The Official Venting/Whining/Criticism TMNT Thread

[Vicky82]

his is for for anyone who wants to moan anything about the new movie, keep all your whining in this thread and stop using the other threads for it.

Please keep the arguements out of this thread, we don't want it to end up the same way when the old venting thread for 2014 movie got locked.

[The Boston Ninja Turtle]

you remember we tried this...it doesnt work..besides it makes you as much of a bully by saying we "haters" and "whiners" have to be segregated to our own area

[Vicky82]

you remember we tried this...it doesnt work..besides it makes you as much of a bully by saying we "haters" and "whiners" have to be segregated to our own area

It works ok in the Nick Thread.

I'm not being a bully, i'm not that low. It's just not nice seeing people using there personal attacks against Tiger Claw.

[IndigoErth]

Ah, a separate water fountain...


May as well make one to corral all those overly in love with it too (though I'm not sure many of those still exist). Then I guess the rest of the whole section belongs to anyone with a middle-of-the-road neutral position.

It may work for the series, but it is also different for it... in that case everyone has a negative comment at some point and in most cases don't hate on each other as often for having it.

[Amaranthus]

May as well make one to corral all those overly in love with it too (though I'm not sure many of those still exist).

Shark_Blade. :lol:

[The Boston Ninja Turtle]

It works ok in the Nick Thread.

I'm not being a bully, i'm not that low. It's just not nice seeing people using there personal attacks against Tiger Claw.

tiger claw can defend himself....this is literally a "we are better than you and you dont deserve to be in a thread with us" thing


i have never seen a forum with members so against going off topic or against differing opinions and disliking arguments


thats what forums are for to discuss..the good bad and ugly, and yes sometimes in down time or not things go off topic it happens on all forums

[Panda_Kahn_fan]

You know, the worst part is the movie lovers have their own group here on the technodrome, but the movie lovers keep on ignoring the group, and post here and expect the haters not to say anything. Guys, you bring this upon yourselves. I find the haters annoying too (I think the movie has MAJOR flaws, but is ok), but they have a right to their own opinions, and the right to express them. Why don't we all go over there to our endless excitement, praise, and gushing, and leave them to their venting, ranting and raging?

[The Boston Ninja Turtle]

ive heard of this group since the first movie came out,a safe haven where lovers can go gush to their hearts content


yet i find it funny whenever one side is to be segregated its always the "hater" side has to go..or we arnt allowed to post in any section

[pennydreadful]

There's already a private group for the PD movie. The nature of a forum is to invite discussion and that means different opinions. If you can't handle people not agreeing with you over something as unimportant as a movie, then you shouldn't be on the internet. Or, you know, just go to the private group that's already made specifically for PD fans.

As for TC, he's a big boy - if he has a problem with how he's being treated, he can take it up with Machias or Krang. Part of being a grown-up is realizing that the world is not obligated to truss your butt in tissue paper and bubble wrap just because someone doesn't share your taste in movies.

[Leo656]

Saw the other thread first. Copy/Pasted.
------------
Yeah I'mma take a huge piss on this. The first and second sentences contradict each other entirely! "Keep all your bitching in here! No arguing!"

Figure out exactly what your proposal is and get back to me. So I can soundly reject it a second time. You're not even my real Mom, man! The nerve.
__________________

[Vicky82]

This is a thread for everyone including the people who like the movies, I will probably have a moan about someting.

This will be similar to venting, criticism Nick thread as it is going ok with no problems. So as long people keep it civil and don't personally attack anyone, it will go smoothly.

[graphic_content]

TPart of being a grown-up is realizing that the world is not obligated to truss your butt in tissue paper and bubble wrap just because someone doesn't share your taste in movies.

theres a funny image. :lol:

[Commenter 42]

Saw the other thread first. Copy/Pasted.
------------
Yeah I'mma take a huge piss on this. The first and second sentences contradict each other entirely! "Keep all your bitching in here! No arguing!"

Figure out exactly what your proposal is and get back to me. So I can soundly reject it a second time. You're not even my real Mom, man! The nerve.
__________________

Quoted for the funny.

[Leo656]

Aww, you're sweet.

This bitching thread is wonderfully supportive thus far.

You people don't know WHAT you want! :lol::lol::lol:

[Wildcat]

So a separate thread for the dislike-rs (won't use the word haters) to over exaggerate, nitpick and destroy anything and anyone who won't agree with them that these movies are Worst TMNT EVAR!

Ok then :D

[Candy Kappa]

I wouldn't call it worst TMNT ever, just worst to date :P

[plastroncafe]

There is nothing more delicious than the tears of butthurt fanboys.

http://dudelol.com/DO-NOT-HOTLINK-IMAGES/Ahhhh-Yeah.jpg

[turtlefanforever]

There is nothing more delicious than the tears of butthurt fanboys.

http://dudelol.com/DO-NOT-HOTLINK-IMAGES/Ahhhh-Yeah.jpg

only fanboys? But it's ok for fangirls to do it? borderline classism/sexism right there

[Amaranthus]

only fanboys? But it's ok for fangirls to do it? borderline classism/sexism right there

lmao what?

[plastroncafe]

Someone didn't get the memo that fanboy is a gender neutral term....

[IndigoErth]

to over exaggerate
Man, does THAT go both ways, or what!

and destroy anything and anyone who won't agree with them that these movies are Worst TMNT EVAR!
That too upon swapping "worst" for "best."

I truly believe at this point that there are those whom if invited to crawl up a producer or director's ass and live there, they'd be ecstatic. (And even more-so if asked to run an on-set blog from there.)


Now, I 'ain't got no' issue with people liking what they like, but the "best ever" cheerleading is just... come on now. Although rightly there seems to be less of that now that the new wore off and the largest failings seem to be rather universally understood.

[CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy]

I need this thread to explode in fire. I need Shark_Blade to come in here and start professing love for Megan Fox and Brian Tyler's forgettable soundtrack and how Splinter became a ninjitsu master by reading a karate coloring book.

Where is the mocking, the hatred, the insults, the blonde wig and schoolgirl outfit?

Damnit, I need controversy in this thread and I need it now! (And more cowbell.)

[massakre]

I'm on the side of enjoying the [2014] movie and I am liking what I'm seeing for the [2016] so far.. however, I do not agree with this separation on an open forum because I feel like it adds gasoline to the fire. Honestly, I enjoy reading some of the negative criticism because all art is objective and I am open-minded. I may not have a huge issue with the way the Turtles look for example.. but someone else may point out something, that I didn't notice before, that makes go you know what I agree on that singular point. They could improve upon. Again, it prob won't change my overall perspective of what I know I like but it is cool to see everyone's opinions bounce off of eachother. Where it gets messy is when you call out one another or just blatantly disrespect someone just because their views/opinions may differ.

[turtlefanforever]

Someone didn't get the memo that fanboy is a gender neutral term....

where exactly is the girl in that photo?

[IndigoErth]

I'm on the side of enjoying the [2014] movie and I am liking what I'm seeing for the [2016] so far.. however, I do not agree with this separation on an open forum because I feel like it adds gasoline to the fire. Honestly, I enjoy reading some of the negative criticism because all art is objective and I am open-minded. I may not have a huge issue with the way the Turtles look for example.. but someone else may point out something, that I didn't notice before, that makes go you know what I agree on that singular point. They could improve upon. Again, it prob won't change my overall perspective of what I know I like but it is cool to see everyone's opinions bounce off of eachother. Where it gets messy is when you call out one another or just blatantly disrespect someone just because their views/opinions may differ.
http://i.imgur.com/uaDRU40.gif

where exactly is the girl in that photo?
Really? We're going to do this?

[Candy Kappa]

only fanboys? But it's ok for fangirls to do it? borderline classism/sexism right there

where exactly is the girl in that photo?

Hadn't this been so pathetic, it would have been hilarious. :lol:

[TrickOrTreater]

Hadn't this been so pathetic, this would have been hilarious. :lol:

But oh man was it pathetic.

[plastroncafe]

Should have just reused my Morticia .gif.
Alas, I tried something new instead.

Oh how my argument has been torn asunder.
Alas.
Alack.

Or something.

[Bry]

Guys, guys... can't we just stop all of this complaining and arguing? We're TMNT fans, and that means we all have a common goal: helping Michael Bay buy a successive line of larger and larger private jets. Because that's what this fandom is all about, damn it!

Now everyone get busy gawking at candid photos of a production assistant's shoes, and work on convincing yourselves that Bebop and Rocksteady fart jokes are going to propel this franchise to glorious new heights! We've got a year to go!!

[pennydreadful]

Really? We're going to do this?

Oh come now, this thread was an argument just waiting to happen from the very start. We've got folks champing at the bit, ready to throw down over the most minimal of slights. At this stage, it's just a question of which topic sets 'em off. :lol:

[CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy]

Oh come now, this thread was an argument just waiting to happen from the very start. We've got folks champing at the bit, ready to throw down over the most minimal of slights. At this stage, it's just a question of which topic sets 'em off. :lol:

I love this. It's sort of a consolation prize, really.

Platinum Dunes may be destroying the public image of TMNT, but hell, at least the lightshow from all the flamewars is pretty.

[Wildcat]

Man, does THAT go both ways, or what!


That too upon swapping "worst" for "best."

I truly believe at this point that there are those whom if invited to crawl up a producer or director's ass and live there, they'd be ecstatic. (And even more-so if asked to run an on-set blog from there.)


Now, I 'ain't got no' issue with people liking what they like, but the "best ever" cheerleading is just... come on now. Although rightly there seems to be less of that now that the new wore off and the largest failings seem to be rather universally understood.Except I've never claimed it was great or "best ever". I've actually never seen anyone say these things in any forums I use.

The people against the movies sure like make it seem like that though.

To them saying it was ok or kinda good = loved it and great.

[pennydreadful]

I've actually never seen anyone say these things in any forums I use.

Clearly you've never read any of SharkBlade's posts then. :tlol:

[Wildcat]

I've seen a few of his posts. Not saying that but I know he likes it.

I don't know how serious he's being though.

[Leo656]

It's because people have to be living in some pretty deep delusion to find any redeeming qualities in this friggin' abortion. Saying you liked it may as WELL be saying it's Perfect or The Best Ever. It's just as far removed from reality, honestly.

I liked the world better when things just were what they were, and you could clearly identify a piece of sh*t from a mile away, and nobody tried to convince you Up was Down. Now everything is "Subjective", despite the fact that SOME things really ARE Just Plain Awful. I mean, with movies (or food) it's EASY! Bad Ingredients = Bad Souffle'. If a movie has a bad script, bad pacing, bad dialog, bad storytelling, bad acting... I'm sorry, you can be "entertained" by it and that's FINE but it's still a bad movie! This isn't complicated, folks.

And what's worse, people who like awful things can't even delineate between "I enjoyed this," and "It was good". You can like something, but if it's tragic, then it's tragic, and that's the issue: People who liked it being unable to ADMIT that it was, on its face, a horrible f***ing movie. It's just "Well *I* liked it", over and over again, as if that says ANYTHING at all about the movie itself. It says nothing about the movie - the movie is objectively terrible by any reasonable person's perspective - and everything about the person defending it - mainly, that they aren't interested in looking for any value beyond the superficial. That they're projecting things they want to be there into something that actually doesn't have those qualities at all.

Which ultimately leads to someone who's easily-amused by simple-minded things, taking issue with someone else for pointing out that they are indeed overly-amused by simple things. The resulting overly-defensive stance all but proves that they *know* they've misplaced their devotion, but can't bear to accept it, because they've already committed to their position, made such a stink they don't dare admit that maybe they were wrong, and that thing they love maybe isn't all that great.

I mean, I get it. It's human nature. But this is what happens in a society where nothing is "Bad", everything is "Good", everything is "Subjective", it's all "an opinion", there are no "Losers", only "Winners", and you can make a horrible movie that sh*ts all over its source material with glee, and it will still garner support from a few because "At least they tried!" except No they didn't!

If more people would just be reasonable, and leave it at, "It was sh*tty, but I had fun with it," and stop trying to actually put it over, then other folks might not get so frustrated by all the delusional "It was great, I loved it!" nonsense. "I had fun with it" is one thing. "It was a good movie" is a flat-out lie, though, and I can't abide liars, personally.

Anyone who genuinely loved this movie probably eats black licorice, too. And I honestly don't know which one ought'a be more illegal. I'll say black licorice, but it's close.

[Technogeek29]

http://media.giphy.com/media/tO76wKUkD92yk/giphy.gif

[Wildcat]

@Leo656, Ha, feel better? Cause "it's crap, all other opinions be damned"...right?

Well I personally never said or thought it was great. It's clearly not.

There's some things they did that I thought were cool but that's about it. It's a very generic movie.

But I guess this somehow means I loved it and think it's awesome :roll:

[Technogeek29]

@Leo656, Ha, feel better? Cause "it's crap, all other opinions be damned"...right?

Well I personally never said or thought it was great. It's clearly not.

There's some things they did that I thought were cool but that's about it. It's a very generic movie.

But I guess this somehow means I loved it and think it's awesome :roll:

On a unrelated note to you wildcat "Toot Toot Sonic Warrior! Always takes a chance."

[Jester]

You seem way too defensive for some who thinks it was "'aight!"

[Wildcat]

@ Technogeek29, cool you noticed where my Sig was from.

@ Jester, nah...I was just replying to indigoerth then the others replied.

[IndigoErth]

*shrug* Pretty sure I've seen it stated here various times previously, and certainly had seen an over abundance of "best ever" elsewhere online... Never assumed you've made such claims and post was not intended directly at you, only comments on what was said, but there is plenty of it out there and, as I said, definitely goes both ways. The "best ever" shouts that had to put down the old films in the process for some reason were particularly eye rolling.

[Wildcat]

Oh that's ok. I understand what you mean now.

Ya it does go both ways but I've seen more negativity.

If those people claiming best or great movie I question if they're being serious.

[Leo656]

Well of COURSE there would be more negativity when people talk about the movie. It's bad. :lol: That's like saying, "Y'know, nobody ever points out the upside of slavery. You hear all these people bitching about the Negatives, but come ON, it wasn't ALL bad! I mean, you got some food and a roof out of it! What's a few chores? And who really defines 'Freedom', anyway?"

When something is awful by any rational standard, CLEARLY most of the surrounding discussion of it will be focused on the negative. :lol: Because you have to be Plastic Man to reach far enough to collect enough evidence In Favor Of.

......I know, I could've gone with "Mr. Fantastic", but y'know what? Screw that guy. When your whole gimmick is "I'm a rip-off of Plastic Man, of all people, but I wear blue instead of red," your name would have to be "Aquaman" to qualify as being a bigger bottom-feeding loser. So yeah, to hell with Mr. Fantastic. What a douchey name. Who calls themselves that?

Anyways, the hell was I... OH, yeah, right. Right. The clumsy Turtles movie/Slavery metaphor. SO, it's not that I'm saying the Turtles movie is as bad as slavery, obviously. What I AM saying, is that it's essential that BOTH of those things forever be taught and re-taught as crystal-clear shining examples to humankind of "What NOT To Ever Do." :tsmile:

Hey, I just realized, y'know what else the two things share? The perpetrators involved in both cases pretended to be kind of sorry, swore it'd be different from now on, and then went right back to doing the same sh*t they always did when nobody was looking. :lol: Wow, that all ended up being way more apt than I'd first anticipated.

[jenna]

What I AM saying, is that it's essential that BOTH of those things forever be taught and re-taught as crystal-clear shining examples to humankind of "What NOT To Ever Do." :tsmile:


Yeah. Problem with that though is we here on this board love the Turtles because we recognise something of depth in it which speaks to us and makes us care about it. For the rest of the population who haven't had the exposure to it or taken the time to get to know it and understand what makes it special, it is just another source of light entertainment. That includes the producers and writers in this instance.

And as long as there is an equal or greater demand for light entertainment than something soulful, intelligent and thought-provoking, there will be a market for benality and someone will be circling to cash in on it.

Leo656, we've never spoken but I always read your posts with interest because they are insightful and intelligent. Unfortunately for you and for most Turtle fans, the insightful and intelligent brigade are not Michael Bay's target audience. It's cheap thrills all the way with him. And the sad fact is, there's a massive market for it. Whether there's integrity to it is another question, but as long as there's a market, rubbish will keep on getting made.

I'm not criticising those who liked it. I liked it because I appreciate a bit of mindless escapism myself and , yes, it's Turtles so I am going to look for silver lining because I love Turtles and am happy to see them back in pop culture. Maybe I'm a hypocrite. Don't know.

[Leo656]

Really? Never? Awww. You can say hi, I'm around. :tsmile: Oh, and thanks.

[Wildcat]

Yes Leo656's posts sound interesting...until you realize he's very cynical about most movies nowadays to begin with not just Michael Bay stuff.

Then it's like - oh ya, the "Hollywood is no good" thing again. How insightful :lol:

[Jester]

So....why is it that even in the thread to vent and moan about the movie, we still have people taking issue with people who are venting and whining?

[Leo656]

They're not ALL bad, but clearly most are, or at least most of the ones getting the most attention. We're in a very "Flash Over Substance" period in our entertainment history and it's not exactly a big secret. Movies, video games... it's either Blockbusters or Nothing. There's not a lot of room for things that may be less flashy but also more nuanced and intelligent. People aren't being given a lot of choices; rather, the illusion of choice. And that's not what I'd call a "good" thing, no.

And it actually IS pretty insightful, thanks. I got a lot I can teach you cats if you actually listen. Stuff, in general, isn't hard.

[Wildcat]

Flashy movies have almost always been around. Not more-so now. Even if something looks flashy still might be creative. Not this. Video games? They're too interactive or something?

Oh I just remembered the South Park episode You're Getting Old. Where Stan gets all cynical. Perfect example of the internet and such :lol:

Look it up for those who don't know. It's not a personal insult to anyone. Just thought it matched so well.

[TrickOrTreater]

So....why is it that even in the thread to vent and moan about the movie, we still have people taking issue with people who are venting and whining?

Because they just can't help it.

Opinions different from theirs just piss them off SO. MUCH.

Especially opinions on sh*tty movies they like.

[BubblyShell22]

Well one thing I can criticize about the sequel is the fact that WWE Superstar Sheamus is playing Rocksteady. He's definitely not someone I would have chosen to play him despite the fact that he plays a good heel (bad guy) in WWE. Unless he can do a convincing American accent or something.

[Bry]

And what's worse, people who like awful things can't even delineate between "I enjoyed this," and "It was good". You can like something, but if it's tragic, then it's tragic, and that's the issue: People who liked it being unable to ADMIT that it was, on its face, a horrible f***ing movie.

There's a reason the concept of a "guilty pleasure" was cooked up in the first place. You can like something while being honest about the flaws it has, or even if it's flat-out terrible. I'm not sure if some folks getting super defensive about what they like is a newer trend or if it's always been that way, but the idea that if you liked it, it's objectively good? Kinda ridiculous.

If some people enjoyed BayTurtles as a guilty pleasure... I actually totally get that! I couldn't do it myself, but if that's how the conversation was framed, my entire response would be "oh, okay, sure" and that's it. That's fine, and I totally accept and approve of that, even if I don't share the opinion. Claiming that it was a "good movie", though, just hits the DOES NOT COMPUTE button in my brain. I get that many things are subjective, but there really is a bit of a rubric by which you can measure a "good movie". There are certain things in regards to character and story that it has to do, and this movie didn't even try.

It is what it is, gang! Platinum Dunes doesn't make good movies. They've never made a good movie. That's not their business; their business is to gobbling up profitable brands, pinching out hacky remakes aimed squarely at the lowest possible common denominator, and cashing in. There's a reason they chose Megan Fox as April despite other, actually-talented actors on the rise auditioning for that role. She's the personification of what Platinum Dunes is all about. She's never been in a good movie (http://www.rottentomatoes.com/celebrity/megan_fox/) and likely never will. When she says "if you don't love it, you can f*** off", that's her defending her throne as the queen of the cinema trash heap. Anyone with standards isn't supporting her or her movies in the first place. Same goes for Platinum Dunes. If you want or expect good movies, you're being told to look elsewhere.

So....why is it that even in the thread to vent and moan about the movie, we still have people taking issue with people who are venting and whining?

Criticism and negativity are just outright verboten to some. There's this infectious little way of thinking going around that everything has to be "nice" and "positive" and "fair", and because of it some people just can't handle any kind of discussion or debate to the contrary, even if it's completely civil.

[BubblyShell22]

Very well said, Bry. The fact that people support it because it's TMNT without really seeing it for what it is (a total piece of sh*t) just goes to show that anyone will eat this up and not care as long as it's TMNT. You know, that was the mistake I made with Fast Forward and Back to the Sewers from the 2003 show. They were horrible, but I still watched it because it was TMNT when I really should have just turned it off and forgot about it. I vowed that if the Nick TMNT was bad, I wasn't going to give it a second chance, but thankfully, they've done a good job. Sure, it has flaws, but I still enjoy it.

I knew I wasn't going to enjoy this movie from the start, and nothing anyone says will convince me to see it or any of the sequels Platinum Dunes spawns because they have zero respect for what came before or for the history of TMNT. The fact that Splinter learned ninjutsu by studying a book and that Hamato Yoshi and his rivalry with Saki was taken out shows just how much they appreciate this franchise. In other words, they don't. They only care about money, and that's sad.

[IndigoErth]

Criticism and negativity are just outright verboten to some. There's this infectious little way of thinking going around that everything has to be "nice" and "positive" and "fair", and because of it some people just can't handle any kind of discussion or debate to the contrary, even if it's completely civil.
The irony being, if it was about nearly almost anything else, people getting upset and defensive over criticism would likely be jumped on and told they're being too sensitive.

Turtles though, this is serious business, ya don't mess with the guys. :trazz: But by extention the rest of the project? Nahhhh....no... nope. The Turtles and their actors** I can get behind. Everything else surrounding them; Bay, writers, previous director, script, etc... Fans, here's a whip, have fun.



**Those wearing the mocap suits.

[CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy]

The Turtles and their actors** I can get behind. Everything else surrounding them; Bay, writers, previous director, script, etc... Fans, here's a whip, have fun.

**Those wearing the mocap suits.

Word. Right there with ya.

[Galactus]

So....why is it that even in the thread to vent and moan about the movie, we still have people taking issue with people who are venting and whining?

I'm guessing that venting, whining, criticizing wasn't really the point of starting the thread. Considering the OP was someone who thinks that the new movie series is fine I would argue it was done to somehow shame the people who don't think that way into not being as chatty about what we don't like.

But yeah it's kinda ironic that even in a thread specifically for expressing negative opinions on the new movies that some seem to have a problem with doing just that.

[Jester]

When she says "if you don't love it, you can f*** off", that's her defending her throne as the queen of the cinema trash heap.
vNdl9NpCMOA

Sorry...it's where my mind went.

[IndigoErth]

Sorry...it's where my mind went.
:lol::D Waiting for flash to start up, sat here saying "Is it Marjory? It better be Marjory." Did not disappoint. :lol: :thumbsup:

[BubblyShell22]

Yep, seems ironic for sure. Ah, well, I'll still contribute to the thread even if others may not.

[pennydreadful]

So....why is it that even in the thread to vent and moan about the movie, we still have people taking issue with people who are venting and whining?

Cuz there's like, a principle involved, yo! People will cop to not thinking BayTurtles is great... but damned if they'll let anybody think it's more not-great than they do!

There's a reason they chose Megan Fox as April despite other, actually-talented actors on the rise auditioning for that role. She's the personification of what Platinum Dunes is all about. She's never been in a good movie (http://www.rottentomatoes.com/celebrity/megan_fox/) and likely never will. When she says "if you don't love it, you can f*** off", that's her defending her throne as the queen of the cinema trash heap. Anyone with standards isn't supporting her or her movies in the first place.

Dude, she's not even good enough to be queen of the trash heap. She's one botched surgery away from being Tara Reid - and Tara Reid was recently in my state over here in Oz filming an indie film with a guy who's widely regarded as a joke in the local indie film scene.

Fox has been scraping to get work ever since Transformers - outside of BayTurtles, she's had nothing but bit parts since 2010 (and the gap in her work history can't be accounted for by pregnancy as she had her kids in 2012 and 2014). She's an aging pin-up who hasn't been "hot" (in terms of bringing in $$) since 2009, and brings nothing to the table other than making Little Richard stand up and salute, knowwhatI'msayin'? She would've had a longer shelf life if she'd just gone into porn in the first place. Fox is a spank fantasy who can't act - she was never going to last long in Hollywood. There are a million other starlets out there - pretty faces are a dime a dozen in Tinseltown, and you're only as good as your last project.

The girl's been chewed up and spat out by the industry - which explains the ever-growing frequency of her plastic surgery, as she tries to make herself more porn2k compliant for the chads in the audience so studios will want to cast her as a blockbuster-sexpot again. The poor woman should've dropped some of that plastic surgery money on acting lessons and having lunch with Merryl Streep - she might've picked up something. Frankly, I shudder to think what Fox had to do to get back on Bay's casting list.

[Bry]

vNdl9NpCMOA

Sorry...it's where my mind went.

Hey, it improved my night. And those muppets are better actors than Megan Fox, so it kinda elevates things?

Dude, she's not even good enough to be queen of the trash heap. She's one botched surgery away from being Tara Reid - and Tara Reid was recently in my state over here in Oz filming an indie film with a guy who's widely regarded as a joke in the local indie film scene.

Fox has been scraping to get work ever since Transformers - outside of BayTurtles, she's had nothing but bit parts since 2010 (and the gap in her work history can't be accounted for by pregnancy as she had her kids in 2012 and 2014). She's an aging pin-up who hasn't been "hot" (in terms of bringing in $$) since 2009, and brings nothing to the table other than making Little Richard stand up and salute, knowwhatI'msayin'? She would've had a longer shelf life if she'd just gone into porn in the first place. Fox is a spank fantasy who can't act - she was never going to last long in Hollywood. There are a million other starlets out there - pretty faces are a dime a dozen in Tinseltown, and you're only as good as your last project.

The girl's been chewed up and spat out by the industry - which explains the ever-growing frequency of her plastic surgery, as she tries to make herself more porn2k compliant for the chads in the audience so studios will want to cast her as a blockbuster-sexpot again. The poor woman should've dropped some of that plastic surgery money on acting lessons and having lunch with Merryl Streep - she might've picked up something. Frankly, I shudder to think what Fox had to do to get back on Bay's casting list.

A good point, well argued. If it weren't for BayTurtles, she'd be a few years away from starring in a Sharknado sequel, max.

In a way, I'm almost glad Bay tossed her a life preserver - there was a lot of rising talent in the other potential Aprils, and I'd hate to see those actors waste their time on this crap.

[CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy]

Cuz there's like, a principle involved, yo! People will cop to not thinking BayTurtles is great... but damned if they'll let anybody think it's more not-great than they do!



Dude, she's not even good enough to be queen of the trash heap. She's one botched surgery away from being Tara Reid - and Tara Reid was recently in my state over here in Oz filming an indie film with a guy who's widely regarded as a joke in the local indie film scene.

Fox has been scraping to get work ever since Transformers - outside of BayTurtles, she's had nothing but bit parts since 2010 (and the gap in her work history can't be accounted for by pregnancy as she had her kids in 2012 and 2014). She's an aging pin-up who hasn't been "hot" (in terms of bringing in $$) since 2009, and brings nothing to the table other than making Little Richard stand up and salute, knowwhatI'msayin'? She would've had a longer shelf life if she'd just gone into porn in the first place. Fox is a spank fantasy who can't act - she was never going to last long in Hollywood. There are a million other starlets out there - pretty faces are a dime a dozen in Tinseltown, and you're only as good as your last project.

The girl's been chewed up and spat out by the industry - which explains the ever-growing frequency of her plastic surgery, as she tries to make herself more porn2k compliant for the chads in the audience so studios will want to cast her as a blockbuster-sexpot again. The poor woman should've dropped some of that plastic surgery money on acting lessons and having lunch with Merryl Streep - she might've picked up something. Frankly, I shudder to think what Fox had to do to get back on Bay's casting list.

This post made me sad. :tcry:

[pennydreadful]

Aw, don't be sad, Cylons! Here, have a +1 gif of cheering:

https://38.media.tumblr.com/c652cc64938be8d4a04868e57746f23b/tumblr_muvvoin6Pg1srxj55o1_400.gif

Hey, look at it this way - in the spirit of never underestimating the stupidity of people (particularly when they're all clustered together into little market demographics), maybe BayTurtles will catapult Fox back into stardom. Then it'll be just like we're in 2008-2009 again, where she was on the cover of every magazine and everything was completely over-saturated with "Megan Fox is the hottest thing evarrrr!" promo. FHM and Maxim can slap her on the cover again, and we can all compare and contrast how much her face has changed since the last one.

http://i.imgur.com/pHMowpM.jpg?1

It goes without saying, I had to crop this cover significantly to make it forum-appropriate.

[Walkabout]

I still haven't seen the first Bay Turtles movie, I just can't bring myself to do it.
I've seen and heard enough of it on here to know I'm better off for it too, every time I see the Turtles, Splinter and Megan Fox with Will Arnett I want to cry.

[Shark_Blade]

I still haven't seen the first Bay Turtles movie, I just can't bring myself to do it.
I've seen and heard enough of it on here to know I'm better off for it too, every time I see the Turtles, Splinter and Megan Fox with Will Arnett I want to cry.

Tears of joy surely?
See for yourself then judge. Frozen got lots of haters but turns out great. This could be that case too. :tcool:

Forget the haters and lovers. Get in with an open mind and enjoy.

[Leo656]

You're a drug dealer, aren't you?

[DarkFell]

Closest I got to watching PD Bayturtles was when CinemaSins covered it. I'll get around to watching the Rifftrax version.

[Jester]

My wife made me shut it off, even with Rifftrax, after about 10 minutes.

[BubblyShell22]

Tears of joy surely?
See for yourself then judge. Frozen got lots of haters but turns out great. This could be that case too. :tcool:

Forget the haters and lovers. Get in with an open mind and enjoy.

Frozen was also done by Disney and had a more engaging story than BayTurtles ever will. Not everyone is going to enjoy this movie, and I'm not going to waste my time on mediocre crap. If you want to see the sequel and any other movies, go for it, but I'm not and I'm sure many of the others in here won't either because we want a TMNT film that shows respect for the franchise which PD can't do. As I've said, I'll stick with Nickelodeon, thank you very much. At least they have respect for the franchise and have handled it with care.

[Jester]

h5zrxPJTvGo

0mhQc6CQUkU

Now all they need is a 24 Reasons it's the same as Amazing Spider-man.

[Galactus]

Well Paramount did want TMNT to be like Iron Man and the guy makes some good points but seriously we could only wish TMNT 2014 was as good as the first Iron Man movie.

Now all they need is a 24 Reasons it's the same as Amazing Spider-man.

24 might be a low ball number.

[CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy]

You're a drug dealer, aren't you?

Must be bath salts... if we turn our backs, this dude is gonna eat our face.

Tears of joy surely?
See for yourself then judge. Frozen got lots of haters but turns out great. This could be that case too. :tcool:

Forget the haters and lovers. Get in with an open mind and enjoy.

Go ahead and compare the qualities of Jaws and Sharknado while you have the floor. We're all listening with bated breath.

[neatoman]

h5zrxPJTvGo

0mhQc6CQUkU

Now all they need is a 24 Reasons it's the same as Amazing Spider-man.

I guess the comparison to Amazing Spider-Man and Wolverine was too common?

[Shark_Blade]

Next they're gonna say Avatar is the same as Pocahontas. Oh wait..

No art form is original, it's always an imitation based on something else. But that still doesn't stop 2k14 movie from being fabulous and a box office hit.

http://i.imgur.com/aQwRLPt.gif

[plastroncafe]

Avatar? You mean Dances with Ferngully?

[CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy]

Avatar? You mean Dances with Ferngully?

No, he meant comparing Dirty Harry to 21 Jump Street with Tanning Chatum. :tlol:

Next they're gonna say Avatar is the same as Pocahontas. Oh wait..

No art form is original, it's always an imitation based on something else. But that still doesn't stop 2k14 movie from being fabulous and a box office hit.

http://i.imgur.com/aQwRLPt.gif

"Inside those turtles is the most precious compound on earth - mutagen. I want you to drain every ounce of their blood, even if it kills them!" Oscar gold write there. See what I did?

But don't worry, I've got another quote for you: "You ... are adorable. I could just pinch your cheeks!"

[Commenter 42]

h5zrxPJTvGo

0mhQc6CQUkU

Now all they need is a 24 Reasons it's the same as Amazing Spider-man.

Thanks for those! That kid is on fleek yo!

[IndigoErth]

You'd think it would have to be pretty easy to become a screen writer these days if all the film industry (at least the block buster part) does it recycle the same stories over and over again. (Ok fans, time to take over the writing for these films, seriously...)

Avatar? You mean Dances with Ferngully?
http://i.imgur.com/DcWTihQ.gif

[BubblyShell22]

Next they're gonna say Avatar is the same as Pocahontas. Oh wait..

No art form is original, it's always an imitation based on something else. But that still doesn't stop 2k14 movie from being fabulous and a box office hit.

http://i.imgur.com/aQwRLPt.gif

Were you high when you saw the movie or something? This wasn't a box office hit. It was a disgrace to TMNT fans everywhere.

[CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy]

Were you high when you saw the movie or something? This wasn't a box office hit. It was a disgrace to TMNT fans everywhere.

I think we've already established the guy might have done bath salts. Don't get too close... he might still be hungry. :tlol:

[MsMarvelDuckie]

It's because people have to be living in some pretty deep delusion to find any redeeming qualities in this friggin' abortion. Saying you liked it may as WELL be saying it's Perfect or The Best Ever. It's just as far removed from reality, honestly.

I liked the world better when things just were what they were, and you could clearly identify a piece of sh*t from a mile away, and nobody tried to convince you Up was Down. Now everything is "Subjective", despite the fact that SOME things really ARE Just Plain Awful. I mean, with movies (or food) it's EASY! Bad Ingredients = Bad Souffle'. If a movie has a bad script, bad pacing, bad dialog, bad storytelling, bad acting... I'm sorry, you can be "entertained" by it and that's FINE but it's still a bad movie! This isn't complicated, folks.

And what's worse, people who like awful things can't even delineate between "I enjoyed this," and "It was good". You can like something, but if it's tragic, then it's tragic, and that's the issue: People who liked it being unable to ADMIT that it was, on its face, a horrible f***ing movie. It's just "Well *I* liked it", over and over again, as if that says ANYTHING at all about the movie itself. It says nothing about the movie - the movie is objectively terrible by any reasonable person's perspective - and everything about the person defending it - mainly, that they aren't interested in looking for any value beyond the superficial. That they're projecting things they want to be there into something that actually doesn't have those qualities at all.

Which ultimately leads to someone who's easily-amused by simple-minded things, taking issue with someone else for pointing out that they are indeed overly-amused by simple things. The resulting overly-defensive stance all but proves that they *know* they've misplaced their devotion, but can't bear to accept it, because they've already committed to their position, made such a stink they don't dare admit that maybe they were wrong, and that thing they love maybe isn't all that great.

If more people would just be reasonable, and leave it at, "It was sh*tty, but I had fun with it," and stop trying to actually put it over, then other folks might not get so frustrated by all the delusional "It was great, I loved it!" nonsense. "I had fun with it" is one thing. "It was a good movie" is a flat-out lie, though, and I can't abide liars, personally.


Well, I for one, can, and have. Yes, it was "bad" (on some levels, though there were a few things they did well) BUUUUT I still thoroughly enjoyed it and actually laughed at some of the "bad" dialog- though probably not for the reasons the writers would have wanted.


http://media.giphy.com/media/tO76wKUkD92yk/giphy.gif


LOL! Yup, it sure does!


When something is awful by any rational standard, CLEARLY most of the surrounding discussion of it will be focused on the negative. :lol: Because you have to be Plastic Man to reach far enough to collect enough evidence In Favor Of.

......I know, I could've gone with "Mr. Fantastic", but y'know what? Screw that guy. When your whole gimmick is "I'm a rip-off of Plastic Man, of all people, but I wear blue instead of red," your name would have to be "Aquaman" to qualify as being a bigger bottom-feeding loser. So yeah, to hell with Mr. Fantastic. What a douchey name. Who calls themselves that?



Bite your tongue, heathen! Mr. Fantastic may be a clear narcissist, (and yeah, he's kind of a rip-off, but done better) but at least he gets taken seriously by fans! And he's smarter than everyone but Tony Stark, Bruce Wayne, and Hank Pym, so there's that, too. Plastic Man can't even claim to be as smart as- Deadpool....


There's a reason the concept of a "guilty pleasure" was cooked up in the first place. You can like something while being honest about the flaws it has, or even if it's flat-out terrible. I'm not sure if some folks getting super defensive about what they like is a newer trend or if it's always been that way, but the idea that if you liked it, it's objectively good? Kinda ridiculous.

If some people enjoyed BayTurtles as a guilty pleasure... I actually totally get that! I couldn't do it myself, but if that's how the conversation was framed, my entire response would be "oh, okay, sure" and that's it. That's fine, and I totally accept and approve of that, even if I don't share the opinion. Claiming that it was a "good movie", though, just hits the DOES NOT COMPUTE button in my brain. I get that many things are subjective, but there really is a bit of a rubric by which you can measure a "good movie". There are certain things in regards to character and story that it has to do, and this movie didn't even try.

It is what it is, gang! Platinum Dunes doesn't make good movies. They've never made a good movie. That's not their business; their business is to gobbling up profitable brands, pinching out hacky remakes aimed squarely at the lowest possible common denominator, and cashing in. There's a reason they chose Megan Fox as April despite other, actually-talented actors on the rise auditioning for that role. She's the personification of what Platinum Dunes is all about. She's never been in a good movie (http://www.rottentomatoes.com/celebrity/megan_fox/) and likely never will. When she says "if you don't love it, you can f*** off", that's her defending her throne as the queen of the cinema trash heap. Anyone with standards isn't supporting her or her movies in the first place. Same goes for Platinum Dunes. If you want or expect good movies, you're being told to look elsewhere.

Criticism and negativity are just outright verboten to some. There's this infectious little way of thinking going around that everything has to be "nice" and "positive" and "fair", and because of it some people just can't handle any kind of discussion or debate to the contrary, even if it's completely civil.


^ All of this, in spades.

[IndigoErth]

I think we've already established the guy might have done bath salts. Don't get too close... he might still be hungry. :tlol:
Better as hell hope he doesn't win or was not eligible to enter that charity donation raffle type thing to win a trip to the Turtle's set. Imagine bath salts + extreme Fox fan + meets cast...

:teek::tlol:

'Course, if it gets it a new April...

[CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy]

Better as hell hope he doesn't win or was not eligible to enter that charity donation raffle type thing to win a trip to the Turtle's set. Imagine bath salts + extreme Fox fan + meets cast...

:teek::tlol:

'Course, if it gets it a new April...

I seriously wonder if he's already received a restraining order from Megan's legal representative... wouldn't be surprised...

[Leo656]

We are so not doing Plastic Man vs. Mr. F***tastic. I refuse to even dignify that. Reed Dickards went gray at 15 while Eel' O'Brian's sunglasses are a permanent part of his face. Seriously, cat, when you're done puffin' that wacky ****, pass it around. :tgrin:

Besides, when your super-powers involve who can most creatively turn themselves into a f***ing trampoline or giant rubber band ball, it has ZERO to do with who's smarter and everything to do with who's more entertaining. And Reed's exactly the LEAST fun "stretchy guy" in history. He's actually SIXTH, behind, in order, Plastic Man, Elongated Man, Stretch Armstrong, the guy who played Stretch Armstrong in the TV commercials, and the drawing of Stretch Armstrong on the toy's packaging. :lol: I don't give a f*** if he can replicate Unobtainium; he's a bore and a narcissist who's in no way good-looking enough to pull it off, as I have. He keeps his best friend stuck in the body of an ugly rock monster, because of his own insecurity. He married a complete and total bimbo, so that nobody in his household would ever dare question his crackpot genius. And he never even bothered to tell Johnny that he doesn't HAVE to yell "FLAME ON!" every time he activates his powers... because he wants to make sure someone on the team looks like a bigger idiot than he himself does. What a dick.

Some "Genius". Reed can eat a bag of Skrull dicks for all I care. "Taken Seriously." :lol: When you're a giant rubber band. Whew, that one had me goin'. :lol:

[Commenter 42]

He keeps his best friend stuck in the body of an ugly rock monster, because of his own insecurity. ... What a dick.


http://www.comicbookmovie.com/images/articles/banners/121805.jpg

(Yep, that was a dick joke. I know it's a bit of a stretch.)



Honestly, iPad typing is the most stressful typing.

[Leo656]

Hah hah hah. You're alright, you.

So I guess the blue trunks weren't "gritty" or "realistic" enough for that sh*t remake they're doing, huh? Great. The world needed to see Thing's "Thing" immortalized on film. Treat. :lol:

[Commenter 42]

Hah hah hah. You're alright, you.

So I guess the blue trunks weren't "gritty" or "realistic" enough for that sh*t remake they're doing, huh? Great. The world needed to see Thing's "Thing" immortalized on film. Treat. :lol:

Thing is, there a'int no thang on the Thing. Maybe he's a grower not a show-er.

The book should have been called the F*cked-up 4. Nothing fantastic about them.

It's a gay porn that writes itself.

A dick that stretches a lot, a guy who's rock hard, a flaming teen, and a girl, but she's practically invisible, so who cares.

[Leo656]

Amen, brother. :lol:

[Jester]

c8iyYjvNgmo

[Leo656]

That's just my favorite thing ever. :lol:

[Commenter 42]

...

But seriously, the design of the Thing; I swear I see pieces of corn.

Is that just me or....

[MsMarvelDuckie]

We are so not doing Plastic Man vs. Mr. F***tastic. I refuse to even dignify that. Reed Dickards went gray at 15 while Eel' O'Brian's sunglasses are a permanent part of his face. Seriously, cat, when you're done puffin' that wacky ****, pass it around. :tgrin:

Besides, when your super-powers involve who can most creatively turn themselves into a f***ing trampoline or giant rubber band ball, it has ZERO to do with who's smarter and everything to do with who's more entertaining. And Reed's exactly the LEAST fun "stretchy guy" in history. He's actually SIXTH, behind, in order, Plastic Man, Elongated Man, Stretch Armstrong, the guy who played Stretch Armstrong in the TV commercials, and the drawing of Stretch Armstrong on the toy's packaging. :lol: I don't give a f*** if he can replicate Unobtainium; he's a bore and a narcissist who's in no way good-looking enough to pull it off, as I have. He keeps his best friend stuck in the body of an ugly rock monster, because of his own insecurity. He married a complete and total bimbo, so that nobody in his household would ever dare question his crackpot genius. And he never even bothered to tell Johnny that he doesn't HAVE to yell "FLAME ON!" every time he activates his powers... because he wants to make sure someone on the team looks like a bigger idiot than he himself does. What a dick.

Some "Genius". Reed can eat a bag of Skrull dicks for all I care. "Taken Seriously." :lol: When you're a giant rubber band. Whew, that one had me goin'. :lol:


Look, I know you're a big DC fan, man, but seriously, Reed is WAY more interesting of a character. Plastic Man is a joke even in his own universe, a one-off that somehow became WAY more important(or at least lasted longer) than he ever should have. At least Reed has something to make him a decent character OUTSIDE of his powers- and a far more interesting backstory. Sure, he may be less "entertaining" on a purely superficial, "kiddie" level, but REALLY?! He was always intended to be far more than just the cheap rip-off of a one-note rubber guy. It's pretty sad when one isn't even considered worthy of his own comic for most of his history, while the other has had one of the longest running series in the history of his publisher. I'll let you guess which is which, but it says something about who is more liked and relatable.


http://www.comicbookmovie.com/images/articles/banners/121805.jpg

(Yep, that was a dick joke. I know it's a bit of a stretch.)

Honestly, iPad typing is the most stressful typing.


Must've been a very "small" joke. I didn't even see it.....


Thing is, there a'int no thang on the Thing. Maybe he's a grower not a show-er.

The book should have been called the F*cked-up 4. Nothing fantastic about them.

It's a gay porn that writes itself.

A dick that stretches a lot, a guy who's rock hard, a flaming teen, and a girl, but she's practically invisible, so who cares.


Bite your tongue, man. They're a FAMILY. A dysfunctional one, at times, but what family isn't? And one of the most beloved hero-teams ever created. And yes, I AM a pretty big fan of the 4. Even though they wouldn't let Parker join them way back in ASM #3..... But at least Peter and Johnny got to build the Spider-Mobile together, so there's that. :tcool:

[Commenter 42]

I'm just playing...

But there's no way I'm the first to draw those parallels.

And yeah, I swear that new Thing is sporting undigested corn.

Then again, there's no way to make the Thing look cool IRL.
They keep trying, but he looks idiotic every time.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-qFfhBnBWpwc/VLhT3-eIDqI/AAAAAAAAGC4/BEmcvN4RYhg/s1600/fantastic-four-tobias-arrested-development.png

[Leo656]

No, no. You're approaching this from the wrong angle entirely. When your only gimmick is, "I'm stretchy", you're a joke by definition. Reed's supposed competence and "importance" are entirely contrary to that type of character. Plastic Man OWNS that sh*t, as does Elongated Man. Either of those guys, without their powers, are still entertaining, as they've got buckets of personality. Reed Richards WITH powers, meanwhile, is better than Ambien.

I keep this near my nightstand. I call it "Everything Anyone Ever Needs To Know About The Fantastic Four."
https://scontent-lga1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpa1/v/t1.0-9/10294235_531293763636954_675750890251208018_n.jpg? oh=d93c312b72bf024daab25414745fd8d9&oe=56230194

This one is just as telling:
https://scontent-lga1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfa1/v/t1.0-9/10534541_531292416970422_8560199839500951329_n.jpg ?oh=70a468884cd3af231de7a25d66d570c5&oe=562BE536

I know Marvel's entire gimmick is trying to inject artificial "angst" and "importance" into places they completely don't belong in a vain attempt to convince the general public that comics are "deep", but... people honestly take the Fantastic F***balls seriously? Like, for reals? :lol: "America's Favorite Super-Team, Whose Book Only Ever Sells When One of Them Gets Killed For Six Months And Replaced With Spider-Man Or Wolverine." :lol:

And why would Plastic Man need his own ongoing comic, anyway? His gimmick doesn't "stretch" that far. ;) He's a perennial guest star, as goofy gimmicks like that are supposed to be. Meanwhile, the F4 are a team of C-Listers who built themselves a skyscraper so people would have to take them seriously. By the size of that skyscraper, and the Fantasticar, Reed's penis must NOT have benefited from the effects of those "Cosmic Rays"... :lol:

Yeah... yeah, I'd have to say "Screw the F4" is my official position. :lol:

[MsMarvelDuckie]

I dunno, I kind of liked Chickles(sp?) in the role. But, yaeah, you're kind of right about making him look "good" in RL.

[Commenter 42]

...

Please tell me those comics are titled "Marvel presents: WTF 4"

[Leo656]

:lol: I'unno where they came from originally, I'm pretty sure they're from Seanbaby.

Here's another one he did. #4 is all about what a useless tw*t Sue is (or originally was, anyway. And pretend that says "twit" if it makes ya feel better :P) http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-beloved-superheroes-who-are-actually-really-stupid/

"When the Fantastic Four went into space, the three men gained amazing superpowers and the girl gained the ability to disappear. That's kind of a tough ability to use for anything heroic, but this was 50 years ago. In a 1961 man's imagination, the most amazing thing a girl could do was shut up and go away."

Terrific. Terrific. :lol:

[Commenter 42]

I dunno, I kind of liked Chickles(sp?) in the role. But, yaeah, you're kind of right about making him look "good" in RL.

Chicklets? Chuckles? I don't know how to spell it either.

Meh, he really looked like a guy in a bad rubber suit, but yeah, I don't know that it could look better. I think it's the Orange.

[MsMarvelDuckie]

No, no. You're approaching this from the wrong angle entirely. When your only gimmick is, "I'm stretchy", you're a joke by definition. Reed's supposed competence and "importance" are entirely contrary to that type of character. Plastic Man OWNS that sh*t, as does Elongated Man. Either of those guys, without their powers, are still entertaining, as they've got buckets of personality. Reed Richards WITH powers, meanwhile, is better than Ambien.

I keep this near my nightstand. I call it "Everything Anyone Ever Needs To Know About The Fantastic Four."
https://scontent-lga1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpa1/v/t1.0-9/10294235_531293763636954_675750890251208018_n.jpg? oh=d93c312b72bf024daab25414745fd8d9&oe=56230194

This one is just as telling:
https://scontent-lga1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfa1/v/t1.0-9/10534541_531292416970422_8560199839500951329_n.jpg ?oh=70a468884cd3af231de7a25d66d570c5&oe=562BE536

I know Marvel's entire gimmick is trying to inject artificial "angst" and "importance" into places they completely don't belong in a vain attempt to convince the general public that comics are "deep", but... people honestly take the Fantastic F***balls seriously? Like, for reals? :lol: "America's Favorite Super-Team, Whose Book Only Ever Sells When One of Them Gets Killed For Six Months And Replaced With Spider-Man Or Wolverine." :lol:

And why would Plastic Man need his own ongoing comic, anyway? His gimmick doesn't "stretch" that far. ;) He's a perennial guest star, as goofy gimmicks like that are supposed to be. Meanwhile, the F4 are a team of C-Listers who built themselves a skyscraper so people would have to take them seriously. By the size of that skyscraper, and the Fantasticar, Reed's penis must NOT have benefited from the effects of those "Cosmic Rays"... :lol:

Yeah... yeah, I'd have to say "Screw the F4" is my official position. :lol:


It doesn't HAVE to be a joke, though. Done with some seriousness, the powers are actually pretty cool- take the Incredibles, for instance. Or Rubber-Band Man from Static Shock. Neither was used as a joke, and both use the same "gimmick", but with a more serious spin- and they work just fine. Honestly, the reason PM is never used as more than a "guest star" is BECAUSE he's only good for that. His schtick is only funny for an issue or two, then it gets old REAL fast. On the other hand, the family dynamics of the FF and some of the things that have come out of their books have impacted the entire Marvel 616 universe for decades. They are one of the cornerstone teams, for good reason. And it's not because one periodically dies and gets replaced, it's because when they actually ARE working as a team, they are really good!

Of course, some of the early issues were kind of schlocky, but that was more a product of the time (and Stan's style of writing). More recent issues have been far more serious and thought-provoking on several different levels. After all, it was Reed's idea to initiate the Registration Act, and to create the Illuminati group. It actually says more about him that he KNEW that something like that was coming eventually, and decided to get the other "major powers" of the MU (meaning the movers and shakers of the hero-world in terms of influence and knowledge) to work together to put it in place in a way THEY could accept. didn't work, but that was more due to his lack of understanding basic human nature. Because big brains doesn't always equal great people skills....

[Leo656]

Chicklets? Chuckles? I don't know how to spell it either.

Meh, he really looked like a guy in a bad rubber suit, but yeah, I don't know that it could look better. I think it's the Orange.

I thought it was okay. I thought it was as good as it possibly could have been done, basically. Movie was sh*t but I thought he was okay. Thought the second one was marginally better, but nothing it was trying to build to - a third film or a Surfer solo movie - came to pass, so it's ultimately pointless. And that "Galactus" was pretty sh*tty.

I went into those two pretty wide open and was honestly blown away by how bad they were. :ohwell: It's a real shame the remake looks ten times worse. I mean they're not my favorite but they are popular, jokes aside, and I think they deserve a good movie, and I don't think they can get one.

[MsMarvelDuckie]

Agreed. I liked the first one, the second was a let-down at the end, and the new one just looks- Why, Fox, WHY??!!

On the bright side, it may very well mean Marvel gets the rights back and they FINALLY get a decent movie. Though wit CG what it is now, I wouldn't mind Chickles coming back.

[Jester]

When this fails I'm rooting for Terry Crews as the Thing. He's a large imposing man, with a gentle heart. Totally the Thing.

[MsMarvelDuckie]

Hmm, I could maybe go for that.

PS: Sorry to derail the thread with off-topic stuff. Leo, see what you made me do?!

[Leo656]

Duckie: "It doesn't have to be a joke?!" No, no, yes it does. "I'm a living rubber band" really loses all the pathos once you say it out loud. They seriously overreached in trying to make that kind of character serious, pun fully intended. They had a billion dollar budget over two movies to demonstrate exactly why and how a guy like that could be "taken seriously", and it didn't work, nor should it have. Now, those movies put all their comedy in entirely the wrong *places*, and everything was seriously half-baked across the board anyways, but that's besides the point. They were definitely right in not taking the F4 concept too seriously, because just look at 'em.

Like I said, at least in Plas, they know what they have and use him accordingly. You know why Reed can't be (or shouldn't be) a leading man? Because unless your pen rolls under the couch, he's the most useless guy in the room. "He's smart". That's like every fourth Marvel character... "They have this and that AND a genius I.Q., coincidentally!" :lol: And he's boring! Again, Plas without powers would at least be a decent stand-up comedian. Every panel he's ever been in is a stitch. Reed? Without Powers he's Captain Exposition. :lol: "This character has a Genius I.Q." is code for, "They're there simply to deliver large blocks of plot to the audience in case they're six." All things being equal, I'll take the one with charisma over the stuffed shirt, all day long.

Next we're gonna be debating Aquaman vs. Namor, I can feel it. Sigh. I'm gonna cut you off right now, because Aquaman is a pathetic bottom-feeding loser but at least he doesn't have little fruity wings on his ankles and run around in a thong like nobody notices. If Reed is just a stuffy, non-fun hackjob version of Plastic man, then Namor is just... just... I mean HOW desperate do you have to be to rip off AQUAMAN? It's like an admission of defeat before you even get started. "Namor". Sweet Christmas.

[Commenter 42]

:lol: I'unno where they came from originally, I'm pretty sure they're from Seanbaby.

Here's another one he did. #4 is all about what a useless tw*t Sue is (or originally was, anyway. And pretend that says "twit" if it makes ya feel better :P) http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-beloved-superheroes-who-are-actually-really-stupid/

"When the Fantastic Four went into space, the three men gained amazing superpowers and the girl gained the ability to disappear. That's kind of a tough ability to use for anything heroic, but this was 50 years ago. In a 1961 man's imagination, the most amazing thing a girl could do was shut up and go away."

Terrific. Terrific. :lol:


Holy ****, I'm laughing out ****ing loud.

On Sue Storm:

"After a dozen adventures involving no dogs where literally every non-dog enemy found her, she's decided the one thing holding Invisible Girl back is that dogs can find her. Now here's where it gets crazy. She has theorized that somewhere out there is some perfect combination of scents that will make her untraceable to dogs. That shows a fundamental misunderstanding of ... well, everything. It's the kind of thing a grown woman should only say if she's trying to qualify for a coloring contest.
This wasn't foreshadowing for some kind of daring smell-related rescue later in the issue. This was just a glimpse into what this idiot does all day, and it was never mentioned again! She was playing in perfume to trick dogs! Ineffectively!! And she thought she was doing science!!! "

Oh lawd! I'm ****ing crying.

[Leo656]

"Plus, the Fantastic Four doesn't have dogs -- she must have brought these poor animals in for this "experiment" alone. Now imagine what her husband, the world's leading physicist and researcher, will think when she tries to explain why she has a room full of dog corpses and smells like she was fingered by 3,000 grandmothers in a chemical toilet. He won't even have the vocabulary to understand what this stupid bitch is saying to him."

:lol::lol::lol:

Too f***in' much, man. :lol:

Invisible Girl's "Greatest Hits": :tgrin::tgrin::tgrin:
http://i.crackedcdn.com/phpimages/article/7/8/1/178781.jpg?v=1

Y'know I always though Sue's power was turning invisible. Turns out, it's falling into an internal well of existential despair and then sobbing uncontrollably until someone tells her to go make a sandwich. :lol:

[MsMarvelDuckie]

Duckie: "It doesn't have to be a joke?!" No, no, yes it does. "I'm a living rubber band" really loses all the pathos once you say it out loud. They seriously overreached in trying to make that kind of character serious, pun fully intended. They had a billion dollar budget over two movies to demonstrate exactly why and how a guy like that could be "taken seriously", and it didn't work, nor should it have. Now, those movies put all their comedy in entirely the wrong *places*, and everything was seriously half-baked across the board anyways, but that's besides the point. They were definitely right in not taking the F4 concept too seriously, because just look at 'em.

Like I said, at least in Plas, they know what they have and use him accordingly. You know why Reed can't be (or shouldn't be) a leading man? Because unless your pen rolls under the couch, he's the most useless guy in the room. "He's smart". That's like every fourth Marvel character... "They have this and that AND a genius I.Q., coincidentally!" :lol: And he's boring! Again, Plas without powers would at least be a decent stand-up comedian. Every panel he's ever been in is a stitch. Reed? Without Powers he's Captain Exposition. :lol: "This character has a Genius I.Q." is code for, "They're there simply to deliver large blocks of plot to the audience in case they're six." All things being equal, I'll take the one with charisma over the stuffed shirt, all day long.

Next we're gonna be debating Aquaman vs. Namor, I can feel it. Sigh. I'm gonna cut you off right now, because Aquaman is a pathetic bottom-feeding loser but at least he doesn't have little fruity wings on his ankles and run around in a thong like nobody notices. If Reed is just a stuffy, non-fun hackjob version of Plastic man, then Namor is just... just... I mean HOW desperate do you have to be to rip off AQUAMAN? It's like an admission of defeat before you even get started. "Namor". Sweet Christmas.


And I would take Namor over Aquaman every day of the week. I mean, at the end of the day, they BOTH have similar powers (except for those wings you mentioned, which also allows Namor to fly, but that's neither here or there) AND they're both Kings of their respective versions of Atlantis, but I honestly like the Marvel one better. Not sure why, other than the simple fact that he's just as good and useful OUT of the water as he is IN it. I've never seen Aquaman be able to pull that off.

As for Reed, you see a stuffed shirt, but he's really more than that. He DOES have a sense of humor, though dry, and he actually has been the focus of quite a few of the major events in Marvel's history- such as the Registration Act and formation of the Illuminati I mentioned. And the Negative Zone, which now sports a permanent prison for super-powered people, that was also the brain-child of himself and Stark. And the list goes on. So, while he may seem "boring" on the surface, he's got a lot going for him BECAUSE he is a more serious character. Plastic Man may be good for a laugh, but not a story. That's the difference, IMHO. I'd venture to say the same is true with Aquaman, too. But that's just my two coppers.

[Commenter 42]

Hmm, I could maybe go for that.

PS: Sorry to derail the thread with off-topic stuff. Leo, see what you made me do?!

Um, how about no. No more "back on topic" crap. If this be the haters thread, than this be haters rules.

It goes where it goes.

In other words, no need to apologize. This is way more fun.

Aquaman? Totally depends on the era you yank him from. Namor has bitchy resting face and Dracula hair.

Anna Kendrick would make a good Namor.

[MsMarvelDuckie]

Heh, well, as long as Jester is okay with it....


My "take" FWIW, is that I really prefer substance over a cheap gimmick or laugh, Mel Brooks flicks notwithstanding. Which is why I like Reed (or, yes, Namor) over the DC "versions" of the same power-set. They just lend themselves to better stories. And of course, me being a writer (someday that will say "published writer", I swear) that's what I look for first. DOES the character make a good story? Some DC characters do. Those particular two- don't. If I had to pick ANY DC character to write, it'd be Bats, but mostly because I LOVE some of his villains. Or possibly Supes or Cat-Woman. One day, I might even do something on Harley or Ivy, but that's just my "bad-girl" envy coming out, I suppose. But I'd never touch Aquaman with a ten-foot-pole.

I guess a lot of it comes down to how I look at heroic characters in general. The ONE exception to the substance-over-schlock view is Deadpool. Because I LOVE his fourth-wall breaking, multiple personality, hyper-self-aware Spidey on caffeine and sugar rush mentality. And the fact that he KNOWS he's a fictional character is icing on the cake.

[Jester]

Next we're gonna be debating Aquaman vs. Namor, I can feel it. Sigh. I'm gonna cut you off right now, because Aquaman is a pathetic bottom-feeding loser but at least he doesn't have little fruity wings on his ankles and run around in a thong like nobody notices. If Reed is just a stuffy, non-fun hackjob version of Plastic man, then Namor is just... just... I mean HOW desperate do you have to be to rip off AQUAMAN? It's like an admission of defeat before you even get started. "Namor". Sweet Christmas.
But Leo, Aquaman is a rip-off of Namor. Namor dates back to WWII where he teamed up with Cap and the android Human Torch.

EDIT: Actually they BOTH precede the 2nd World War....but Namor still came first.

[MsMarvelDuckie]

Heh, good to know I'm not the only one who remembers that.

[Commenter 42]

I don't know, I think Aquaman was a joke, but in today's world, he could be interesting, given the state of the oceans. I like the idea of Aquaman as a perceived terrorist to land dwellers.

Namor still looks like a bitch. His bitch face is too bitchy. Ankle wings are dumb.

Seriously, wings on caps helmet, wings on Namors feet, what was with the wing thing? Somebody a big fan of Mercury or the FTD flower guy?

[Leo656]

Reed Richards didn't discover the Negative Zone. Jor-El discovered the Negative Zone, when he called it the f***ing Phantom Zone, like 80 f***ing years ago. :lol: Is every "brilliant" idea over at The Big M a re-colored version of someone else's work? Because while yes, "everything's been done", the longer we have this conversation, the more it becomes vividly clear, at least to me, that the "House Of Ideas" should have been called, "The House Of Other People's Ideas, With A New Hat. :P

And Aquaman literally once dropped a killer whale on Namor, so... yeah, Namor apparently invents whole new levels of suck just by existing. That is the single worst way to lose a fight aside from accidentally catching a fingernail to the cornea and calling for time out. "Namor". Namor is Atlantean for "Even Aquaman Thinks I Suck, And That Guy Has More Dead Sidekicks Than Batman". :lol:

Jester: Huh. WELL AT LEAST THEY HAD THE SENSE TO GIVE AQUAMAN SOME PANTS! :lol:

And I'm legitimately shocked when people get into the "deeper stories" angle when describing Marvel, because honestly, aside from guys like David and Byrne who consistently do great stuff no matter where they work, the actual "stories" have never been a strength of theirs. They're not as bad as Image as far as being "pin-ups with word balloons", and DC has a ton of sh*tty stories in the well also, but a lot of Marvel stuff isn't as deep as it presents itself to be. They've always been more gimmicky and big on "shocking twists" than storytelling. They did the whole "new costume/dead character" gimmick on the regular way before anyone, in place of "storytelling". The whole industry's like that now, but Marvel made it the standard.

I can never take that particular argument seriously when a great deal of their most memorable output hasn't exactly been because it was "good", but because something happened to "shake up" the status quo. I'd actually argue the "substance over style" argument is directly inverse, as relates to DC/Marvel. Marvel's always been about Great Art And Passable Stories. DC's always been Great Stories And Passable Art. It's a subtle distinction, but if you actually read enough of the most famous and recommended stuff from both, it's a clear one. Even as far as where industry talent goes; DC has traditionally been more of a writer's haven, while Marvel is where the top artists go (and eventually get huge egos and then try - and miserably fail- to actually write the books themselves). Stuff's changed more recently - because DC decided to turn themselves into a piss-poor version of Marvel, which doesn't work, because everything about them is different except that they both publish super-heroes. Nothing else about them is the same, and the worst thing either could do is try to be explicitly more like the other. It just doesn't work, as we're seeing.

So... yeah, anyway, the writing... I don't get that one at all. The evidence doesn't follow the argument.

Um, how about no. No more "back on topic" crap. If this be the haters thread, than this be haters rules.

It goes where it goes.

In other words, no need to apologize. This is way more fun.
https://espngrantland.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/grant_e_letsrock_64011.jpg?w=1024

[Commenter 42]

I can't say that I've read enough of either to comment fully, but Marvels characters feel way more human. DC is way to uptight.

And funny as the Sue Storm stuff is, there are Supes strips that absolutely make Kal into a duper dick. I think there's a website devoted to it...

And let's be real everyone ripped from everyone. They were even the same company at one point. It isn't really Pepsi and Coke.

Speaking of, did Pepsi die?

[Jester]

I can't say that I've read enough of either to comment fully, but Marvels characters feel way more human. DC is way to uptight.

And funny as the Sue Storm stuff is, there are Supes strips that absolutely make Kal into a duper dick. I think there's a website devoted to it...
There is....
www.superdickery.com

EDIT...wow...this site has sure changed...

[Leo656]

Oh yes, everything Superman until 1986 was horrific, there's just no way around it. :lol: Everything before Byrne was just sketchings and finger paints, far as I'm concerned. He wasn't really "born" on the page until the "Man of Steel" mini-series in 1986; that was the first "real" Superman story, and the first 50 years was just practice and nobody should take it for more than a laugh. And to this day, only Byrne, Jurgens, Ordway, Wolfman, Stern, and Johns (and Morrison, to a lesser degree) have ever truly "understood" the character or written him properly. Only 6 or 7 people in 80 years, and all of them within the last 30, have ever written a good Superman story. And yet, those are the ones whose work is constantly being overwritten and retconned to make it "hipper" and "more modern", and then they complain that the character is hard to get into. If they'd have basically made it a rule in 1993 that "Only Dan Jurgens, forever, is allowed to write Superman," then Superman would be the most popular character in the universe. They completely f*ck themselves by over-thinking things that seriously shouldn't be this complicated. Let the guys who know how to write the character, actually write the character. Too easy. They'd rather do as they are now, and brag about how a guy who's never written a Superman story in his life, is the guy writing the book and setting the status quo. By giving him the Batcycle and painting it blue. :roll:

And the thing is... I don't think you can truly have "more human" or "more realistic" super-heroes. The concept, so to speak, doesn't fly. The characters and stories are equally fantastical regardless of publisher; one just pretends to take things a little more seriously by... using real-world cities, and that's about it. One company focuses slightly more on the more mundane while the other says, plainly, "These are modern retellings of classic myth. These are fables and Biblical allegories and fairy tales, and it's all inherently fantastic and wondrous and fun." I don't... I don't see why you'd WANT to make anything "grounded" or "realistic", with that kind of thing at your fingertips. I get "slice of life", but that's not at ALL what super-heroes are for, they're a wish-fulfillment power fantasy. That doesn't mean it can't be deep, that doesn't mean you can't have pathos, but I think you lose a lot of the magic when you try and make the characters too "human", or the circumstances too "realistic". By definition, they are Not.

It's like painting a portrait with a wall brush. Technically, you can do it, and you're technically still in the same skill set, but that's not what it's for at all, and the results are usually kind of laughable.

[Commenter 42]

Ahhh, so, Namor and Sue Storm had a thing?
So dumb dumb was hot for high brows?

Interesting...

[Leo656]

Ahhh, so, Namor and Sue Storm had a thing?
So dumb dumb was hot for high brows?

Interesting...

Marvel's like Fleetwood Mac. Everybody banged everybody, at one point. Pretty sure Reed and Victor hooked up at summer camp. That's why Victor wears the mask - his "scars" are his inner homosexuality, which he refuses to face - and why he's so pissed off at Reed, for causing these conflicting feelings in the first place. He over-compensates and proves his "manliness" by taking over a country, then trying to take over the world. But he can't have Reed, and it kills him.

True story. Maybe.

[Commenter 42]

Welllllllllllll.......

I agree with Superman. I agree with Wonder woman. The other god like characters.
Batman? Mmmm, no. Yeah, I like that he is this pinnacle of human strength, and an idealized yadda yadda....but he is human. When he's too smart, too clever, too prepared....yawn snooze, bye bye.
And the Robin thing is a problem. Either he's a pedo or he's not. Make a choice.
I think he's better alone. Robins get messy.

Green Lantern? Again, he should be all too human. He can't handle the power...he goes loopy.
I hate the CW flash. Like hate boner 5000. It feels like the entire cast is part of a cult, and the first person to stop over emoting drinks the poison. Ugh.


But most of all, DC needs to have more fun with itself. It's too grim.
DC could use a little tequila.

Marvel is great, but the reboot, ultimate, redesign, death/birth/ gender swap....
Chill folks.....


EDIT
I think I get it now, Namor is an ocean rockstar, the weirdo badguy that woman can't get enough of, and guys don't like (or really like).
He's like Mic Jagger or David Bowie...

So he is a prick.

Yeah, Aquaman's not cool like that, but I still prefer him. Don't be sad Arthur!
http://mydisguises.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/sad-superheroes-4.jpg

[MsMarvelDuckie]

I take it you've never read Spider-Man: Blue, or Death of Kraven? Wolverine: Origin? House of M? The Phoenix/Dark Phoenix Saga or Phoenix: Endsong/Warsong? 1602? ASM: Soul of the Hunter, or ASM 9-11? These are just a few of my personal favorites, mind, but there are so many more. They DO have some truly great writing (or at least used to back when I was still reading them regularly) just like DC does. Heck, I'll even give you that Aquaman/Namor face-off, and go you one better- Supes vs. Hulk, and I'm gonna let you guess who won THAT fight. Hint: He's not green.... I even thought it was a pretty definitive take on how that would go. Bendis, when he's good, is REALLY good. So are JM Strazynski, Millar, and DeMatteis. Slot is hit or miss, but he's better than some of the other hacks they've had on ASM. I'd mention others, but those are the first names that come to mind.

Funny thing, I've read some of the "recommended" stories from BOTH houses, but honestly, the ones I prefer aren't the ones that usually come to mind for most people. See my above list for examples. Most of those have NOTHING to do with big shake-up events. (Although the phoenix books might qualify, if only because her story is such a HUGE part of the X-Men's history.) In fact, I'm more about the stories that explore the characters themselves, Blue and Soul of the Hunter being two of the best examples. I loved the Revelations arc in Spidey (Aunt May finally learns his secret), the entire Civil War storyline including Front Line, but that was mostly due to Bendis's great weaving of the plot with the stories of all the characters involved.

They DO have some really original ideas, though parallel or alternate dimensions is NOT new by any means to either DC or Marvel. And the Phantom Zone is NOT the same thing, FYI. The Negative Zone is actually its own complete universe in itself, with different rules and physics, multiple native races and species, etc. AFAIK, the Phantom Zone is little more than a pocket in space that is pretty much empty. Limbo, basically.

[Leo656]

42: DC's gotten too grim *recently*. The late-80s through about 1995 were okay. Then they started ripping off Marvel and Image until about 2002 and that was pretty awful. Then they started going "classic" and bringing a lot of fun older stuff back into the books for a few years, and the "back to basics" approach really worked from a story perspective, but not entirely from a sales perspective. So they panicked again and went back to trying to be "Marvel-Lite", and it's awful.

DC needs to just embrace what they do differently/better - i.e., "Super-Heroes as Super-Heroes, not drama or social commentary" - and run with that. That's all they've ever needed to do. Obviously they do all these shake-ups because it's a business and their books don't sell as well, but numbers don't tell the whole story. DC's always had a smaller but more committed, long-term readership that sticks around, while Marvel has a larger group of fans at any one time but a lot of them drift in and out often. Every five years, you have a whole new audience reading their stuff. Part of why their sales are always higher is because they've had a MUCH bigger presence in the public eye through various other media since the 80s. Until recently, they've always had about 3 or 4 cartoon shows to any one DC show on the air at any given time. They had who knows how many more toys in the 90s, when the only DC toys for about 5 years were for the Batman cartoons. And presently, they release movies at a 10-to-1 clip. They just have a larger collective presence and it's no surprise the sales of the books follows that.

Meanwhile, until recently, DC's fans were always more loyal and content. They were more consistently happy with what they'd been given over the years; no longer, and a lot of them left. And a lot of the "new readers" who were supposed to replace them that the New 52 stunt attracted (Marvel fans who never liked DC in the first place, until their books became Just like Marvel's Stuff) already took a walk, so trying to entice them into hopping the fence was a total misfire. People like what they like. "Look, our guys have seams on their costumes and 5 O'clock shadow now, too! Just like those other guys! We're modern! We're hip! We make jokes about how we don't wear capes! Come read our books instead!" just isn't going to work.

They needed to leave well enough alone, focus on being "the super-hero comics that aren't 'afraid' to be that", and keep slowly winning over lapsed long-time fans, which is what they were doing from 2003-2010. "Not fast enough", apparently. "Time for the panic button! Let's just ruin EVERYTHING." :roll: They need to STOP living and dying by how their books sell, basically, because print is dying and they'd do better by continuing to establish their characters - the REAL versions that people REMEMBER - across all media. "Our books don't sell because Marvel's are more hip and edgy!" is misreading the problem. Your books don't sell because they're $4, and you don't have 20 movies a year to remind people that these characters are cool and worth paying attention to in other formats, the way Marvel has. Could DC ever regain more than 50% of the comics market? Yes, absolutely. In less than 20 years if they made every right decision starting tomorrow? No. 25? Maybe. IF.

Shifting gears as abruptly as they have, to cater to an audience that never liked them in the first place and has shown they will NOT be around long-term, in order to increase their presence in a market that is rapidly becoming less and less important... it's questionable. Very, very questionable. Sigh.

And I'm not gonna dignify that Robin thing. That whole thing says way more about the people who choose to project than it does about the material, yo. You can read it how you want, but man... :lol:

Because yeah, Robin represents the child in Bruce that died when his parents died, and he's an essential and important check in Bruce's morality system. He's his conscience. Every time there's no Robin, he starts to become a violent psychopath. Every time. It's been clearly established for decades that Robin is probably the biggest reason Bruce doesn't snap and start killing people. It's a little twisted to take that and make it "dirty". I mean, sure, it's an easy joke, but it's also just a "cute" way to say, "Ehhh, I don't like Batman having a sidekick, and besides, (justifying reasons)."

And the Phantom Zone is NOT the same thing, FYI. The Negative Zone is actually its own complete universe in itself, with different rules and physics, multiple native races and species, etc. AFAIK, the Phantom Zone is little more than a pocket in space that is pretty much empty. Limbo, basically.
It's been either, depending. It's often been hinted that it's less "limbo" and more of a void between dimensions, which opens up all kinds of possibilities. It's more limbo than it is a place, but it also leads to places. It's complicated. :lol: I was just doing shtick.

[MsMarvelDuckie]

Welllllllllllll.......

I agree with Superman. I agree with Wonder woman. The other god like characters.
Batman? Mmmm, no. Yeah, I like that he is this pinnacle of human strength, and an idealized yadda yadda....but he is human. When he's too smart, too clever, too prepared....yawn snooze, bye bye.
And the Robin thing is a problem. Either he's a pedo or he's not. Make a choice.
I think he's better alone. Robins get messy.

Green Lantern? Again, he should be all too human. He can't handle the power...he goes loopy.
I hate the CW flash. Like hate boner 5000. It feels like the entire cast is part of a cult, and the first person to stop over emoting drinks the poison. Ugh.


But most of all, DC needs to have more fun with itself. It's too grim.
DC could use a little tequila.

Marvel is great, but the reboot, ultimate, redesign, death/birth/ gender swap....
Chill folks.....


EDIT
I think I get it now, Namor is an ocean rockstar, the weirdo badguy that woman can't get enough of, and guys don't like (or really like).
He's like Mic Jagger or David Bowie...

So he is a prick.

Yeah, Aquaman's not cool like that, but I still prefer him. Don't be sad Arthur!
http://mydisguises.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/sad-superheroes-4.jpg


Ohhhh, you SOOO get it! Which is why I like them over DC, honestly. Also: Namor isn't even a "bad guy". "Bad boy" maybe, but only when he's pining over Sue. Who has mild crush on him, at best. The only REAL "playboys" in the MU are Tony Stark and Johnny Storm, who it seems like to compare and trade numbers in their little black books.... Other than that, the only ones I can think of who like to erm, "bang everyone" would be (possibly) Iceman, Wonder Man, Tigra, Hellcat, and maybe Dazzler. And then there's Deadpool with his thing for Bea Arthur. Don't ask....

[Commenter 42]

I don't think DC knows who they are.

Growing up, DC was Coke, Marvel was Pepsi. DC was the original, Marvel; derivative.

Somewhere along the way, they (DC) became boring. So I strayed. Spidey was fun. Hulk was angry...Marvel was exciting.

Then, I wanted to go back to DC, catch up with dad, mom, and the other adults. I wanted the best of both!
But they were all replaced with pod people, they looked different, smelled different, and frankly made me uncomfortable.

Marvel was a little more dramatic than I'd liked, but given a choice...at least they had fun.

I think that sums it up.

[Jester]

To be fair, the angst isn't really what I like about Marvel. I like characters like Spider-man and the X-men because they seem like more well rounded characters. Supes is great for what he is, but I've always had issues with his massive and often adaptive power set. Although occasionally you get things like:
gQabrSpKcJw
which sum Superman up pretty well. Ironically he's the living embodiment of ole Uncle Ben's mantra. He's got all the powers of a god, wrapped up in a conservative small town American up-bringing using that power for the greater good....but sometimes it's more interesting to see the power as a double edged sword. That despite the power, he still has issues that being able to punch a hole in a mountain can't solve.

I like Green Lantern (especially John Stewart, mostly because of the JLU cartoon...to be fair my Super Hero Street Cred is mainly reliant on 90's TV.) because he's unique and dig Batman because he's freakin' Batman, but a lot of the other DC heroes seem TOO powerful....especially Superman. I have learned to try and see Clark more than Kal, because Clark is who he really is, a sweet-natured farm boy....who just so happens to be faster than a speeding bullet.

[MsMarvelDuckie]

And I'm not gonna dignify that Robin thing. That whole thing says way more about the people who choose to project than it does about the material, yo. You can read it how you want, but man... :lol:

It's been either, depending. It's often been hinted that it's less "limbo" and more of a void between dimensions, which opens up all kinds of possibilities. It's more limbo than it is a place, but it also leads to places. It's complicated. :lol: I was just doing shtick.


I've always wondered about Robin, myself, actually. I dunno, there's just something a little "off" about Bats' penchant for having really YOUNG sidekicks....


And that was sort of my point about the Phantom Zone. It's BETWEEN dimensions, while the Neg Zone IS a dimension. So, kinda' a different ball-game there. I love the fact that they built a prison there for all the creeps who just can't seem to stay locked up on Earth, though. Forget Rykers or The Raft! Lock those suckers in cells that are MADE just for their power-set!!

Jester: I like the way you think. That is exactly why I like them, too. And we seem to have similar taste in heroes.

[Jester]

And that was sort of my point about the Phantom Zone. It's BETWEEN dimensions, while the Neg Zone IS a dimension. So, kinda' a different ball-game there. I love the fact that they built a prison there for all the creeps who just can't seem to stay locked up on Earth, though. Forget Rykers or The Raft! Lock those suckers in cells that are MADE just for their power-set!!

Hate to be "That Guy" but that's another similarity between the "Zones": Using them as a super-villain (or Meta Human for you DC fans) prison.


Now KNEEL BEFORE ZOD!!!!

[MsMarvelDuckie]

Except that the Neg Zone prison isn't JUST for villains, though. They have cells for literally EVERYONE, should they ever need them. Even Cap. Yes, that's right. It was built shortly after the Registration Act got enacted, so they had to basically create cells for anyone who wouldn't register. A lot of the good guys ended up in there for varying lengths of time. And they even had special darts made to nullify powers on some individuals PERMANENTLY, if need be. It was a big deal. Still is, AFAIK. Don't know who is currently considered a "permanent resident", but I'm sure there are more than a few heroes (and villains, of course) still sitting in there gathering cobwebs. They even limit activities of some supers, depending on their power or skill sets. For example, techies have ZERO access to anything that can be mechanized or electronic. Those with strength or weapon-use can't even get something as simple as a spoon without being heavily handicapped.

[Leo656]

Again: Byrne. Jurgens. Wolfman. Ordway. Stern. Johns. Morrison. Even Loeb.

You don't NEED anything else to "get" the character, of Superman, and in fact people probably should NOT read anyone else's version of Superman, as those are the only ones who have EVER written him correctly. For $20 worth of trades, everyone on the planet could "get into" Superman, and they'd realize why all those "over-powered/unrelatable" arguments are nonsense coming from people who've never read the material, or at least the Correct material. Because he IS the greatest fictional character ever written, it's just that it takes half a genius to make it work properly and not campy and most comic writers are f*cking hacks and can't do it.

Only a f*cking comic book writer can take a guy, where under "Powers" it says, "ALL Of Them", and make it boring. :roll: It takes... something, I tell ya. Not "talent"... but something.

But yeah, the cartoons were good, too. But again, they mostly ripped off the above listed writers, and that's what made them good. People act like those cartoons were some new, fancy idea, when in the Superman cartoon's case they literally just ripped off everything Byrne, Jurgens, and Wolfman did from 86-89 and streamlined it. "I couldn't get into the books but I like the cartoons..." when the cartoons WERE the comics? Again, this is why people need to be pointed in the right direction, sometimes, because clearly those people were reading the wrong books. Which, again, is easy to do. 90% of writers Can NOT Write Superman and their stories are awful. The other 10% only wrote the best super-hero fiction ever put to page, that's all.

So yeah, if you're truly interested, there's the homework.
--------------------
I still say a ton of Marvel fans are projecting. Their stories are NOT more realistic or grounded. You just prefer that they say so. Which, if it makes you feel better, fine. But when one of the Avengers is a literal GOD, the argument doesn't hold water, I'm sorry. There are in fact TWICE as many aliens, freaks, experiments gone awry, gods, demons, wizards, and any number of other batsh*t crazy things in Marvel as there is in DC, easily, because Marvel has about a billion more characters. Do you even read these things? :lol: C'mon. This is just getting silly, now.

You know what it really is? An insecurity on the part of the reader. "Super-heroes are kiddie stuff", says convention, so Marvel has to appear "more sophisticated" in some form, even though it's essentially the same stuff with a few more shades of gray. That's literally it. In DC, there's Good and Evil. Marvel, guys switch sides a lot, and more characters get killed off temporarily. Otherwise, it's all EXACTLY the same. CALLING it "grounded" or "realistic" doesn't MAKE it that. It's just that people want to be assured, "No, it's okay that you're a grown-up and you read about guys in tights who fart laser beams. These are the GROWN-UP comics, not that kiddie stuff with guys in capes. See? Totally different, so much more grounded and Real."

Except it's not. At all. :lol:
----------------------------------
To that end, it has, again, nothing to do with DC's characters being over-powered. I mean Scarlet Witch once said "No More Mutants" out loud and changed the entire company's direction for the next few years, so yeah, let's not go there. :lol: Again, it's a difference of approach. Super-heroes ARE the modern-day Titans and Gods of myth, with a modern coat of paint. DC embraces it, Marvel tries to ground it, but they're ALL equally fantastical, unrealistic, and "over-powered", if we want to play that game. Again, it's not a legitimate argument, it's a manufactured one people use to justify their preference, and further, it was spoon-fed to them decades ago by the editors of the very books they prefer to read. A little actual objectivity squashes the entire thing. Neither company's characters are "over-powered" or "too inhuman" or anything like that. People just prefer MTV or VH1 and that's really all it is: A matter of style and presentation.

Wow, is THAT a dated reference. :lol: Would'a made more sense in 1999 when MTV and VH1 both played music videos. :lol: But you get what I mean. Two companies doing essentailly the same thing but dressing it up a little differently. I, personally, have always been annoyed that Marvel seems ashamed that they do super-hero books, like they're so desperate to be taken seriously. But that's me. It's fantasy, I think grounding the characters cheapens it and limits the storytelling.

[Commenter 42]

I'll cop to that being an easy joke, one people make over and over again. But there's something weird about exposing a young kid to violence every night, and putting him in harms way, every night. And spending most of your time with him, again, every night. On top of of it all, it's a poor kid, and he's a rich man.

The power balance is, uncomfortable.

BUT....his own son, from Talia, that I could dig.
The kid was just as warped as Bruce, maybe more so. I'd say a black mirror is better than an innocent touchstone to balance the bat.

Don't confuse what my point is. I'm saying. Current DC, is gross. I don't like the current stuff.

I love the Superman who was so powerful, he had no limits. That's my Superman, not a guy learning to control his powers. Not a guy growing into The S. Weak, sauce. ******. Not cool.

Superman is confident and calm. He's a super MAN, not a boy.

[Powder]

So on the topic of venting/whining why the hell do we have 3+ pages full of non-TMNT discussion?

[Leo656]

You're acting like we don't know Bruce Wayne is insane. To him, seeing a kid's parents get killed, then taking him in and making him a weapon as a form of therapy makes perfect sense. Bruce Wayne is a lunatic. :lol:

I'll admit it works better thematically than it does *literally*. But Robin is, quite literally and symbolically, the last piece of Bruce Wayne's innocence. His "Jiminy Cricket", so to speak. Also, there's the whole "I can make sure this kid doesn't grow up all f*cked up like me" angle, although that gets a little murky when you take the kid and have him basically do everything you do as if it isn't crazy. :lol:

But then you get the whole angle where Robin, be it Dick or Tim, grows up into a completely different person than Bruce, and says, "While I want to help people, I'm less interested in perpetuating the cycle of violence, we're completely different kinds of people and I think you need some therapy." And that's a rather positive message about how people can start from the exact same beginnings in life and NOT always give in to darkness and despair, and I think that's a positive and important message. People often forget that Batman's story is ultimately SUPPOSED to be an uplifting one, about someone who skirts the edge of the abyss but doesn't fall in. They get so wrapped up in how "dark" and "cool" and "twisted" everything is that they forget it's supposed to be about Hope. Seeing Batman's adopted son grow up and say, "I'm grateful for what you've done for me, but I don't want to BE you" is really important and powerful. I don't think leaving it out adds anything to the myth, I think it takes away from it. Then it's just one man's lonely, futile struggle, until he dies. Nobody learns anything, nobody grows, nobody changes, and nothing is gained. No message, just a hopeless abyss of violence and despair.

I know some people THINK that's the Batman story, but it's not. Which is why Robin needs to be in there. Again, taken literally? It's a tough sell. Which goes back to how super-heroes should probably be more about symbolism and themes and not taken directly literally or realistically in the first place. NONE of it works if you stare at it.

I mean, if you're into "deconstruction", just read "The Boys". There you'll get a never-ending look at super-heroes done "real", why that's an interesting concept but not a "good" approach to a "real" super-hero book, and why it gets old quickly. I mean it's like every page just smacks you with "Why do you even read super-heroes? They're stupid!" over and over and OVER until you just don't want to read comics anymore, period. I mean, I liked it, it's a great book, but holy SH*T is it depressing, and a good reminder of why we shouldn't take this stuff quite so literally. It all falls apart rather quickly when you do. And that's no fun.

So on the topic of venting/whining why the hell do we have 3+ pages full of non-TMNT discussion?
Just be grateful. The less said about the upcoming abortion, the better. I'd rather discuss soybean futures than that f***ing movie. Anal lint. Adult circumcision. The mating habits of the Tsetse fly. ANYTHING but that goddamn movie.

[Jester]

Also...nothing new to gripe about. And it "keeps us in our place" or some malarkey....and I could clean house, but the discussion is fun.

[Leo656]

Exactly. Anyone who actually cares in any "good" way about the movie already exists in a Hell of their own making. :lol: The rest of us may as well goof around.

[Commenter 42]

look, I can totally see you point, IF we assume batman is about hope and redemption.

But given what we know, it can't be. It's a tradgedy. It's self inflicted misery. It's Christianity. It's hairshirt psychosis and repeated flaggulation. That **** don't fix easy. He is broken, and can not be repaired. Humpty-dumpty man.

Batman is tragedy. If he wasn't it wouldn't make sense that his rival, his nemesis is the Joker. His other is Comedy.

His purity, if that's who Robin is, abandons him. He doesn't save him. Batman does not learn. He can't help but be a tragic character.

[MsMarvelDuckie]

I still say a ton of Marvel fans are projecting. Their stories are NOT more realistic or grounded. You just prefer that they say so. Which, if it makes you feel better, fine. But when one of the Avengers is a literal GOD, the argument doesn't hold water, I'm sorry. There are in fact TWICE as many aliens, freaks, experiments gone awry, gods, demons, wizards, and any number of other batsh*t crazy things in Marvel as there is in DC, easily, because Marvel has about a billion more characters. Do you even read these things? :lol: C'mon. This is just getting silly, now.

You know what it really is? An insecurity on the part of the reader. "Super-heroes are kiddie stuff", says convention, so Marvel has to appear "more sophisticated" in some form, even though it's essentially the same stuff with a few more shades of gray. That's literally it. In DC, there's Good and Evil. Marvel, guys switch sides a lot, and more characters get killed off temporarily. Otherwise, it's all EXACTLY the same. CALLING it "grounded" or "realistic" doesn't MAKE it that. It's just that people want to be assured, "No, it's okay that you're a grown-up and you read about guys in tights who fart laser beams. These are the GROWN-UP comics, not that kiddie stuff with guys in capes. See? Totally different, so much more grounded and Real."

Except it's not. At all. :lol:
----------------------------------
To that end, it has, again, nothing to do with DC's characters being over-powered. I mean Scarlet Witch once said "No More Mutants" out loud and changed the entire company's direction for the next few years, so yeah, let's not go there. :lol: Again, it's a difference of approach. Super-heroes ARE the modern-day Titans and Gods of myth, with a modern coat of paint. DC embraces it, Marvel tries to ground it, but they're ALL equally fantastical, unrealistic, and "over-powered", if we want to play that game. Again, it's not a legitimate argument, it's a manufactured one people use to justify their preference, and further, it was spoon-fed to them decades ago by the editors of the very books they prefer to read. A little actual objectivity squashes the entire thing. Neither company's characters are "over-powered" or "too inhuman" or anything like that. People just prefer MTV or VH1 and that's really all it is: A matter of style and presentation.



I just have to disagree. What makes them more "grounded" is that they explore the HUMAN side of the characters foremost; they go from the angle of what makes them tick as characters, rather than just using them as some epic mythos. YES, there are a few literal gods (and DC has that too, IIRC) but they are very few. Most of the truly popular characters aren't even that powerful, like Stark, Cap, Spidey, and Black Cat, to name a few. You have entire groups like the FF who are collectively LESS powerful than say, Thor. But they manage to do just as much. It's that inner humanity side that they tend to go in from, rather than the powers that make them a "hero". I just prefer that approach. I like to know the person BEHIND the mask, more than what villain they're fighting this week. That's the difference.

And although they DO have butt-loads of characters, most of those are low-tier and/or obscure ones that don't really get a lot of attention, but are really cool when they do. Arana, Cloak and Dagger, Tigra, and Hawkeye, to name a few. And then there's the name thing. problem is, Marvel sometimes SEEMS like it has more characters than it really does, because some of them have changed their names multiple times, or more than one person has used the same name. Spidey himself has used four separate aliases besides his "regular" one. Ant-Man is another. And Captain/Ms. Marvel/Binary. There are several that have done this, so it can get confusing at times, and seem like there are more characters running around at a given time than there really are.

I don't see Marvel being "ashamed" of writing superheroes at all. In fact, just the opposite. They proudly proclaim their heroic status with guys like Cap and Spidey, and even the anti-heroes like Wolvie or Hulk, they just don't use them strictly as "villain-of-the-week" smack-down artists. They like to showcase WHY they are heroes, rather than just WHO they are fighting this issue, in terms of story. Or to put it another way, most of the stories are more personal. Sure they may be saving the world, but they always have some personal issue at stake, too. I like that, because it makes me feel more invested in the characters themselves.

Scarlet Witch- the thing is, that plot was tied to something much bigger, in which the entire WORLD was changed (albeit for a short time) to suit what SHE felt was the "perfect world" for the greatest majority. She did it to "please daddy" by putting their family in charge of a mutant-run world, and to stop all the fighting. And it worked- a little TOO well. Until a few people remembered what the world HAD been before she tinkered with reality on an epic scale, and rebelled to force things back the way they were SUPPOSED to be- even though it meant that many of their lives would change for the worse because of things going "back" to what it was before.

Spidey was a big part of that- imagine a world where he was known and LOVED as his Spider-self, married to Gwen, with two kids, and had a successful company. And then he suddenly "wakes up" to the true "reality". Along with Wolverine, Scott Summers, and several others. They went in gunning for Witchy, and would have killed her, if not for the intervention of Dr. Strange. So that whole story, after her breakdown that destroyed the Avengers team, was a MAJOR turning point in the MU, and her "no more mutants" afterward was her solution to the problem once she realized that no matter how much she tried to "fix" reality to make everyone happy (or at least MOST everyone) it would never work, and especially her father, so she did what she thought would make the mutant-dominance issue moot- by ensuring there would BE no more mutants to gain control. Now imagine how that hit Magneto and Xavier with their feud..... One of the reasons I love that story so much is because it explored how the lives of everyone involved were changed for the better, and yet they STILL preferred the truth. Even Spidey, knowing what happened to Gwen, and that he'd be hated, poor, and.... Well, it was just really good storytelling on every level, because it was more than just a gimmick, it was digging into what made the characters who they were and how they would change in that "perfect world".

look, I can totally see you point, IF we assume batman is about hope and redemption.

But given what we know, it can't be. It's a tradgedy. It's self inflicted misery. It's Christianity. It's hairshirt psychosis and repeated flaggulation. That **** don't fix easy. He is broken, and can not be repaired. Humpty-dumpty man.

Batman is tragedy. If he wasn't it wouldn't make sense that his rival, his nemesis is the Joker. His other is Comedy.

His purity, if that's who Robin is, abandons him. He doesn't save him. Batman does not learn. He can't help but be a tragic character.


Absolutely. This is why I've always liked Joker more than Bats himself, in fact. It's BECAUSE of that fact, that Joker is such a great villain. They made it pretty obvious in Dark Knight Returns. They need each other, because neither is anything without the other. Even after years and years....

[Leo656]

42: OOOOOR, it's not JUST about One Guy, since it's NEVER been about One Guy, it's about how this One Guy affects everyone around him, inspires them in different ways to their own heroism, they each take something away and learn from him, and ultimately, through his struggle, the world becomes a better place, even by some small margin. It's about how one person can, through others, change the world. He's never, ever worked in a vacuum, for more than like, a few issues.

Past the first five minutes of the comic's existence, Batman has NEVER been about One Man's Struggle. It's been about what he sacrificed of himself to be a hero, and in turn inspires others to be heroic. He's the most tragic character in his own story, YES, but the story isn't JUST about him. It's also about Gordon, Alfred, Barbara, Dick, Jason, Tim, Selina, and more... and it always has been.

Big picture. You're focusing too much on the narrow view. To say the story is just about this guy and his futile struggle, you're ignoring the other 500 characters in the book, all of whom DO grow and learn and become better people/heroes directly because of their relationship with Batman. HIS story is tragic, in that he can't ever really be happy, but that's not how it works for the rest of the cast, most of whom are both inspired by his example while meanwhile saying, "Yeah, too dark for me, but thanks." "Not everyone HAS to walk in darkness", is the message of the myth. That not everyone has to, but some CHOOSE to so that others DON'T have to.
------------------
Duckie: Again, "human" super-heroes. Why? It's fantasy. People can like it, but again, I Do Not See the appeal. It's like having a Ferrari and only doing the speed limit. It's just a spoonful of sugar to help the pill go down, that grown-ups are reading silly cape-and-tights fiction, as if there's something wrong with that. You have guys who turn green and punch buildings over when they get angry. You have people who turn invisible and have metal skeletons and robots with human brains... and people actually want to see these characters paint the house or go to the bank or make small talk with the neighbors.

Makes no sense. None. Plus, tons of that same "slice of life" stuff is IN a ton of DC's books if people actually bothered to READ them. Like when Clark would shred his cape in a fight and stop off at the farm to get a freshly-sewn one from Ma, and a slice of pie, then go help Pa fix a fence. You like that kinda thing? It's all over the Superman books, the good ones, anyways. People don't even look for "solutions" or examples, they just talk about things they Don't Like. Well, the stuff people claim Isn't There totally Is... if you read it. Which is frustrating. Because then it just becomes people grasping at straws to back up "I Prefer".
-------------------
And Dark Knight Returns was a piece of sh*t, please don't bring it up. Nobody who claims that book had anything good about it knows anything about Batman and really shouldn't over-step. That is the number 1 Poser Fan Book ever written. It's trash. Not to be elitist or an asshole. But the quickest way to spot someone who has NEVER read any Batman stuff, is to spot the person saying they enjoy Miller's Batman, especially DKR. That's about as nice as I can put it.

This whole "romantic" thing with Joker and Batman was tacked on by bored, lazy writers 60 years into it as a way to be "edgy". It's stupid. It doesn't work. It makes Batman directly responsible for every single person the Joker ever has or will kill. It undoes the entire mythology. Because we CAN'T just have the Joker be A Guy, a random criminal who went crackers after he had a few too many bad days in a row. Everything has to be CONNECTED and "two sides of a coin and blah blah blah," even when it completely Does Not Work. For 60 years, the Joker was motivated by greed, and a sociopathic need to witness human suffering. Aside from the Comics Code years, he killed people because they had things he wanted, or because he was bored, and even under the Code, he was a criminal for both Fun and Profit and still something of an anarchist. Simple. "NO! He has a psycho-sexual crush on Batman!" Oh, that's... that's MUCH f*cking better. :roll: It's the sh*ts, is what it is.

You know how that nonsense started? Honestly? They used to use the Joker very sparingly, once every 5 years or so, and it was BIG. Then, they got lazy and greedy, since books with Joker on the cover sold more, and they had to keep justifying bringing him back, and thus had to invent increasingly asinine reasons why he HAD to always escape and come back and why Batman couldn't just lock him up or kill him. So they started pushing this whole "dans macabre" gimmick where they're practically doomed lovers. Just f*cking keep the guy off-screen for a few years so that when he comes back, the story's a Big Deal by itself. Nope, makes too much sense, that does. They have to go all "Top Gun" even though it makes no f*cking sense and betrays the history of both characters in some pretty serious ways.

Again, not to be mean, but when people start cherry picking Miller in discussing Batman, it's... it's shorthand for "I Don't Know Anything About Batman", basically. Miller's Batman is NOT Batman. It's just Miller writing the same stupid sh*t he always writes, in a Batman costume. Frank Miller is f*cking AWFUL.
----------------

I'm also a little concerned by how often people seem to be... missing things, when they read comics. Granted, I'm pretty unhealthy, insofar as how many I have and read. :lol: But I do notice a lot of people - not just here, mind you - who consistently see things that aren't there in the material while also missing things that are. Like when Morrison had to explain "Final Crisis" to the rubes who didn't get it, and I'm like "HOW did you not know that's exactly what he was saying?" And even when it was spelled out, people were like, "Well, I think it was..." After the guy who wrote the book said "Thanks, but no, good guess, but I *did* have something specific I was saying and you missed it," people fought him on it. Just as an example. It's just... I'm not sure people really "read" these things, anymore. :ohwell: Or they just get so married to their own interpretation they can't see what's on the page. Either or, I guess.

[Commenter 42]

You win this round because it's 7:45 am.

To be concluded.....

Dunh Dunh Dunhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.....

[Foombamaroom]

I feel it's come down to the stereotypes that DC is dark and gritty, while Marvel is humorous. Well, this is completely false on both parts. DC CAN be very funny, take Green Arrow, Flash, and Green Lantern for example, and Marvel can be very, VERY DARK (Death of Gwen Stacey, all of Daredevil's love interests.). The movies? I find Marvel movies much better than DC movies because DC is trying to go hyperrealistic, and there's literally no humor. Humor is a big part of realism, and it's an every-day occurrence. But in terms of the comics, DC has a much better balance than they do with the movies.

The thing that I like about Marvel's characters is that they get pushed to their absolute limits, but in reasonable ways. I feel like DC's characters get pushed too far, too unrealistically at times, and it's just a little overboard. I mean, think of when Superman beat "Doomsday" to death when it was actually Lois Lane. That was kind of just... weird for me.

To use a character as one who gets pushed to their limits, Spider-Man's my favorite superhero ever because he loses and he continues to pick himself back up. He's not all powerful and all knowing and wins every fight, he's just a kid. He kind of gives me more inspiration to keep going out of all of the comic book characters. Batman lost his parents and kept going, which is good inspiration, but the moral behind his comics is that he's dark, gritty, and doing things someone else couldn't do. Spider-Man does things that no one could do, but he loses. The whole moral of Spider-Man is to pick yourself back up, despite how hard you fall.

I think Marvel and DC should focus less on their stereotypes, and more about their morals. I find the heroes with so many powers so unrelatable, but if they have a good moral to them that we can all follow or relate to one way or another, then I like them a lot.

However, in defense of DC, one of the things I like about them is their villains. They're overrated as ****, but I think their minor rogues are actually quite interesting.

[Metalhead 2.0]

42: OOOOOR, it's not JUST about One Guy, since it's NEVER been about One Guy, it's about how this One Guy affects everyone around him, inspires them in different ways to their own heroism, they each take something away and learn from him, and ultimately, through his struggle, the world becomes a better place, even by some small margin. It's about how one person can, through others, change the world. He's never, ever worked in a vacuum, for more than like, a few issues.

Past the first five minutes of the comic's existence, Batman has NEVER been about One Man's Struggle. It's been about what he sacrificed of himself to be a hero, and in turn inspires others to be heroic. He's the most tragic character in his own story, YES, but the story isn't JUST about him. It's also about Gordon, Alfred, Barbara, Dick, Jason, Tim, Selina, and more... and it always has been.

Big picture. You're focusing too much on the narrow view. To say the story is just about this guy and his futile struggle, you're ignoring the other 500 characters in the book, all of whom DO grow and learn and become better people/heroes directly because of their relationship with Batman. HIS story is tragic, in that he can't ever really be happy, but that's not how it works for the rest of the cast, most of whom are both inspired by his example while meanwhile saying, "Yeah, too dark for me, but thanks." "Not everyone HAS to walk in darkness", is the message of the myth. That not everyone has to, but some CHOOSE to so that others DON'T have to.
------------------
Duckie: Again, "human" super-heroes. Why? It's fantasy. People can like it, but again, I Do Not See the appeal. It's like having a Ferrari and only doing the speed limit. It's just a spoonful of sugar to help the pill go down, that grown-ups are reading silly cape-and-tights fiction, as if there's something wrong with that. You have guys who turn green and punch buildings over when they get angry. You have people who turn invisible and have metal skeletons and robots with human brains... and people actually want to see these characters paint the house or go to the bank or make small talk with the neighbors.

Makes no sense. None. Plus, tons of that same "slice of life" stuff is IN a ton of DC's books if people actually bothered to READ them. Like when Clark would shred his cape in a fight and stop off at the farm to get a freshly-sewn one from Ma, and a slice of pie, then go help Pa fix a fence. You like that kinda thing? It's all over the Superman books, the good ones, anyways. People don't even look for "solutions" or examples, they just talk about things they Don't Like. Well, the stuff people claim Isn't There totally Is... if you read it. Which is frustrating. Because then it just becomes people grasping at straws to back up "I Prefer".
-------------------
And Dark Knight Returns was a piece of sh*t, please don't bring it up. Nobody who claims that book had anything good about it knows anything about Batman and really shouldn't over-step. That is the number 1 Poser Fan Book ever written. It's trash. Not to be elitist or an asshole. But the quickest way to spot someone who has NEVER read any Batman stuff, is to spot the person saying they enjoy Miller's Batman, especially DKR. That's about as nice as I can put it.

This whole "romantic" thing with Joker and Batman was tacked on by bored, lazy writers 60 years into it as a way to be "edgy". It's stupid. It doesn't work. It makes Batman directly responsible for every single person the Joker ever has or will kill. It undoes the entire mythology. Because we CAN'T just have the Joker be A Guy, a random criminal who went crackers after he had a few too many bad days in a row. Everything has to be CONNECTED and "two sides of a coin and blah blah blah," even when it completely Does Not Work. For 60 years, the Joker was motivated by greed, and a sociopathic need to witness human suffering. Aside from the Comics Code years, he killed people because they had things he wanted, or because he was bored, and even under the Code, he was a criminal for both Fun and Profit and still something of an anarchist. Simple. "NO! He has a psycho-sexual crush on Batman!" Oh, that's... that's MUCH f*cking better. :roll: It's the sh*ts, is what it is.

You know how that nonsense started? Honestly? They used to use the Joker very sparingly, once every 5 years or so, and it was BIG. Then, they got lazy and greedy, since books with Joker on the cover sold more, and they had to keep justifying bringing him back, and thus had to invent increasingly asinine reasons why he HAD to always escape and come back and why Batman couldn't just lock him up or kill him. So they started pushing this whole "dans macabre" gimmick where they're practically doomed lovers. Just f*cking keep the guy off-screen for a few years so that when he comes back, the story's a Big Deal by itself. Nope, makes too much sense, that does. They have to go all "Top Gun" even though it makes no f*cking sense and betrays the history of both characters in some pretty serious ways.

Again, not to be mean, but when people start cherry picking Miller in discussing Batman, it's... it's shorthand for "I Don't Know Anything About Batman", basically. Miller's Batman is NOT Batman. It's just Miller writing the same stupid sh*t he always writes, in a Batman costume. Frank Miller is f*cking AWFUL.
----------------

I'm also a little concerned by how often people seem to be... missing things, when they read comics. Granted, I'm pretty unhealthy, insofar as how many I have and read. :lol: But I do notice a lot of people - not just here, mind you - who consistently see things that aren't there in the material while also missing things that are. Like when Morrison had to explain "Final Crisis" to the rubes who didn't get it, and I'm like "HOW did you not know that's exactly what he was saying?" And even when it was spelled out, people were like, "Well, I think it was..." After the guy who wrote the book said "Thanks, but no, good guess, but I *did* have something specific I was saying and you missed it," people fought him on it. Just as an example. It's just... I'm not sure people really "read" these things, anymore. :ohwell: Or they just get so married to their own interpretation they can't see what's on the page. Either or, I guess.

http://www.laslow.net/reactiongifs/Batch03/Cheers.gif

Finally... someone else recognizes Frank Miller's Batman isn't Batman at all.

[CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy]

http://i.imgur.com/BJOCxpG.gif?noredirect

Finally... someone else recognizes Frank Miller's Batman isn't Batman at all.

What, are you re****ed or something? Frank Miller's Batman is THE GD BATMAN.

Slapping an underage child who just witnessed his parents' murder? That's totally the GD Batman.

Banging Green Arrow's babe while the corpses of criminals burn and char? That's totally the GD Batman.

[Leo656]

You know what? I liked Year One. A lot. THAT'S IT. And even then, that book apparently had a TON of oversight from DC because it appeared as part of the main series, while everything else Miller wrote was his own separate universe, so that is probably the sole reason Year One works while literally everything else Miller wrote does NOT: Denny O'Neil, standing over Miller's shoulder with a ruler, smacking him on the side of the head every time he wrote something f*cking stupid. "This isn't one of your stupid little Batman fanfics, you hack! This is the new origin in the main book... BEHAVE YOURSELF, dammit!" I mean, look at literally Every Other Time he touched Batman. DKR. DK2. ALL-STAR B&R, damn it. The guy's a lunatic. He shouldn't be writing comics, he should be scrawling on the walls in his own feces in some asylum somewhere.

But I *hear* he got lucky on a handful of Daredevil books once upon a time, so I guess that gives him a free pass for life, despite being objectively awful at Every Damn Thing. Let's face it, if comic book fans hold HIM up as any kind of Gold Standard of writing or storytelling... then everything literary snobs say about comics fans is true, and they really DON'T know sh*t from Shinola. I'd like to disbelieve that.

What's funny is, he and I DO share a fundamental philosophy on super-heroes. To paraphrase from an interview a few years ago, he basically said, "There's a trend in modern comics that I find to be sort of nonsense... it's stupid... and that's this desire to take super-heroes and make them 'realistic'. People say my comics are 'realistic'... I've never written a 'realistic' super-hero story in my life, and I wouldn't. I think it's stupid. I don't want to see the pit stains under Superman's arms. I want to see him fly."

It's too bad he can make so much sense with that one statement, and be a babbling lunatic the rest of the time, undermining his entire point, because the point DOES make sense, at least to me. I just wish someone else made it. And meanwhile, people who don't *read* his comics (or actually pay any mind to authorial intent whatsoever) keep insisting that he writes "realistic super-hero fiction". No, he writes "dark, gritty, noir-based" super-hero fiction. Poorly. Only in Grant Morrison have I ever seen another writer so romantically in love with their own ideas. And that guy does ALL the drugs so at least he has an excuse. :lol:

[CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy]

You know what? I liked Year One. A lot. THAT'S IT. And even then, that book apparently had a TON of oversight from DC because it appeared as part of the main series, while everything else Miller wrote was his own separate universe, so that is probably the sole reason Year One works while literally everything else Miller wrote does NOT: Denny O'Neil, standing over Miller's shoulder with a ruler, smacking him on the side of the head every time he wrote something f*cking stupid. "This isn't one of your stupid little Batman fanfics, you hack! This is the new origin in the main book... BEHAVE YOURSELF, dammit!" I mean, look at literally Every Other Time he touched Batman. DKR. DK2. ALL-STAR B&R, damn it. The guy's a lunatic. He shouldn't be writing comics, he should be scrawling on the walls in his own feces in some asylum somewhere.

But I *hear* he got lucky on a handful of Daredevil books once upon a time, so I guess that gives him a free pass for life, despite being objectively awful at Every Damn Thing. Let's face it, if comic book fans hold HIM up as any kind of Gold Standard of writing or storytelling... then everything literary snobs say about comics fans is true, and they really DON'T know sh*t from Shinola. I'd like to disbelieve that.

What's funny is, he and I DO share a fundamental philosophy on super-heroes. To paraphrase from an interview a few years ago, he basically said, "There's a trend in modern comics that I find to be sort of nonsense... it's stupid... and that's this desire to take super-heroes and make them 'realistic'. People say my comics are 'realistic'... I've never written a 'realistic' super-hero story in my life, and I wouldn't. I think it's stupid. I don't want to see the pit stains under Superman's arms. I want to see him fly."

It's too bad he can make so much sense with that one statement, and be a babbling lunatic the rest of the time, undermining his entire point, because the point DOES make sense, at least to me. I just wish someone else made it. And meanwhile, people who don't *read* his comics (or actually pay any mind to authorial intent whatsoever) keep insisting that he writes "realistic super-hero fiction". No, he writes "dark, gritty, noir-based" super-hero fiction. Poorly. Only in Grant Morrison have I ever seen another writer so romantically in love with their own ideas. And that guy does ALL the drugs so at least he has an excuse. :lol:

Fine. FINE, DAMMIT. Hate all over his literary genius. The man understands how to write female characters like a redneck in a wife beater understands how to make sushi.

Y'know who makes Frank Miller look like Shakespeare?

Neal Adams. Batman Odyssey, 'nuff said.

[Leo656]

I honestly haven't checked that one out in a while. I came up on Adams and O'Neil, man. That late-70s/early-80s stuff was far superior in every way to Miller's "Mature Comics For Immature People" approach to the character. They were doing a lot of the exact same themes, stylistically and thematically, like making everything "darker" and having him be more of a loner who was a little bit cracked, and a whole decade earlier than Miller's DK. It amazes me that people always cite Miller's as being the "definitive" Batman when he only really barely touched the character and 9/10s of what he wrote was lousy, and all of it was borrowed from stuff guys already did, and better. ONE Batman story he did stood out more from everything else that was on the shelves at that moment - and that probably had a lot to do with the functional, but let's face it, super-ugly and "cheap" artwork compared to the sleek, clean, "house" style of DC at the time. So it captured a moment, basically, and it's "legend" grew based on that. The rest of his stuff came out at times when it was no different from everything else that was out there, it wasn't "unique" or "special" and so people openly called it what it was: Junk. Except for Year One, which, again, you can probably thank the Editors at DC for how good it turned out. There's almost nothing of Miller's own in there at all except the Gordon stuff, which works because they're leaving a lot of stuff implied and unspoken about his past and whatnot. It's subtle. You can tell while reading it that Year One is kind of squirming to get out of its box and the guys up top weren't letting him do quite as much as he wanted to do, but I think it helps the overall story. If anybody who ever wrote comics needed to be reminded of "restraint", it's Miller.

I always preferred the Adams/O'Neil/Aparo stuff to the Miller stuff because while it's still a "darker" version of Batman (especially when you remember the TV show wasn't long before), it's a little more romantic, a little more flamboyant, a little more "Zorro" and a little less bleak. They were just killing it back then, doing the most amazing stuff with Joker and Ra's and Hugo Strange and all that. Back when those guys showed up once every two years and it was a Big Deal, not in 2 or 3 issues a month when sales are slow. Things sure have changed. That stuff is still just golden, though. It's pretty much where the cartoon cribbed all its ideas from, the O'Neal/Adams era.

[CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy]

I honestly haven't checked that one out in a while. I came up on Adams and O'Neil, man. That late-70s/early-80s stuff was far superior in every way to Miller's "Mature Comics For Immature People" approach to the character. They were doing a lot of the exact same themes, stylistically and thematically, like making everything "darker" and having him be more of a loner who was a little bit cracked, and a whole decade earlier than Miller's DK. It amazes me that people always cite Miller's as being the "definitive" Batman when he only really barely touched the character and 9/10s of what he wrote was lousy, and all of it was borrowed from stuff guys already did, and better. ONE Batman story he did stood out more from everything else that was on the shelves at that moment - and that probably had a lot to do with the functional, but let's face it, super-ugly and "cheap" artwork compared to the sleek, clean, "house" style of DC at the time. So it captured a moment, basically, and it's "legend" grew based on that. The rest of his stuff came out at times when it was no different from everything else that was out there, it wasn't "unique" or "special" and so people openly called it what it was: Junk. Except for Year One, which, again, you can probably thank the Editors at DC for how good it turned out. There's almost nothing of Miller's own in there at all except the Gordon stuff, which works because they're leaving a lot of stuff implied and unspoken about his past and whatnot. It's subtle. You can tell while reading it that Year One is kind of squirming to get out of its box and the guys up top weren't letting him do quite as much as he wanted to do, but I think it helps the overall story. If anybody who ever wrote comics needed to be reminded of "restraint", it's Miller.

I always preferred the Adams/O'Neil/Aparo stuff to the Miller stuff because while it's still a "darker" version of Batman (especially when you remember the TV show wasn't long before), it's a little more romantic, a little more flamboyant, a little more "Zorro" and a little less bleak. They were just killing it back then, doing the most amazing stuff with Joker and Ra's and Hugo Strange and all that. Back when those guys showed up once every two years and it was a Big Deal, not in 2 or 3 issues a month when sales are slow. Things sure have changed. That stuff is still just golden, though. It's pretty much where the cartoon cribbed all its ideas from, the O'Neal/Adams era.

I had no idea! I've probably read a lot of those stories, but I only know the name from Batman Odyssey. :tlol:

[Leo656]

Last I checked, there were two different "Greatest Batman Stories Ever Told" trade paperbacks (one from the late 1980s and one from the early 2000s) and one "Greatest Joker Stories Ever Told" TPB that was released at the same time as the first Batman one. Truly lives up to the name, a nice cross-section of the best self-contained stories from every era. It's all pretty good, then about 2/3 into it they hit the 70s and the rest is just terrific. All the best Adams/O'Neil stuff is in there. Even the stuff that was cherry-picked from the wretched Comics Code era is actually very fun and readable, especially the stuff in the Joker trade. They had to get pretty wild to keep Joker stories interesting without any explicit violence during that time, but man, those stories were definitely insane and worth a look just for how wacky they are. :lol:

I'd pick those up if you haven't done so.

[Xiewin]

Again: Byrne. Jurgens. Wolfman. Ordway. Stern. Johns. Morrison. Even Loeb.

You don't NEED anything else to "get" the character, of Superman, and in fact people probably should NOT read anyone else's version of Superman, as those are the only ones who have EVER written him correctly. For $20 worth of trades, everyone on the planet could "get into" Superman, and they'd realize why all those "over-powered/unrelatable" arguments are nonsense coming from people who've never read the material, or at least the Correct material. Because he IS the greatest fictional character ever written, it's just that it takes half a genius to make it work properly and not campy and most comic writers are f*cking hacks and can't do it.

Only a f*cking comic book writer can take a guy, where under "Powers" it says, "ALL Of Them", and make it boring. :roll: It takes... something, I tell ya. Not "talent"... but something.

But yeah, the cartoons were good, too. But again, they mostly ripped off the above listed writers, and that's what made them good. People act like those cartoons were some new, fancy idea, when in the Superman cartoon's case they literally just ripped off everything Byrne, Jurgens, and Wolfman did from 86-89 and streamlined it. "I couldn't get into the books but I like the cartoons..." when the cartoons WERE the comics? Again, this is why people need to be pointed in the right direction, sometimes, because clearly those people were reading the wrong books. Which, again, is easy to do. 90% of writers Can NOT Write Superman and their stories are awful. The other 10% only wrote the best super-hero fiction ever put to page, that's all.

So yeah, if you're truly interested, there's the homework.
--------------------
I still say a ton of Marvel fans are projecting. Their stories are NOT more realistic or grounded. You just prefer that they say so. Which, if it makes you feel better, fine. But when one of the Avengers is a literal GOD, the argument doesn't hold water, I'm sorry. There are in fact TWICE as many aliens, freaks, experiments gone awry, gods, demons, wizards, and any number of other batsh*t crazy things in Marvel as there is in DC, easily, because Marvel has about a billion more characters. Do you even read these things? :lol: C'mon. This is just getting silly, now.

You know what it really is? An insecurity on the part of the reader. "Super-heroes are kiddie stuff", says convention, so Marvel has to appear "more sophisticated" in some form, even though it's essentially the same stuff with a few more shades of gray. That's literally it. In DC, there's Good and Evil. Marvel, guys switch sides a lot, and more characters get killed off temporarily. Otherwise, it's all EXACTLY the same. CALLING it "grounded" or "realistic" doesn't MAKE it that. It's just that people want to be assured, "No, it's okay that you're a grown-up and you read about guys in tights who fart laser beams. These are the GROWN-UP comics, not that kiddie stuff with guys in capes. See? Totally different, so much more grounded and Real."

Except it's not. At all. :lol:
----------------------------------
To that end, it has, again, nothing to do with DC's characters being over-powered. I mean Scarlet Witch once said "No More Mutants" out loud and changed the entire company's direction for the next few years, so yeah, let's not go there. :lol: Again, it's a difference of approach. Super-heroes ARE the modern-day Titans and Gods of myth, with a modern coat of paint. DC embraces it, Marvel tries to ground it, but they're ALL equally fantastical, unrealistic, and "over-powered", if we want to play that game. Again, it's not a legitimate argument, it's a manufactured one people use to justify their preference, and further, it was spoon-fed to them decades ago by the editors of the very books they prefer to read. A little actual objectivity squashes the entire thing. Neither company's characters are "over-powered" or "too inhuman" or anything like that. People just prefer MTV or VH1 and that's really all it is: A matter of style and presentation.

Wow, is THAT a dated reference. :lol: Would'a made more sense in 1999 when MTV and VH1 both played music videos. :lol: But you get what I mean. Two companies doing essentailly the same thing but dressing it up a little differently. I, personally, have always been annoyed that Marvel seems ashamed that they do super-hero books, like they're so desperate to be taken seriously. But that's me. It's fantasy, I think grounding the characters cheapens it and limits the storytelling.

Best thing I've read all day.

[Metalhead 2.0]

Best thing I've read all day.

No doubt. He's saying all the things I don't have the wherewithall or time to say today.

[Candy Kappa]

I really enjoy Year One and DKR, and I've read plenty of Batman. It's Miller while he was still under control. Same with his Daredevil stuff.

Y'know who makes Frank Miller look like Shakespeare?

Neal Adams. Batman Odyssey, 'nuff said.

Nothing can make modern Miller look like Shakespeare... Not even when he was making stuff that wasn't extremely problematic.

But, Odyssey was pretty bad.

[BubblyShell22]

I can't really contribute to the discussion as I've never read a Marvel or DC comic in my life. However, I find this debate very interesting on why certain people prefer certain comics. And in a way, it's no different than TMNT either. Some prefer the original comics, some prefer the original cartoon, some prefer the 2K3 cartoon, others prefer the Nick cartoon or the movies. It's all different strokes for different folks.

[Foombamaroom]

Guys, we shouldn't be complaining about DC or Marvel. Instead, we should be complaining about how Michael Bay is holding OUR franchise hostage.

[CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy]

Guys, we shouldn't be complaining about DC or Marvel. Instead, we should be complaining about how Michael Bay is holding OUR franchise hostage.

Where's a hostage negotiator when you need one?

"Mister Bay, if you'll just listen to the fans and produce a faithful TMNT movie, we all promise to buy all four Transformers movies on Bluray."

[Leo656]

I'unno if it's "my" franchise anymore, I kinda don't like half of the people who like it, and that always makes me really uncomfortable. :lol:

Exaggerating. Kind of.


"Mister Bay, if you'll just listen to the fans and produce a faithful TMNT movie, we all promise to buy all four Transformers movies on Bluray."
Don't speak for ME, I wouldn't pay for a PHOTOGRAPH of all four Transformers movies on Bluray. :lol:

[CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy]

I'unno if it's "my" franchise anymore, I kinda don't like half of the people who like it, and that always makes me really uncomfortable. :lol:

Exaggerating. Kind of.


Don't speak for ME, I wouldn't pay for a PHOTOGRAPH of all four Transformers movies on Bluray." :lol:

Dude! Shut up! The man has a film camera and he WILL use it if we don't give him what he wants!!! :teek:

And as for not liking half the fanbase, everybody over in the Comics Discussion seems to be sane. No delusional rotten milk suckers over there that I've seen. :tlol:

[Leo656]

Yeah, I'm kind of annoyed I can't collect comics right now, since that seems to be the one area where TMNT seems to be doing okay, or at least, the one where it's the least frustrating to follow.

[CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy]

Yeah, I'm kind of annoyed I can't collect comics right now, since that seems to be the one area where TMNT seems to be doing okay, or at least, the one where it's the least frustrating to follow.

IDW TMNT is, IMO, the definitive and best version of TMNT. Mirage is the original, but this is better.

[Leo656]

I don't love the reincarnation bit. Kinda hokey. So it's never gonna be my favorite. But what I read of it early on was good, aside from that one thing. And it's not like it's terrible, it's just not a choice I'd have made and I don't really care for it. I think in a series already requiring huge leaps of faith to make the premise work, that's just a little bit too far.

Again, though, everything else I read was fine, but it was only a few issues in the beginning.

[CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy]

I don't love the reincarnation bit. Kinda hokey. So it's never gonna be my favorite. But what I read of it early on was good.

Eh, once you're past the first twelve issues the reincarnation isn't as big a deal. Stick with it, man, you still haven't met Herman the Hermit Crab yet! :twink:

[Redeemer]

I don't love the reincarnation bit. Kinda hokey. So it's never gonna be my favorite. But what I read of it early on was good, aside from that one thing. And it's not like it's terrible, it's just not a choice I'd have made and I don't really care for it. I think in a series already requiring huge leaps of faith to make the premise work, that's just a little bit too far.

Again, though, everything else I read was fine, but it was only a few issues in the beginning.

Eh, once you're past the first twelve issues the reincarnation isn't as big a deal. Stick with it, man, you still haven't met Herman the Hermit Crab yet! :twink:
Lol yeah got love Herman. Honestly I am not a fan of other mutants outside of slash, splinter, and the turtles, but I love Herman because of his art design and Hob for his personality.

But back to the reincarnation idea I believe Tang Shen has a part in it kind of like rat king.

[CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy]

Lol yeah got love Herman. Honestly I am not a fan of other mutants outside of slash, splinter, and the turtles, but I love Herman because of his art design and Hob for his personality.

But back to the reincarnation idea I believe Tang Shen has a part in it kind of like rat king.

Yeah, reincarnation is still important, but once you've established the reason for the vendetta between Shredder and Splinter, it's all balls-to-the-walls fast-and-furious action and war. I just meant that it's not the huge focus it was when Donnie was trying to wrap his head around it and the Turtles were just encountering the Foot Clan for the first time.

[IndigoErth]

Was going to post it as a grind, but since it's related to the film guess I'll make it a film vent instead... I hate Googleing the Turtles to see whats up with them/movie/show just to find headlines like "Megan Fox flaunts figure as she films Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles". Or another that starts with the line "Megan Fox shows off her fit figure while braving the rain after a day of filming..." Oh no, I hope her figure is alright.

I get it article writers... she has a body and she wears, get this... clothing. Probably even tight clothing. On the set. Again. As usual. Oh for the love of anything with substance... Turtles (and/or their actors) who?



Fox lover or others, stick it where the sun don't shine...
I reserve the right to feel snarky today.

[CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy]

Was going to post it as a grind, but since it's related to the film guess I'll make it a film vent instead... I hate Googleing the Turtles to see whats up with them/movie/show just to find headlines like "Megan Fox flaunts figure as she films Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles". Or another that starts with the line "Megan Fox shows off her fit figure while braving the rain after a day of filming..." Oh no, I hope her figure is alright.

I get it article writers... she has a body and she wears, get this... clothing. Probably even tight clothing. On the set. Again. As usual. Oh for the love of anything with substance... Turtles (and/or their actors) who?

Well, now you can hear about how incredibly fit Stephen Amell is and how nice his pecs look in that gray t-shirt. That'll break up the Megan monotomy!

Feel better? :tlol:

[BubblyShell22]

Yeah, I can see why that would be a grind, Indigo.

And Stephen Amell was a terrible choice to play Casey as he looks nothing like him. All I see is the guy from Arrow, and I don't even watch that show.

[CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy]

Yeah, I can see why that would be a grind, Indigo.

And Stephen Amell was a terrible choice to play Casey as he looks nothing like him. All I see is the guy from Arrow, and I don't even watch that show.

You don't watch Arrow!?

BubblyShell22? You have failed this forum. :twink:

[BubblyShell22]

I just think the show looks like sh*t, but I'm not really into comic book shows, and I think shows on the CW suck a**, so that's why I don't bother with them.

[Powder]

I just think the show looks like sh*t, but I'm not really into comic book shows, and I think shows on the CW suck a**, so that's why I don't bother with them.

http://i62.tinypic.com/208wmtw.gif

[CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy]

I just think the show looks like sh*t, but I'm not really into comic book shows, and I think shows on the CW suck a**, so that's why I don't bother with them.

The Flash is worth 23 hours of your time...

[Panda_Kahn_fan]

I don't love the reincarnation bit. Kinda hokey. So it's never gonna be my favorite. But what I read of it early on was good, aside from that one thing. And it's not like it's terrible, it's just not a choice I'd have made and I don't really care for it. I think in a series already requiring huge leaps of faith to make the premise work, that's just a little bit too far.

Again, though, everything else I read was fine, but it was only a few issues in the beginning.

The reincarnation bit is, in my opinion, one of the best concepts to find it's way into TMNT. It combines the rat and human origin for yoshi, gets rid of the stupid 'normal pet rat learns martial arts' plot point which I loathe, and makes the Hamato Yoshi/Tang Shen/Shredder story more tragic IMO.

[BubblyShell22]

http://i62.tinypic.com/208wmtw.gif

Thanks for the thumbs up.



The Flash is worth 23 hours of your time...

Nah, not interested in it. But thanks anyway.

[ssjup81]

You don't watch Arrow!?

BubblyShell22? You have failed this forum. :twink:Well, for me I've never even heard of it. Even if I was stateside it'd probably be the same. lol

[Commenter 42]

I just think the show looks like sh*t, but I'm not really into comic book shows, and I think shows on the CW suck a**, so that's why I don't bother with them.

You would be right, x a billion.

The Flash is worth 23 hours of your time...

C'mon dude! Really? It's worse than Smallvile, and that's really hard to do!

[Foombamaroom]

I watched Arrow a few months ago. Season 1 was great, Season 2 was amazing, and season 3 was awful because Felicity. The Flash season 1 was amazing, though.

My biggest problem with those shows, though, is the fact that they're 23 episodes long. Like... Nah, G, you don't need that many episodes. Slim it down to 13-16.

[Leo656]

C'mon dude! Really? It's worse than Smallvile, and that's really hard to do!


THE very first person I've ever heard say they didn't like the Flash show. :lol: I haven't seen it myself, waiting for the DVD since I missed too much at the beginning... but yeah, wow. :lol:

But yeah Smallville is the sh*ts.

[CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy]

You would be right, x a billion.



C'mon dude! Really? It's worse than Smallvile, and that's really hard to do!

Bro, you and me... we're absolutely done. :tlol: Seriously, how can you even say that!?

I watched Arrow a few months ago. Season 1 was great, Season 2 was amazing, and season 3 was awful because Felicity. The Flash season 1 was amazing, though.

My biggest problem with those shows, though, is the fact that they're 23 episodes long. Like... Nah, G, you don't need that many episodes. Slim it down to 13-16.

Yeah, Arrow Season 3 was terrible. I can't believe how poorly written it was... everything was pretty decent up till R'as kicked Oliver's corpse off a cliff. Badass cliffhanger, and the second half of the season absolutely sucked ass. Still makes me mad.

I think some shows could condense their episode count, but except for a very small handful of episodes, I love that Flash was 23 episodes long. More time to get to know the characters and see them develop. More time to love Dr Wells and hope against all reason that he's not... well, spoilers. :tlol:

[Commenter 42]

THE very first person I've ever heard say they didn't like the Flash show. :lol: I haven't seen it myself, waiting for the DVD since I missed too much at the beginning... but yeah, wow. :lol:

But yeah Smallville is the sh*ts.

Arrow? or Flash? If you liked the later seasons of Smallville, or I don't know, Canadian television series, then these are for you. It's like watching a high-school play, but with tons more drama, and where the eMpHAS-iss is Mi-spL-a-c-ed in word, sentence structure and scene.

Not my kind of programing, but I'm an HBO/Showtime kinda guy for the most part. Maybe I'm spoiled.

[Leo656]

You said that, I didn't say that. You said that.

[Foombamaroom]

I think some shows could condense their episode count, but except for a very small handful of episodes, I love that Flash was 23 episodes long. More time to get to know the characters and see them develop. More time to love Dr Wells and hope against all reason that he's not... well, spoilers. :tlol:

I still think Flash could've done a lot better without the massive episode order, but it definitely worked a lot more in its favor than the episode order does with Arrow. The one thing I will say I liked about 3 is that once the mid-season finale was done, there wasn't anymore filler... Not saying they were good episodes, but there wasn't any filler.

Flash's filler at least had the over-arching Dr. Wells storyline. Wells was easily my favorite character from the season.

[Commenter 42]

Bro, you and me... we're absolutely done. :tlol: Seriously, how can you even say that!?

You mean how can I only say that. :lol:
If this forum didn't censor the users, I'd have said so much more, far more explicitly.

I mean, I don't rally against it, 'cause I I don't know enough about Green Arrow , or the Flash to care - but I know this much - it's badly produced, and campy as hell, in it's execution. It's also not campy fun, where you forgive it because the characters are endearing or interesting. it's vanilla, beginning to end, and i've tried more than once to get through an episode.

Daredevil, (which I also knew almost nothing about either, lest this become a Marvel v DC thing, and I'm not that kind of fan that takes sides in that stupid fight) took a little to warm up to, but hooked me with some of the performances, and the overall themes.
Rosario Dawson really brought me into the story. I knew wshe was good, but as I've said before, she hasn't really delivered like this since KIDS.

But then again, I'm not 14, so, meh...

[CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy]

I still think Flash could've done a lot better without the massive episode order, but it definitely worked a lot more in its favor than the episode order does with Arrow. The one thing I will say I liked about 3 is that once the mid-season finale was done, there wasn't anymore filler... Not saying they were good episodes, but there wasn't any filler.

Flash's filler at least had the over-arching Dr. Wells storyline. Wells was easily my favorite character from the season.

Wells totally carried the show. Everyone else was good or great (excepting Iris the B) but Wells...

You mean how can I only say that. :lol:
If this forum didn't censor the users, I'd have said so much more, far more explicitly.

I mean, I don't rally against it, 'cause I I don't know enough about Green Arrow , or the Flash to care - but I know this much - it's badly produced, and campy as hell, in it's execution. It's also not campy fun, where you forgive it because the characters are endearing or interesting. it's vanilla, beginning to end, and i've tried more than once to get through an episode.

Daredevil, (which I also knew almost nothing about either, lest this become a Marvel v DC thing, and I'm not that kind of fan that takes sides in that stupid fight) took a little to warm up to, but hooked me with some of the performances, and the overall themes.
Rosario Dawson really brought me into the story. I knew wshe was good, but as I've said before, she hasn't really delivered like this since KIDS.

But then again, I'm not 14, so, meh...

I'm no teenager either, my good man, and I don't understand at all how you can call Flash vanilla. But I've seen people with worse taste on here than that, so I'm fine agreeing to disagree. :tlol:

[Commenter 42]

You said that, I didn't say that. You said that.

lol, I binge, I know. Spoiled? Lol, I have high standards for film, 'cause I see it as an art form first, business second.

When you've spent most of your life doing a thing, and the thing has some serious gatekeepers who demand excellence from you at every turn, you might get a little lippy when some folks jump the line and don't deliver, then bathe in Benjamins.

I imagine there are those in your world that worked half as hard as you, half ass it in the ring, and enjoy heaps of praise.

I imagine...


I'm no teenager either, my good man

I didn't mean it as an insult - I meant I think i'm just the wrong demo for that show. The things that I measure it by are not likely the same things others do. I don't care, at all, if it's comics accurate when the acting is that flat. I just can't, 'cause the acting pulls me out. They also do this weird thing where all the actors are smiling, almost uncontrollably, at each other, all the time. It's weird.

I don't understand at all how you can call Flash vanilla. But I've seen people with worse taste on here than that, so I'm fine agreeing to disagree. :tlol:

Yeah it's vanilla. Check out Orange season 3. Fascinating characters. Real character development. Must-see TV built around two characters that, you actually kind of hate. ie: not vanilla.

Watch Penny Dreadful - a reinterpretation that goes deep into Bram Stokers Dracula to unhinge and transform the metaphors into something more aggressive and empowering than it's predecessor, a dark cherry chocolate sorbet of chaos, topped with the sweet caramel drizzle of elizabethan prose both poignant and heart wrenching. John Clare's melancholic rants alone tower miles above anything done over however many episodes the flash has dropped during it's run.

vanilla? you betcha.

[Wolfie65]

I've tried watching Arrow. And Flash. And Smallville. And Supernatural. Others.(ultra-succinct style of prose borrowed from Suzanne Collins)They're all pretty much the same: Soap operas with a supernatural/superhero twist, and, for the most part, rather lame (back to my normal, somewhat more long-winded prose, sorry).
I'll make an exception for The Vampire Diaries, which, for the first 7 episodes, was actually really good - I almost thought I had found a worthy heir to The X-Files - before it too turned into a soap. Still good, because they do have one of the hottest cast on TV (personal favorite: Katerina Graham), but no longer great.
Googling the new Ninja Turtle movie gets you results like some girls' figure or some guys' abs because that's what 95+% of the ticket-buying public care about.
They don't care how Shredder (who?) will be resurrected (did he die?), they care about what Megan Fox did to have a flat stomach after 2 babies, something that eludes the overwhelming majority of non-Hollywood women.
They have no idea what a Ninja is (which puts them on a page with the script writers and director, who seem to think a Ninja is the same as an NFL linebacker), but they do know that their husbands have beer-and-Cheetos guts, so they want to see RIPPED ABS!!!!!!!!

[Commenter 42]

Here's the thing, right...they're mimbo's. That's all it is. Dreamy boys in a soap that has hooked the fracture demos of teens to late twenty some'n some'ns.

I get it. I sat through 3 full episodes of abc's Stitchers just to stare at Emma Ishta's face. The show is just as bad, if not worse than anything on the CW.

But you have to at least admit that much. I'm sure everyone's done it.

[Powder]

Googling the new Ninja Turtle movie gets you results like some girls' figure or some guys' abs because that's what 95+% of the ticket-buying public care about.
They don't care how Shredder (who?) will be resurrected (did he die?), they care about what Megan Fox did to have a flat stomach after 2 babies, something that eludes the overwhelming majority of non-Hollywood women.
They have no idea what a Ninja is (which puts them on a page with the script writers and director, who seem to think a Ninja is the same as an NFL linebacker), but they do know that their husbands have beer-and-Cheetos guts, so they want to see RIPPED ABS!!!!!!!!

You say that as if you're any better than them...

Far as I'm concerned, any movie with Megan Fox is automatically worth watching, regardless of how badly it may otherwise suck.

:trazz:

[Foombamaroom]

Yeah it's vanilla. Check out Orange season 3. Fascinating characters. Real character development. Must-see TV built around two characters that, you actually kind of hate. ie: not vanilla.



(I'm just assuming you're talking about Orange is the New Black.)
That season wasn't as good as 1 and 2, tbh. The storyline was weak, Piper was aggravating as hell, and they didn't have an antagonist. Vee is honestly what made season 2 so good for me. The only thing I really enjoyed about 3 is the Pennsatucky/Boo storyline, but even that had its flaws.

[Commenter 42]

(I'm just assuming you're talking about Orange is the New Black.)
That season wasn't as good as 1 and 2, tbh. The storyline was weak, Piper was aggravating as hell, and they didn't have an antagonist. Vee is honestly what made season 2 so good for me. The only thing I really enjoyed about 3 is the Pennsatucky/Boo storyline, but even that had its flaws.

Yeah, maybe when compared with itself, the show wasn't living up to it's own standards (I disagree, but to each their own), but compared to CW shite?

Piper's been annoying since day one, actually. She's incredibly selfish and annoying. Her relationship with Alex is very destructive -precisely why the show feels fresh and not predictable and vanilla.

[Foombamaroom]

Yeah, maybe when compared with itself, the show wasn't living up to it's own standards (I disagree, but to each their own), but compared to CW shite?

Piper's been annoying since day one, actually. She's incredibly selfish and annoying. Her relationship with Alex is very destructive -precisely why the show feels fresh and not predictable and vanilla.

Oh, compared to stuff that's on basic cable, the show's top notch. And I thought Piper was tolerable in season 2. She just got so damn aggravating in season 3 that it was WORSE than season 1. OitNB doesn't have commercial breaks so you can use the bathroom... but it has Alex/Piper scenes, which are basically the same thing.

[Commenter 42]

Oh, compared to stuff that's on basic cable, the show's top notch.

But isn't that the point? So, a show like Penny Dreadful is produced, and a show like Flash is produced. One is clearly superior to the other, but fans grade on a bell curve because comic books don't rate with...monsters?

Trash is trash. You don't get a pass based on logos or symbols.

[BubblyShell22]

Here's the thing, right...they're mimbo's. That's all it is. Dreamy boys in a soap that has hooked the fracture demos of teens to late twenty some'n some'ns.

I get it. I sat through 3 full episodes of abc's Stitchers just to stare at Emma Ishta's face. The show is just as bad, if not worse than anything on the CW.

But you have to at least admit that much. I'm sure everyone's done it.

Yep, I tried to get into Stitchers and it just didn't appeal to me. I do watch some shows on ABC Family like Pretty Little Liars, Switched at Birth, and Chasing Life, but that's it. Stitchers probably would have been a good show, but I just didn't buy the concept of it and it just didn't sit well with me. Different strokes for different folks. Some people are easily pleased these days though. For me, I have to have a good plot in a show before I'll watch it, and if I give a show a chance and it doesn't deliver by the first episode, then I'm out.

Same thing goes for this TMNT movie. Some like it, some don't.

[Wolfie65]

You say that as if you're any better than them...



:trazz:

Well, I do know what a Ninja is, I do care about the story/plot - or if the movie makes sense - and I'm not just sitting there for 2 hours to forget about my boring office - or fast food worker job.
Do I want to see hot girls rather than Barbara Walters? You betcha.
Who doesn't?
And I've got the abs.