinn movie; at first it's like "Hey, that's kinda neat", because you like the characters and are looking forward to seeing them in a movie, finally. BUT, then you think about it for ten seconds and it's like, "Wow, that's actually super terrible, I can't believe anyone would support such a blatantly terrible use of a character with so much potential."

But then, movie producers generally view the audience as morons who don't know/don't care and will sit through anything that keeps them mildly entertained for two hours. And as we've seen, audiences have no problem reinforcing that belief. The only rules, apparently, are "Keep the jokes flying" and "The colors have to be highly over-saturated". Absolutely nothing else matters. Not fidelity, not doing justice to popular and established characters, not consistency with regard to storytelling or character motivations... just "Sunny and Funny."

Your attempts to defend bestiality is rather transparent.

The problem is not with DC fans, but with DC themselves who constantly change ****, because, they lack vision. MCU fans somehow were able to wait until the Avengers: IW and EG.

Why say it's beastiality? Cheetah is a person who is different.

. I did think before I typed and I will choose whatever word I feel most aptly describes someone. "Idiotic" and "moronic" is a massive understatement. The earth being flat. Trump being a good president. Consensual sex = rape because "it's not exclusively between a man and a woman". There are many opinions that would only be held by someone who isn't merely an idiot, but is outright retarded. Same goes for people who jump down my throat because they want to go "it was just a prank, bro, learn to take a joke" when there was no indication that what they said was a joke. It isn't my problem when someone sucks at telling them or makes a **** "joke", Seriously, if you need to explain that you were making a joke then you're either backtracking or you suck at telling jokes. Take your pick of whichever one you want, just don't whine at me about your own shortcomings.

And, technically, you can argue that furries are not in any way similar to bestiality any more than the typical inter-species romance stories in sci-fi stories are. The subject, from what I've seen even with Batman and Cheetah, always seems to be a sapient humanoid adult being who can consent as Batman and Cheetah are two adult beings.

I see Cheetah as a person who looks different and nothing wrong with anyone finding literal cat-woman Cheetah attractive, i mean she has tits and curvy body and beautiful eyes and all.

Does this have to spill out in this thread too?

I'm just educating him the differences between a regular feral cheetah and a humanoid cheetah woman.