*

Offline Roundy

  • Abdicator of the Zetetic Council
  • *
  • Posts: 4255
    • View Profile
Re: Superhero Movies & Comics General
« Reply #1100 on: August 28, 2023, 08:25:46 PM »
Saw The Flash. Obviously it's impossible to watch a movie like this this late in the game and not have formed some preconceived notions of what to expect. That can be a good thing sometimes, and it was with this movie. Based on some of what I've seen about it, I was expecting trash, or at least mediocrity. It was not. And I may have enjoyed it more having expected trash, if that makes sense.

I'm not the biggest fan of how the character is written in the franchise. He just doesn't come across as awkward (borderline autismal) in the comics as he does here. On the other hand, the Barry Allen version of this character was always kind of boring, and Ezra Miller does a great job playing with what he's given.

I thought the CGI was phenomenal. It's kind of fashionable these days to criticize a movie for its CGI, and I guess with the stylized way it's done this was an easy target. But I loved it. This was the best depiction in live action I've ever seen of Barry's powers in action. The scenes where he's traveling back in time are particularly stunning.

It was a good story. I almost want to criticize it for being too dark in keeping in line with the worst of DCEU past, but in this case it's justified because it's true to the source material. Which admittedly they play very loose with but the bare bones had to be there for the story to have its emotional thrust. And there are plenty of lighter elements to balance it out.

This was Ben Affleck's best appearance as Batman. The opening set piece was exciting, he had a cool little conversation with Barry about the potential consequences of trying to change the past as Bruce, and he's gone. It was a good sendoff for Batfleck.

The Michael Keaton Batman stuff came off as overly fanservice-y. They even seem to wink at this with young Barry's overenthusiastic reaction to being in the Batcave. But he served the story well and it was one of many fun nods to past realities presented in the movie. The best, of course, was a glimpse at the Nicholas Cage Superman movie that never came to be, complete with giant robot spider.

I'm still trying to process how I feel about the movie's big reveal that the being that forced Barry out of the Chronobowl was actually a much older young Barry still trying to fix things. I have trouble with it because it creates a loop that doesn't make a whole lot of sense, and even points that out like it's not supposed to be a big deal. I was also lost on Batman suddenly being George Clooney after Barry fixes things. Another nod to an old continuity obviously but was it necessary? This obviously isn't the actual reboot of the DCU that I was expecting it to be with that twist in play. But maybe it was setting it up by showing that different realities have different looking people. To me it just seemed silly but maybe that's all they were going for too.

On the other hand the idea presented early on that when you change something in the timeline it creates a ripple effect going both ways was really cool and a novel concept to me.

Overall I think this was one of the better DCEU movies. I enjoyed it and would recommend it. 3.5/5 stars.
Dr. Frank is a physicist. He says it's impossible. So it's impossible.
My friends, please remember Tom said this the next time you fall into the trap of engaging him, and thank you. :)

Re: Superhero Movies & Comics General
« Reply #1101 on: September 03, 2023, 11:54:20 AM »
I love superhero movies, especially the MCU. When I was a kid, my favorite superhero was Spider-Man. Now it's Iron Man. I must have watched all the movies about him 10 times.

*

Online honk

  • *
  • Posts: 3489
  • resident goose
    • View Profile
Re: Superhero Movies & Comics General
« Reply #1102 on: October 11, 2023, 02:11:21 AM »
I've watched Blue Beetle. It's decent. Xolo Maridueña is charismatic and likable as Jaime, and his family are endearing - there's a dumb running gag about his grandmother that gets old very fast in the latter half of the movie, but that's my only complaint there. The action scenes are nice and creative, as they should be for a capeshitter like this. I really like the setting, which does what so many previous DC movies refused to do and takes advantage of the fact that this is an entirely fictional city to give it a unique sense of character. Palmera City is bright, glittering, and enticing, a seemingly idyllic paradise for the wealthy and well-connected...and an unattainable dream for impoverished families like the Reyes, who live in a humble working-class neighborhood on the city's outskirts and are treated with disdain by its more fortunate residents. And on a related note, there's some very nice and topical social commentary about what living in America means for a Hispanic family nowadays, and the male members of the family promote a wholesome and non-toxic sense of masculinity, which I don't think we see a lot of in pop culture nowadays.

There are, unfortunately, some downsides to the movie. Susan Sarandon as the main villain gives a very weird, very campy, almost deliberately unnaturalistic performance. I don't know what the idea behind it was, but it doesn't work well. Bruna Marquezine isn't a bad actress, but she's miscast as Jaime's love interest, a character who's supposed to be a privileged, wealthy socialite whose compassion stands in contrast to her aunt's callousness, and yet is initially received with hostility by the Reyes family because of her elite status. Marquezine's ethnicity and very strong Brazilian accent work against these dynamics. I'm not saying there aren't any rich Brazilians; only that in this movie, in this setting, I really think they would have been better off casting a white or white-passing American actress. It's not like this movie is suffering from a lack of diversity. Oh, and it really drives me nuts how while Jaime explicitly makes a point of never killing anyone, his family and love interest in the final act kill lots and lots of people. Very directly killing people, too, as in by pointing guns at them and shooting them dead. It really undermines the strength of whatever no-killing moral they were trying to go for.

The biggest problem with the movie, though, is that it all feels a bit too generic and familiar. We've met all these characters before, seen these tropes before, heard this dialogue before, and so on. It's hard to give specific examples of this - the two I could most easily point to are that the working-class family dynamic feels like it's already been covered by the Shazam! movies, and the idea of Jaime inheriting a legacy from an older, tech-savvy hero who bolsters him with his technology feels like it comes from the MCU spoder. It's just a general feeling I get that so much of this movie is running over tired, well-worn ground. Is it fair to judge a movie based on what other movies have done before? Well, to a degree, yes. Given the current glut of capeshit, movies have to work harder to stand out from the crowd now. This lack of originality may be a big part of why so many capeshit movies are flopping at the box office when ten years or so ago most of them did very well.

Oh, and this is a minor point, but I don't care for this movie's in-name-only adaptation of OMAC. It reminds me of the in-name-only version of "Intergang" from Black Adam. I would really rather that movies not bother using the names of characters and organizations from the source material if they bear no actual resemblance to the source material. No adaptation is better than an in-name-only adaptation.

Also, we finally have a trailer for the last DCEU film until Gunn's Superman movie:



Right off the bat, this trailer hits us with a voiceover warning us of what I can already guarantee will be a major flaw in the movie, just like it was in the previous one - Momoa's sheer inability to move out of his comfort zone of playing a chill dudebro. Maybe the people I've argued with about this before have a point in that I shouldn't say he "plays himself," but if it simplifies things, I'll just say that Momoa apparently can't do drama. He can deliver a joke, he can handle an action scene, and he can be a very likable and charismatic screen presence, but he can't effectively portray a lead character that goes through the ups and downs, the peaks and valleys of a conventional movie and emerges from the end of it as a different person. Changing his tone of voice from line to line in this voiceover is the least he could do, the very least, and he doesn't do it. Maybe he can't do it, or maybe he refuses to do it because he thinks it'll hurt his brand, like how Dwayne Johnson refuses to ever lose a fight in a movie because he thinks it would hurt his brand. No ill will towards Momoa; I'm sure he's a great guy in real life, but I've grown tired of his stock "chillax, bro, let's get wasted tonight!" performance.

The rest of the trailer looks okay for the most part. It's probably a good idea to keep building on the characters from the first movie rather than introducing a bunch of new ones. Check out how they're basically pretending Amber Heard isn't even in this movie - and compare it to how everyone at the studio fell over themselves going to bat for Ezra Miller after their spree of violent crimes. Hmm. The CGI unfortunately looks poor once again, although nothing jumps out as being as terrible as it was in The Flash. I guess there's nothing we can do about that as long as Marvel continues to overwhelm the VFX industry and work them ragged with their current oversaturation of content. Finally, check out another article basically predicting that this is going to be a disaster:

https://variety.com/2023/film/news/aquaman-2-jason-momoa-drunk-claims-amber-heard-cut-scenes-elon-musk-letter-1235747775/
« Last Edit: January 12, 2024, 04:17:18 AM by honk »
ur retartet but u donut even no it and i walnut tell u y

Dual1ty

Re: Superhero Movies & Comics General
« Reply #1103 on: October 11, 2023, 10:38:47 AM »
Right off the bat, this trailer hits us with a voiceover warning us of what I can already guarantee will be a major flaw in the movie, just like it was in the previous one - Momoa's sheer inability to move out of his comfort zone of playing a chill dudebro. Maybe the people I've argued with about this before have a point in that I shouldn't say he "plays himself," but if it simplifies things, I'll just say that Momoa apparently can't do drama. He can deliver a joke, he can handle an action scene, and he can be a very likable and charismatic screen presence, but he can't effectively portray a lead character that goes through the ups and downs, the peaks and valleys of a conventional movie and emerges from the end of it as a different person. Changing his tone of voice from line to line in this voiceover is the least he could do, the very least, and he doesn't do it. Maybe he can't do it, or maybe he refuses to do it because he thinks it'll hurt his brand, like how Dwayne Johnson refuses to ever lose a fight in a movie because he thinks it would hurt his brand. No ill will towards Momoa; I'm sure he's a great guy in real life, but I've grown tired of his stock "chillax, bro, let's get wasted tonight!" performance.

I guess there's a short supply of roided up 6'5" freaks that can act well for your entertainment.

Is this your biggest issue in life?

*

Online honk

  • *
  • Posts: 3489
  • resident goose
    • View Profile
Re: Superhero Movies & Comics General
« Reply #1104 on: October 11, 2023, 04:46:27 PM »
No, there are other large actors who can act well, or at least considerably better than Momoa. But then again, I don't think Aquaman needed to be played by an enormous guy to begin with. I'm pretty sure that Momoa was mostly cast because of his history of playing fierce badass characters, and they wanted to preemptively push back against people making jokes about how lame Aquaman is. Personally, I think that worrying so much about people making jokes on the Internet is a poor priority for a film studio, but, alas, Hollywood has yet to take advice from me.

And yes, capeshit is my biggest issue in life, as it should be for everyone.
« Last Edit: December 23, 2023, 10:52:03 PM by honk »
ur retartet but u donut even no it and i walnut tell u y

*

Offline Roundy

  • Abdicator of the Zetetic Council
  • *
  • Posts: 4255
    • View Profile
Re: Superhero Movies & Comics General
« Reply #1105 on: November 14, 2023, 04:29:39 AM »
No, there are other large actors who can act well, or at least considerably better than Momoa. But then again, I don't think Aquaman needed to be played by an enormous guy to begin with. I'm pretty sure that Momoa was mostly cast because of his history of playing fierce badass characters, and they wanted to pre-emptively push back against people making jokes about how lame Aquaman is. Personally, I think that worrying so much about people making jokes on the Internet is a poor priority for a film studio, but, alas, Hollywood has yet to take advice from me.

I'm gonna disagree, because there have been versions of Aquaman that leaned into the badass burly trope in the comics and they tend to be the best iterations of the character. He's not usually such a himbo though.

In other news Loki is the best thing yet produced by the MCU. The ending (assuming it is over) was fantastic.
« Last Edit: November 14, 2023, 04:31:22 AM by Roundy »
Dr. Frank is a physicist. He says it's impossible. So it's impossible.
My friends, please remember Tom said this the next time you fall into the trap of engaging him, and thank you. :)

*

Offline Rushy

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8804
    • View Profile
« Last Edit: December 19, 2023, 07:26:54 PM by Rushy »

*

Online honk

  • *
  • Posts: 3489
  • resident goose
    • View Profile
Re: Superhero Movies & Comics General
« Reply #1107 on: December 28, 2023, 05:02:50 AM »
https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/aquaman_and_the_lost_kingdom

lol

Also, while I don't mean to pick on Snyder too much while he's not even directing capeshit movies, there was an interesting profile of him the other day in The Atlantic that I felt was worth sharing. It's a good read, but there are a couple of details here that I couldn't help raising an eyebrow at:

Quote
In fact, he’s one reason so many blockbusters look and sound the way they do: Snyder helped establish the template for comic-book movies as they evolved from summertime popcorn fare into ubiquitous year-round spectacles.

Uh, did he really? Snyder only directed one particularly successful blockbuster in the previous cinematic era, which was 300. That one movie is kind of a slim basis to be giving him this much credit.

Quote
“There’s no superhero science-fiction film coming out these days where I don’t see some influence of Zack,” Christopher Nolan, the Oppenheimer director who has worked with Snyder as a producer, told me. “When you watch a Zack Snyder film, you see and feel his love for the potential of cinema. The potential of it to be fantastical, to be heightened in its reality, but to move you and to excite you.”

Wait, what? What the actual fuck is he talking about? Every single capeshit movie nowadays is influenced by Snyder? I honestly can't think of even one capeshit movie that's been influenced by Snyder. I will say that there's no doubt that BvS was a huge negative influence on the genre in much the same way that Batman and Robin was all those years ago, but somehow I doubt that's what Nolan is referring to. I get that Nolan and Snyder are close friends and of course he's going to want to say something nice about his bro, but why would he say something so weirdly specific and so blatantly, obviously untrue?
« Last Edit: December 28, 2023, 02:47:10 PM by honk »
ur retartet but u donut even no it and i walnut tell u y

*

Offline Crudblud

  • *
  • Posts: 2272
  • A Moist Delectable Gentleman
    • View Profile
Re: Superhero Movies & Comics General
« Reply #1108 on: December 28, 2023, 10:53:10 AM »
I get that Nolan and Snyder are close friends and of course he's going to want to say something nice about his bro, but why would he say something so weirdly specific and so blatantly, obviously untrue?
Chris is a hack.

*

Online honk

  • *
  • Posts: 3489
  • resident goose
    • View Profile
Re: Superhero Movies & Comics General
« Reply #1109 on: March 18, 2024, 04:16:26 AM »
Snyder is once more in the news, due to a recent interview with fellow chucklehead Joe Rogan:

Quote
Snyder said that he “tends to get in trouble” with comic book fans “because I do take a deconstructivist point of view. Because I care, I want to take [superheroes] apart.”

“People are always like, ‘Batman can’t kill.’ So Batman can’t kill is canon. And I’m like, ‘Okay, well, the first thing I want to do when you say that is I want to see what happens,'” Snyder continued. “And they go, ‘Well, don’t put him in a situation where he has to kill someone.’ I’m like, ‘Well, that’s just like you’re protecting your God in a weird way, right? You’re making your God irrelevant.'”

Snyder found it much more interesting to put Batman in a situation where he has to kill, taking inspiration from Frank Miller’s comic book “The Dark Knight Returns.” He said fans often don’t want to see their hero in a “no win situation because we don’t want to see him lose,” but that’s not story he wants to bring to the screen. Snyder isn’t interested in a superhero who “has to maintain this godlike status.”

As I said some posts back, I don't think that Snyder actually knows what deconstruction is. Simply ignoring the fact that Batman canonically doesn't kill (because Snyder thinks that the idea of a superhero who doesn't kill is childish and overly idealistic) and instead portraying him as a killer is not deconstructive of anything, at least not in and of itself. It's literally just doing something different. To put it in Snyder's terms, if he wants Batman to kill so that we can "see what happens," then we do in fact need to see what happens. There's nothing textually, visually, or thematically significant about the fact that Batman is a killer in BvS. He simply uses guns and kills people in the same way that a standard action hero in a standard action movie would use guns and kill people. Further proof that Batman being a killer wasn't meant to be deconstructive can be seen in the big Batman fight scene near the end of the movie. Despite the fact that this scene takes place after Batman's confrontation with Superman and the completion of his arc, Batman still kills a number of his enemies. The fact is that Batman's arc was never about not killing in general; it was specifically about not killing Superman, and to a lesser extent not branding criminals, although the fact that it was Lex who arranged for the branded criminals to be killed muddles the issue of why exactly Batman branding criminals is treated by this movie as being so deeply wrong, especially when compared to all the other things he does.

And like I said years ago, Batman does not kill in TDKR. There is one ambiguous scene in the comic, which I'm pretty sure was meant to be a fake-out to make the reader think that maybe Batman really did kill someone, only to be reassured later on by comments from both Batman and the police pointing out that he actually hasn't killed anyone. TDKR is full of little fake-outs like that to make us think that Batman is about to go too far, like Batman producing a rifle which fires a grappling hook and the Batmobile opening fire on a bunch of gangsters with non-lethal rounds. Snyder was clearly far more interested in TDKR's imagery and occasional snatches of dialogue than he was in its actual story. To be fair, though, Snyder is far from the only Batman fan who apparently interpreted TDKR as a straightforward story about Batman being awesome rather than a deconstruction - an actual deconstruction, not Snyder's incorrect idea of one. It's not as egregious a misunderstanding of the text as it was for Watchmen.

Anyway, I've watched Aquaman and the Lost Kingdom, the final film in the DCEU before Gunn's new Superman movie presumably soft-reboots the whole thing. It's neither great nor a complete disaster. I guess the first thing I should say is that I was wrong about my "guarantee" of Momoa's performance being a major flaw in the movie. He still isn't what I'd call a good actor, but I'll credit him with putting a lot more effort into emoting and playing his role as more than just a chill dudebro than he has in previous films. Amber Heard has a much smaller role in this movie compared to the first one, and while I think she got a raw deal in the Depp trial and the discourse surrounding it (don't @ me), I can't really blame the filmmakers for not wanting to wade into the controversy surrounding her by giving her a big role again. She's never been a particularly good actress, anyway, lending their decision a bit more artistic credibility. So I wouldn't find this situation to be quite as unjust as, say, how Kelly Marie Tran was only given about a minute of screen time in TRoS to cater to the toxic vocal minority who hated her in TLJ.

The main problem with this movie is that it seems to be cramming two unrelated plots together for its main story. One is that Black Manta from the first movie is back and determined to exact his revenge on Aquaman, and the other is an absolutely shameless ripoff of LotR, complete with an underwater Sauron, an underwater Mordor, and an underwater One Ring in the form of a trident. I actually enjoyed how audacious the movie is in cribbing from LotR both visually and thematically, and I assure you that I'm not just reading too much into it or anything. Just one look at this underwater Sauron will show that there is zero chance this was unintentional. The issue is that none of it is necessary and just takes focus away from what should have been the movie's main conflict. Black Manta already hates Aquaman, and he's already dangerous enough to pose a serious threat to him. He doesn't need to be corrupted or mind-controlled, nor does he need an ancient evil weapon or an army of monsters to attack Atlantis. He's a successful pirate and treasure hunter, so presumably he's already got a gang, and it's not a stretch to suppose that he could have some new technology that Aquaman isn't familiar with. This doesn't need to be explained or justified within the movie. In fact, by keeping the threat that Black Manta poses as being entirely the product of human civilization, it could add a new dimension to the relationship between Aquaman and Orm, because Orm might consider it to be vindication for his plan to wipe out humanity in the previous movie.

The highlight of this movie is the return of Patrick Wilson as Orm. Like an absolute champ, Wilson refuses to let the fact that he's in a stupid and ridiculous movie hamper his acting, and he gives every scene absolutely everything he has. He delivers goofy exposition with a straight face that Adam West would approve of, he has great comic timing, and he makes Aquaman feel like more of a rounded character by playing the straight man to Momoa's wild exuberance. Speaking of the dynamic between those two, I've got to say I didn't like a brief gag where Aquaman sarcastically calls Orm "Loki." He's not making a reference to Norse mythology. It's very clearly a shout-out to the MCU, and it's very clearly for the benefit of the audience so they can see the inspiration. And it's so unnecessary! The MCU did not invent the idea of two brothers fighting over who would get to inherit the throne! It's unnecessary self-deprecation, like the filmmakers felt the need to sheepishly shrug and say, "Yeah, we're ripping off the MCU, so let's pay tribute to them in a weird bit of dialogue aimed at the audience," when it really isn't a ripoff of the MCU and no tribute was needed or owed. I know this is a nitpick, but something about that line really rubbed me the wrong way.

One thing that definitely is a ripoff from the MCU is the ending, where - look, I'm just going to say it, because this really isn't giving anything away about the story, and that's kind of the problem - Aquaman reveals the existence of Atlantis to the rest of the world. Yes, Black Panther had a similar ending, but in that movie, it was the result of the movie's actual themes and story. It was a logical and satisfying ending. In this movie, Atlantis being hidden from the rest of the world has fuck all to do with the themes or story. It's literally just there because Black Panther.

Here's my updated ranking of the entire DCEU:

1. The Suicide Squad
2. Wonder Woman
3. Shazam!
4. Birds of Prey (A-tier, genuinely good movies)
5. Blue Beetle
6. Aquaman
7. Wonder Woman 84 (B-tier, enjoyable despite their flaws)
8. Shazam! Fury of the Gods
9. Aquaman and the Lost Kingdom
10. Zack Snyder's Justice League
11. Black Adam
12. Man of Steel
13. Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (C-tier, bad movies with some redeeming elements)
14. The Flash
15. Justice League
16. Suicide Squad (D-tier, utter shit)
« Last Edit: September 28, 2024, 04:16:01 AM by honk »
ur retartet but u donut even no it and i walnut tell u y

*

Online honk

  • *
  • Posts: 3489
  • resident goose
    • View Profile
Re: Superhero Movies & Comics General
« Reply #1110 on: April 15, 2024, 03:40:09 AM »
I don't mean to keep picking on Momoa like I have it out for the guy or anything, but he gave an interview before the release of Lost Kingdom where he talked about a couple of interesting subjects. I know that directors sometimes offer actors roles that they didn't audition for, but Momoa's account of how he auditioned for Batman and didn't think much of it until he was inexplicably offered the role of Aquaman makes me even more sure that Snyder cast Momoa more for PR reasons than artistic ones. Bear in mind that this was all long before Momoa became a star in his own right and developed his onscreen chill-dudebro persona. Back then, he was best known for playing fierce, intimidating characters, and most famously Khal Drogo on GoT. It's true that Aquaman has been portrayed in the comics as a brawny badass type as well, like Roundy pointed out, but that's hardly conditional on the actor cast in the role, is it? Very few lead actors in capeshit movies are already known for being especially big or tough beforehand. No, I'm pretty sure that Snyder was worried that people would mock Aquaman for being lame long before they ever saw him on screen, and so he prioritized casting someone he thought would nip those jokes in the bud. To me, that's a very silly and overly defensive attitude to take, but hey, I'm not the in-demand blockbuster auteur who continues to receive huge budgets and full creative freedom to deliver dud after dud, Snyder is. What do I know?

Momoa also talks about Lobo, and I think at this point we can pretty much say it's confirmed he'll be playing him at some point in the new universe. This is not how actors respond when asked about mere rumors. Anyway, as was mentioned in this thread earlier, Momoa would actually be perfect as Lobo. He looks the part without needing to be turned into a CGI monster, and he wouldn't need to leave his laid-back comfort zone of acting. My main concern is that with Momoa in the role, they'll very likely try to turn Lobo into the hero of the movie who has to save the day, blah blah blah, and that's just not his character. I could see Lobo as the protagonist of an irreverent, low-stakes MAX series where he travels around the galaxy and gets into hijinks, but for a big mainstream blockbuster, Lobo should absolutely be a supporting character, not a hero. Put him in a Superman or Green Lantern movie where he's a wild card who complicates the plot - maybe the villain hires him to take out the hero, and they get into a few fights, but at the end of the movie Lobo respects the hero enough to show up and help him defeat the villain. Something like that, as opposed to a movie like Lobo: Dawn of Capeshit.

Also, the teaser for Joker: Folie à Deux dropped a few days ago. I'm already exhausted by the discourse around it, just like I was for the first Joker. It's not even the movie itself that I dislike so much as it is its most enthusiastic fans; the people who praise it endlessly for simply going through the motions of being a serious movie and focusing on psychology and character rather than action and explosions. I'm not saying that anyone who liked the movie is dumb or easily impressed, but I think I can say with some confidence that anyone who truly thinks that Joker was brilliant and revolutionary probably never watches movies that aren't blockbusters. Like one infamous Letterboxd review said:



Anyway, here's the new teaser:



I actually think this looks way more intriguing than the first one. I think they did a much better job at translating the costume and makeup for Harley into a gritty, grounded setting than they did for Joker himself. The idea that this is going to be a musical is easily the most interesting thing going on here, but I have to say that I won't be fully convinced that this will really be a proper the-characters-sing musical until I see footage of the characters actually singing. Maybe I'm being a bit too cynical, but producers and directors lie about upcoming movies a lot as a general rule, and they never face any consequences for it. I think it's very possible that this movie might just have a lot of songs that play in the background, or music itself will simply be a big theme in the movie, and then the people who claimed that this would be a musical will shrug and say "Yeah, that's what we meant by a musical." I'm not saying that's what I think will happen, just that it's a possibility that I think a lot of people aren't even taking into account. Also, because this franchise is this franchise and has the fans it has, I just can't get over the people creaming themselves at the closing shot of Arthur smiling through the lipstick on the glass. It's neat, sure, but it's nowhere near as ingenious as people are making it out to be. (Check the comments and I guarantee you'll see at least a few people raving about it.) It's not even original. This is obviously where they got the idea:



I have no problem believing that virtually all of Joker's most devoted fans have never seen Taxi Driver or The King of Comedy (and if they had, I strongly suspect that they'd be far less enthusiastic about Joker), but is The Dark Knight, of all movies, really outside of their reference pools? This poster was everywhere when the movie came out. Maybe Joker's biggest fans aren't old enough to remember TDK's release. It would actually explain a lot if the bulk of the movie's fanbase were teenagers.
« Last Edit: May 14, 2024, 04:09:18 AM by honk »
ur retartet but u donut even no it and i walnut tell u y

*

Offline Rushy

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8804
    • View Profile
Re: Superhero Movies & Comics General
« Reply #1111 on: April 15, 2024, 05:04:19 PM »
It would actually explain a lot if the bulk of the movie's fanbase were teenagers.

Well it certainly makes perfect sense that the primary component of a movie's fanbase is the demographic that the entire genre is built around. It's sort of like being surprised that Transformer films are mostly viewed by teenagers as well.

*

Offline Roundy

  • Abdicator of the Zetetic Council
  • *
  • Posts: 4255
    • View Profile
Re: Superhero Movies & Comics General
« Reply #1112 on: April 15, 2024, 06:57:36 PM »
This just in: most of Paw Patrol's audience is young children!
Dr. Frank is a physicist. He says it's impossible. So it's impossible.
My friends, please remember Tom said this the next time you fall into the trap of engaging him, and thank you. :)

*

Online honk

  • *
  • Posts: 3489
  • resident goose
    • View Profile
Re: Superhero Movies & Comics General
« Reply #1113 on: April 18, 2024, 02:26:37 AM »
Well it certainly makes perfect sense that the primary component of a movie's fanbase is the demographic that the entire genre is built around. It's sort of like being surprised that Transformer films are mostly viewed by teenagers as well.

You're not wrong. I just think it's interesting that of all capeshit films, it's the R-rated psychological thriller with no action or explosions where its most enthusiastic fans quickly make it clear how young and inexperienced they are.

This just in: most of Paw Patrol's audience is young children!

You're a teenager for liking Joker.
ur retartet but u donut even no it and i walnut tell u y

*

Offline Roundy

  • Abdicator of the Zetetic Council
  • *
  • Posts: 4255
    • View Profile
Re: Superhero Movies & Comics General
« Reply #1114 on: April 18, 2024, 12:18:08 PM »
Well it certainly makes perfect sense that the primary component of a movie's fanbase is the demographic that the entire genre is built around. It's sort of like being surprised that Transformer films are mostly viewed by teenagers as well.

You're not wrong. I just think it's interesting that of all capeshit films, it's the R-rated psychological thriller with no action or explosions where its most enthusiastic fans quickly make it clear how young and inexperienced they are.

In what way is this interesting?

Also Taxi Driver is overrated trash, Joker is a better movie, and there's nothing inherently wrong with a movie's creator wearing his influences on his sleeve. Controversial opinions?
Dr. Frank is a physicist. He says it's impossible. So it's impossible.
My friends, please remember Tom said this the next time you fall into the trap of engaging him, and thank you. :)

*

Offline Rushy

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8804
    • View Profile
Re: Superhero Movies & Comics General
« Reply #1115 on: April 18, 2024, 02:11:35 PM »
You're not wrong. I just think it's interesting that of all capeshit films, it's the R-rated psychological thriller with no action or explosions where its most enthusiastic fans quickly make it clear how young and inexperienced they are.

Joker's particular brand of edgy emo behavior is mental cocaine to teens and tweens alike. His "that feel when no gf",  "world is so mean to me for no reason" and "my job sucks" whining during the movie really hits it off with younger audiences. While, yes, there are deeper narratives in the film, those are the sorts of concepts younger audiences will identify with in the movie. It's a simple "he's literally me" movie for a lot of them. Especially since the end result is him rebelling against authority figures and lashing out.

*

Online honk

  • *
  • Posts: 3489
  • resident goose
    • View Profile
Re: Superhero Movies & Comics General
« Reply #1116 on: September 01, 2024, 06:07:53 PM »
I'm delighted that Crudblud has finally resumed the Batshit Odyssey and reviewed BvS. I largely agree with most of it, and especially how overwhelming it feels to try to appropriately criticize a movie this monumentally, fundamentally wrong-headed and broken. The best thing I can do, I think, is just sort of list all of my issues with this movie one after the other, and not to spend too much time or effort on trying to summarize it all. I've ranted about BvS in this thread many times over the years, but it'll be nice to have all of my points, or near enough, in two posts.

If I had to point to what's the biggest issue in BvS, which is no easy task, I think I'd single out just how hollow the central conflict - the "v" of the title, so to speak - feels, and how little of the movie contributes to that conflict, despite being ostensibly presented as such. Let's start from the beginning. I actually don't think that Bruce's introductory scene on the ground in Metropolis during the flashback to MoS is a bad one. I mean, it wouldn't be the beginning of my ideal capeshit film, and I think it's really tacky how heavily and deliberately Snyder invokes the imagery of 9/11, but there are a lot of things that work here. Bruce running into danger while everyone else is running in the opposite direction is a strong visual, there's a poignancy to Bruce comforting the young child that's surprisingly gentle for Snyder, and Bruce's furious glare at Superman says far more than any dramatic speech or vow of revenge would. If nothing else, the scene is at least clear. It very firmly establishes Bruce's personal animosity towards Superman. There's still over two hours of movie to go before Batman challenges Superman, so you'd expect his opinion of Superman to be expanded upon in that time, right?

But it isn't! It's all just red herrings and pointless diversions, most of which stem from Lex Luthor's ridiculous and overly-complicated master plan. For example, there's Guy With No Legs, as Crudblud dubbed him. He's an employee of Wayne Enterprises who lost his legs during the destruction of Metropolis, and is now a hobo. Bruce tries to do right by him by sending him disability or compensation checks, but they're returned uncashed, with "YOU LET YOUR FAMILY DIE" scrawled on one of them. This is actually Lex's work, though - he's intercepted the checks and sent them back with that message. In the meantime, Lex seizes on Guy's disability and financial straits to groom him into becoming an anti-Superman activist who will testify at the congressional hearing - except Lex puts a bomb in his chair, which explodes and kills everyone. Now, Lex does all this because...because...he's trying to unnerve Bruce (whom he knows is Batman, because reasons)? He tricks Bruce into thinking that his former employee blames him for what happened, has refused his money, and become a suicide bomber. Well, I don't know if Bruce could reasonably be expected to know that it was Guy who blew up the hearing, as only Superman, being the only survivor, could have reported on what happened. But we'll give the movie the benefit of the doubt and say that Bruce has been successfully tricked into thinking Guy rejected his money and blew up a congressional hearing instead. What does this actually change between Bruce and Superman? Bruce already hates Superman and already thinks he's a danger to the world. What was the point of this whole scheme?

A subplot that I find even more frustrating concerns the character of Kahina Ziri. She supposedly witnesses the chaos that Superman causes in the fictional African nation of Nairomi near the beginning of the film, and publicly accuses Superman of killing innocent people and not caring about whom he hurts. I think it's a pretty bold idea and a strong visual to have an African woman call out Superman, with all his power and privilege, and basically challenge him to do better, and the movie is clearly drawing a parallel between Superman and real-world American military intervention. This is what motivates Superman to decide to start looking for out the powerless instead of just responding to major catastrophes, and this ends up with Clark investigating the stories of Batman and the stabbed prisoners. So far, so good...but no, because then it turns out Kahina was lying the whole time. Instead of being a character with agency, she was just another one of Lex's hired pawns, and is murdered after she has a change of heart. Turns out Superman had nothing to worry about and no need to change his priorities or worldview at all! What bullshit! Snyder teases this really provocative and genuinely deconstructive idea, and then he chickens out on actually following it through!

I just mentioned the prison stabbings, which are also weird. This movie first indicates to us that this is a darker Batman who's been pushed over the line by showing us that he's been branding criminals that he captures with the shape of his bat symbol. This is what gets Superman on the case of Batman, and I do think that having him stand up for the rights of prisoners is a refreshing character beat and a very Superman thing to do. However, the movie textually is less concerned with the cruelty of branding prisoners and more with the fact that branded prisoners are being murdered by other prisoners when they're in jail. In Superman's eyes, Batman isn't just being cruel; he's responsible for these deaths. So now we have a clear ideological conflict between Batman and Superman...except that no, because it turns out that Lex was paying prisoners to murder the branded criminals. See, Superman doesn't really have a big problem with Batman after all, because it was all Lex's fault. Like I mentioned a few posts ago, the movie treats Batman sparing Lex his brand at the end as a turning point for him and a sign that he's moved past his darkness, but why? The brandings were apparently only bad because of the prisoners being stabbed, which only happened because of Lex's machinations.

There are more examples in the movie of how the enmity between Batman and Superman, or the enmity between Superman and the world at large, all come down to Lex's ludicrous and convoluted master plan rather than genuine ideological conflicts between the characters. The only conflict between them that isn't engineered by Lex is the one that's established at the very beginning of the movie - Batman's anger at Superman over the events of MoS. Instead of building on that, Snyder just wastes two hours of screen time on Lex's diversions and manipulations. It's narrative dead air, and it's dogshit storytelling to have both main characters be manipulated by another character this much. Agency is important. There's a world of difference between Batman and Superman fighting because they chose to and them fighting because Lex has manipulated them into fighting. I honestly believe that Snyder doesn't understand this. If asked about it, he would probably say, "What does it matter if Batman and Superman meant to fight or if they were tricked into fighting? What's important is what's on screen. The scene of them fighting would still play out the same way, so it wouldn't make a difference to the audience."

And even setting aside the fundamental problem of Lex's master plan fatally undermining the conflict between Batman and Superman, the fact is that the plan is very silly on its own merits. It's way too complicated, it relies on specific actions being taken by multiple other characters that Lex had no way of accurately predicting, while it also paradoxically has weird blind spots like Lex bizarrely equipping his men with rare, experimental ammunition that can be traced back to him, which Lois inevitably ends up doing. That last detail especially grates on me because it's such an obvious and weak pretext on the part of the screenwriters to get Lois involved with the main plot. They really couldn't come up with anything better than our supposedly ingenious villain conveniently (and for no discernible purpose other than reasons) using special ammunition that would lead right back to him? The movie would be have been much stronger and more focused without Lex's goofy master plan dictating the plot. If they really wanted Lex in this movie, then they could have kept him in the background as an agitator, someone who's trying to pit the rest of the world against Superman, and that would have been a good tease for him to maybe be the main villain in a later movie.

I'm going to keep talking about Lex! Without even discussing Jesse Eisenberg's performance, this character is terrible as written. Most of his dialogue feels like it's meant to reinforce either how smart or how weird he is. Regarding the intelligence aspect of it, this is not a convincing depiction of a smart person. I know I've shared this article before, but it really does do a great job of breaking down the superficiality and utter inanity of the intelligence that Lex supposedly displays. There had to have been a better way of showing off how smart Lex was. Like, maybe the movie could have shown him designing the anti-metahuman weapons he was interested in, or perhaps building a power suit for himself. Or maybe they could have shown us how Lex discovered the identities of Batman and Superman - it really grinds my gears how the momentous story detail of Lex Luthor knowing who Batman and Superman are is treated in such a casual way. Even just giving him a few scenes of technobabble would have been more effective than "Let's have him bring up Icarus; only really smart people know the story of Icarus!" As for Lex's weirdness, it doesn't serve any narrative purpose, I can't imagine any actor somehow making his lines not incredibly annoying, and I'm pretty sure that it all came down to just another capeshit movie trying to make its villain more like Heath Ledger's Joker from TDK.

A bit about shared universes now - I get why Snyder didn't want to just copy the MCU and put teasers for upcoming movies at the end of this one. There's nothing wrong with trying to integrate those elements into the movie properly. However, having Wonder Woman just watch three teasers for upcoming movies directly before the climax of this one, with dramatic music blaring as our title characters prepare for their final showdown, is not what I'd call good, organic integration. There must have been so many ways to hint at the existence of Aquaman, Cyborg, and the Flash without having to just watch these videos back to back in such a clumsy, forced way. Maybe Clark or Lois covered a high school football game that Cyborg played in for the Daily Planet. Maybe Batman investigated the convenience store robbery when he heard about the involvement of a super-fast metahuman, logically suspecting Superman. Maybe Wonder Woman knows about Atlantis or has encountered its people in the past. And if they really wanted to keep the videos that we saw in the movie, they could at the very least have pushed them to way earlier in the movie, maybe with Lex showing them to Holly Hunter during the scene where he talks about metahumans. Also, implying that Lex is the one who designed these capeshitters' logos is really fucking lame. It makes the whole universe feel so small.

That being said, Wonder Woman watching these teasers right before the climax of the movie isn't nearly as bad as the ridiculous "Knightmare" scene. I really feel like this scene was almost forgotten in the wave of negative criticism that was directed at BvS after its release, and as such has never gotten the shit it truly deserves. Because it really is one of the worst scenes in the movie. For one thing, it's just another teaser for an upcoming movie. This scene goes on for five minutes and bears no relevance to the actual movie it's in, being immediately forgotten and only brought up again in the Snyder cut of JL. And not only is it just a teaser, it's also a really bad teaser. It's - intentionally, I believe - vague and obscure, beginning in medias res and providing no explanation to the audience of what's going on in this scene or why. I don't think there's anyone in the world, no matter how much of a DC fan they might be, who could have watched this scene for the first time without being baffled. Again, to stress this point, this isn't simply one line of dialogue or a brief exchange, it's a whole five minutes of the movie, nestled right in the middle like a short film. It's insane that Snyder thought it would be a good idea to interrupt his own movie and confuse the audience for five minutes with this fever dream, and it's even more insane that a producer didn't intervene and insist that the scene be cut. Also, I have no doubt that the presentation of Batman as a trigger-happy gunslinger and Superman as a murderous dictator were for the sake of edge and shock value more than anything else.

Speaking of bad scenes, let's discuss the most infamous one of all - "Martha." While it was universally mocked when BvS first came out, this scene does play a key role in the efforts of Snyder fans to argue that BvS is actually a good movie and is simply misunderstood by people who didn't "get it." Their argument goes that of course Batman doesn't really spare Superman's life simply because his mother has the same name as his. That's just a coincidence that gets Batman's attention, and by extension has him realize exactly what he's doing. He's about to kill a defenseless man in cold blood, a man who means no harm and has objectively done great things for the human race, a man who has someone who loves him enough to dive between him and his would-be killer, a man who loves and cries out for his mother, just as Batman remembers doing himself as a young boy all those years ago when his parents were taken from him. Batman realizes that because of his fear and paranoia, now he's the man with the gun, and he's the one who's about to permanently separate a loving mother and son. And so he flings his spear away in disgust, etc.

I have no doubt that this was the intended takeaway for audiences in this scene. And as described here, I think it sounds perfectly fine. Poignant, even. Unfortunately, the scene doesn't quite resonate this way on screen, and the main reason why is the "Martha" factor. The movie puts way too much emphasis on this odd maternal coincidence and plays it up as a huge dramatic moment that's enough to throw Batman for a loop and change the whole situation, even if we're meant to understand that it's not in and of itself the reason why Batman spares Superman. That's how movies work, after all - once you frame something as being important using the language of film, then it becomes important to the movie regardless of whether that's consistent with the characters or story. Batman and Superman having mothers with the same is important to this movie because it's framed as being important, and no after-the-fact rationalizations will change how this scene actually plays out. The end result is that the audience is primed by a scene like this to immediately start thinking about geeky capeshit trivia instead of actually being moved by Batman's arc.

I honestly don't think that the "Martha" coincidence should have been brought up at all. Like, maybe they could have squeezed a reference to it at the end of the scene and put it in place of Batman saying "Martha won't die tonight" to Superman. I think with that line the film is trying to suggest that Batman might actually find some psychological closure for his failure to protect his own mother by saving Superman's mother - which is genuinely a pretty ambitious and interesting idea for Batman. But they didn't really need to invoke the coincidence to communicate that idea, and could have conveyed it just as easily - and a bit more clearly, too - by simply having Batman say something like "I lost my mother when I was a child. I won't let you lose yours," to Superman. Like I said, the coincidence is just geeky capeshit trivia, and bringing it up at all risks overshadowing the poignancy of Batman's arc. I have no way of knowing this for sure, but I honestly suspect that it was Snyder himself who decided that this bit of trivia needed to be "addressed" and worked into the story. It feels like the kind of thing a dumb fanboy like him would insist on including in the movie.
ur retartet but u donut even no it and i walnut tell u y

*

Online honk

  • *
  • Posts: 3489
  • resident goose
    • View Profile
Re: Superhero Movies & Comics General
« Reply #1117 on: September 01, 2024, 06:10:05 PM »
That scene is far from the only moment in the movie where genuinely ambitious or interesting ideas are buried under poor execution. I don't want to spend too much time talking about Snyder fans rather than the movie itself, but so many of their defenses of it can be chalked up to them analyzing individual scenes or moments meticulously, deciding on what they're supposed to convey, and then accusing people who criticize them of simply not getting it. But movies are first and foremost meant to be watched and enjoyed, not picked apart and studied like they're an academic treatise. Part of the job of the director and screenwriter is to communicate their ideas to the audience using the language of film, and if they can't do that, and need to rely on fans going back over their movie to say "Hmm, yes, so what this scene really means is this..." or "People mock this scene because they think its goofy, but what they don't realize is that the characters were..." then they've failed in that job. To put it more simply, execution is just as important as intent, and simply understanding the intent behind any given scene or moment doesn't suddenly make the execution of that scene or moment retroactively better.

I could keep talking about this subject as it relates to BvS for quite a while, but I'll just give one more example: Batman's odd voiceover right at the start of the movie, where he says, "There was a time above... a time before... there were perfect things... diamond absolutes. But things fall... things on earth. And what falls... is fallen. In the dream, they took me to the light. A beautiful lie." Even setting aside the silly phrasing that comes from directly quoting Yeats and Heaney (doesn't sound so great when you take it out of context, does it?), what exactly is Batman talking about? The first part of it isn't too hard to figure out, especially seeing as it takes place during the Waynes' murder and subsequent funeral. Bruce Wayne's idyllic life was upended and everything changed after his parents were murdered when he was a young boy. Standard Batman origin story. But what about the final two lines, beginning with "In the dream..."? It's very cryptic, and doesn't sound typical for Batman. And I'm certainly not the only one who was puzzled by those lines, because Snyder has been asked about their meaning on the weird social media platform he likes. Here's his explanation:



I'm not going to make fun of Snyder for struggling to express himself verbally. I can see what he means, and it does seem to be a fair summary of this Batman's worldview. Unfortunately, expressing this Batman's worldview by way of a cryptic monologue that's never brought up again at the start of the movie only confuses the audience. Remember, this is a whole new Batman (hence BvS having yet another scene of the Waynes being murdered), and one that makes major deviations from Batman's usual character. The Batman of the comics, along with the various versions of him we've seen in previous adaptations, very seldom questions or doubts the righteousness and importance of his mission as Batman for longer than the space of a single conversation. The audience can't reasonably be expected to "get" from a couple of odd lines at the start of the movie that this Batman has lost faith in what he does the same way that they could reasonably be expected to "get" that Bruce's life changed forever after the deaths of his parents. The only people who are going to get anything out of this monologue are the fans who go back over the movie having already watched it and analyze each scene to figure out the filmmakers' intent. Everyone else is left confused after watching what amounts to a very standard, if over-the-top, Batman origin scene with a pretentious poem attached to it.

This has already gone on for way too long, so I'll just start throwing out some more standard critiques. The movie is dull and depressing. It makes no sense for Superman to be a brooding stoic, and just like MoS, the movie is far more interested in Superman as an idea than as a three-dimensional character with a personality and worldview of his own. Doomsday is awful - ugly, unfaithful to the source material, and completely superfluous to the titular struggle between Batman and Superman. If they had jazzed up the fight between Batman and Superman a bit, that would have been a far better climax to the movie than fighting Doomsday. I don't like that Batman uses guns and is a killer, especially when his killing isn't even an intentional reflection of this Batman having lost his way and gone down a darker route, but is just there because Snyder thinks that superheroes not killing is unrealistic, and also because he's an immature edgelord who's insecure about liking capeshit, so he feels the need to edge it up. I also don't like how the Batmobile is this armored behemoth that smashes through everything in its path with brute force. That's just not Batman, and it's not the Batmobile. I've noticed this trend of trying to "toughen up" the Batmobile in adaptations before, notably in the Nolan trilogy and Arkham Knight (and parodied in The Lego Batman Movie), and I can only assume that it's coming from a place of embarrassment in dealing with the fact that Batman drives around in a bat-themed car.

Is there anything I like about this movie? At times it's beautiful. I like Wonder Woman - it's funny now thinking back to how brightly, and yet briefly, Gal Gadot shone as seemingly the MVP of the entire DCEU. The effect largely wore off right around the time that WW84 flopped commercially and people stated to get tired of Gadot's very limited acting talent, which became all the more clear with every movie she appeared in. Still, at least for this movie, the novelty of seeing this character on the big screen for the first time, combined with Gadot's striking looks and charisma, were a highlight of BvS, and definitely paved the way for her own movie to become such a big hit. And as much as I don't like Batman as a killer, I think there's something very compelling about this Batman, not least of which is Affleck's strong performance. It really is sad seeing the difference between Affleck's performance in this movie and how much he phoned it in in his later appearances. He really believed in this movie, and it's clear that its critical failure crushed him. Oh, and Jeremy Irons plays a very solid Alfred (interestingly enough, deviating from the latest trend in adaptations of giving Alfred working-class roots, as we've seen in the Nolan trilogy, Gotham, and The Batman) and has a good rapport with Affleck.

The best scene of the movie is, just as I felt when I first saw it, Batman's fight scene in the warehouse. It's not perfect. I (obviously) don't like how Batman kills a few people, I don't like how he uses his enemies' guns and knives against them, and I don't like how Batman can endure gunshots at close range and still keep fighting (although they do at least stagger him somewhat, which is definitely preferable to how The Batman and The Flash portrayed him as entirely unfazed when several enemies emptied their assault rifles into his chest all at once). But apart from those details, it's fantastic to see a Batman who's moving fast, hitting hard, using his gadgets, and generally being a very believable physical threat. I also really like how the scene shows Batman take a few hits and get knocked to the ground (I whupped Batman's ass) at one point, only for him to keep fighting effectively from the ground until he can get back on his feet and regain the offensive. It's so much better than the previous movies where Batman slowly lumbered about under a heavy rubber suit, and it's crazy how they kept doing that for so long. Nobody cares if the Batsuit isn't as solid and heavy as a realistic suit of armor would be! It's fucking capeshit!

The negative impact of this movie was momentous. Audiences did not like this movie, and I want to be very clear on this point, because it's yet another detail that Snyder fanboys keep trying to rewrite history on. Look at the numbers for a moment - poor word of mouth was killing this movie at the box office within the very first weekend. That's not normal! Usually a front-loaded blockbuster performs well throughout the first weekend, and then starts sharply declining. But no, even on the very first day it came out, people were already telling their friends not to see this shitty movie. And it did still have an enormous drop-off the next week. Overall, the movie grossed $874.4 million at the box office, which I'm sure made WB a healthy profit, but for a movie starring Batman and Superman together for the first time? With the first appearance of Wonder Woman? And at the height of the capeshit boom? It should have grossed twice that, or at least over a billion. This was all the evidence WB needed that Snyder was toxic to their brand. It's not hindsight to say that this was their warning (I would actually argue that MoS was their warning) and that they should have cut ties with Snyder immediately. Not slowly pivot away from his vision, not add more producer notes to his films, but immediately pull the trigger on a new director and a new overarching plan for the DCEU. But they didn't, and so we ended up with the flop that was JL. I'll talk about JL later, because, again, this has grown obscenely long, but it's important to remember that the immediate reception to JL was a direct consequence of BvS's poor reception. It had nothing to do with Joss Whedon or studio interference. All that stuff only came to light much later.

Many old-school capeshit nerds will call BvS the worst capeshit movie ever made. I wouldn't go that far. For all its cynicism and edge, there is at least an artistic sincerity to it that comes of a director who was genuinely trying to make a good movie, as opposed to a studio that shits out a lab-produced movie that's little more than a collection of "trailer moments" and lousy jokes. So by that standard, it's at least better than the theatrical cut of JL and Suicide Squad. But make no mistake, it's bad. It's very, very bad. And, yes, I know this review is ridiculously long, and probably nobody is even reading this far. I can't help it. I just had so much to say about this.
« Last Edit: September 26, 2024, 01:43:12 PM by honk »
ur retartet but u donut even no it and i walnut tell u y

*

Offline Roundy

  • Abdicator of the Zetetic Council
  • *
  • Posts: 4255
    • View Profile
Re: Superhero Movies & Comics General
« Reply #1118 on: Today at 04:12:57 PM »
Joker 2 was a steaming pile of shit.
Dr. Frank is a physicist. He says it's impossible. So it's impossible.
My friends, please remember Tom said this the next time you fall into the trap of engaging him, and thank you. :)