[Rama Set]

I love it when Thork pretends to know stuff about comics.

[Crudblud]

And this is why I didn't bother responding to his first post.

[Dr David Thork]

And this is why I didn't bother responding to his first post.

Is that addressed to me?

I spend money going to the cinema. I watched x-men again today. I don't have to read every comic that ever comes out to still be a consumer that enjoys good films ... and recently they have all been sh*t.

[honk]

No, Deadpool was declared pansexual in 2013 ... when raging leftists were already at full voice about 'inclusion' which includes everybody accept the vast majority of people.

Deadpool's "pansexuality" begins and ends with his frequent discomforting remarks and suggestive humor. Nobody with creative control of the character has any real interest in portraying him as anything other than a more-or-less straight dude with a weird sense of humor. It's kind of like how Dumbledore from Harry Potter is apparently gay, but it's never once acknowledged or hinted at in the books, and WB has no intention of doing so in the upcoming movies.

No one is interested in this apart from people who don't even read or watch comic films/book, that just want the 'message' conveyed. People need to carry on voting with their wallets and boycotting this brainscrubbing trash.

Yeah, like the great success we had in boycotting Black Panther. That'll teach them!

[Rama Set]

Other than the racist joke about the CIA agent being a colonist in Black Panther, there really wasn’t much in this movie that was show-horned by the Progressive Left. It’s pretty much a faithful comic book adaptation from what my friend and Black Pabther connossieur told me.

[honk]

I implore you to go watch that trailer again and really look at the CGI. Look at this rubber shark that is entirely consistent with the rubber fish family from the poster. When the poster came out I thought "oh it's just a poster, the lighting and texturization won't be that bad in the film" but I was wrong, Sadman.

But the fish from the poster aren't CGI, they're real. Some of them seem to be stock images. They look off because of poor compositing, blatant recycling of the same images, and the fact that the shark in particular is very recognizable. I'm beginning to think that the problem is on your end rather than the film's. Also, this should be the movie's actual poster:

[Snupes]

So you agree that they look bad, but because I thought it was bad CG instead of realizing it was badly-edited images of real sharks it's a problem on my end? And does it make the fish in the film look any better?

[Roundy]

So you agree that they look bad, but because I thought it was bad CG instead of realizing it was badly-edited images of real sharks it's a problem on my end? And does it make the fish in the film look any better?

That's what I was wondering, Saddam's reply doesn't make a lot of sense.

[honk]

So you agree that they look bad, but because I thought it was bad CG instead of realizing it was badly-edited images of real sharks it's a problem on my end? And does it make the fish in the film look any better?

I was jokingly questioning your ability to recognize bad CGI sharks if you thought that real sharks were bad CGI. I know what you meant, of course, but you have to admit that you walked right into a snarky comeback by criticizing the CGI of real sharks during a discussion on CGI sharks. As for the shark in the aquarium, I think it's fine. Not amazing, but passable, serviceable, and not appreciably worse than much of the MCU. It's the speed and general movement of the shark that stood out the most to me, just because we know that it's unnatural for sharks to move in that way. It's not so much bad CGI as it is uncanny valley.

That they are trying to mesh a super hero story with a lighter comedic tone. What did you think i meant?

I wasn't sure what to think about what you meant, but my immediate thought was that GotG, as great as it was, had a certain level of crudeness and mean-spiritedness to it that I feel would be inappropriate for a movie like this. I agree that a lighter comedic tone is what's called for.

[Rama Set]

I wasn't sure what to think about what you meant, but my immediate thought was that GotG, as great as it was, had a certain level of crudeness and mean-spiritedness to it that I feel would be inappropriate for a movie like this. I agree that a lighter comedic tone is what's called for.

I didn’t have that perception of GotG, but assuming that is true kids can be crude and mean. It seems entirely appropriate to have moments of that in the film seeing as its protagonist is a kid. Regardless, I didn’t say that Shazam should try and be GotG, just that a comedic tone is a good look for the DCEU.

[Rama Set]

New Venom trailer:



Looks like the CGI might be distracting, but could be good story-wise.

[Rushy]

"First, there is Spider-Man happily in the place where he’s supposed to be which is in the Marvel Universe. I think everything comes from that. This is the signpost, the tentpole, the signature and… the other movies that Sony’s going to make, in their relationship to this [MCU] Spider-Man, take place in this world. Although you’re not going to see them in the Marvel Universe, it’s in the same reality."

When your producer has to admit that Venom isn't in the MCU but also isn't allowed to admit Venom isn't in the MCU you get amazing quotes like this right here.

[Rama Set]

Shit son, gotta feel bad for the producer.

[honk]

could be good

It looks terrible. This dialogue is laughable, Hardy sounds like Elmer Fudd, and the climax of two oily, stringy symbiotes having a clusterfuck fight is about the most boring, generic thing they could have dreamed up for this, short of including a skybeam/portal of doom. Sony is even more lost than WB. They can't accept that their current deal with Marvel is as high as they'll ever rise in the capeshit game, and all they're going to do is dilute the brand by slapping the Marvel name on these shitty spinoffs, along with presumably spoiling their potential for inclusion in the MCU for a few years or so. And on the notion of lousy capeshit:

http://www.syfy.com/syfywire/justice-league-zack-snyder-robin-dceu

I talked about this earlier in the thread, but I guess this is the "confirmation" that Snyder intended Dick to be the dead Robin in BvS. And really, this is the kind of stupid, cynical shit that takes away from the small amount of respect I had for Snyder for trying to be a bold auteur and going his own way with such valuable properties. As easy as it is to mock Snyder's edgy sensibilities, most of his creative decisions were genuinely meant to serve the story or characters. Like, Batman's hostile relationship with the police isn't a statement that this Batman is too cool to pal around with the boring old cops - it's meant to contribute to the sense that he's lost his way and become a corruption of himself and everything he once stood for. But having Dick specifically be the dead Robin doesn't add to anything. It's not necessary to establish that Batman is broken or disillusioned, as Batman would rightly be traumatized by the death of any sidekick he ever took on, it doesn't add emotional impact, as the franchise hasn't introduced any Robins yet, it doesn't add stakes, as the death of Robin is only background detail rather than part of the story proper, it's not true to the comics, and it shoots the franchise in the foot by needlessly robbing it of such an important character. It's edge for edge's sake.

[Rama Set]

As someone who’s heavily plugged in to pop culture you’re probably right.

[Roundy]

I mean, I just took it for granted that it was Jason. Why wouldn't it be? I guess if Batman's first and only Robin was killed it makes it that much darker, oooooh.

[honk]

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/henry-cavill-as-superman-warner-bros-dc-universe-shake-up-1142306

Well done, WB. Truly, this will be remembered as an iconic take on this character.

[juner]

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/henry-cavill-as-superman-warner-bros-dc-universe-shake-up-1142306

Well done, WB. Truly, this will be remembered as an iconic take on this character.

That's because the studio has shifted its focus to a Supergirl movie, which will be an origin story featuring a teen superheroine.

Because of course.

[beardo]

That's because the studio has shifted its focus to a Supergirl movie, which will be an origin story featuring a teen superheroine.

Because of course.

inb4they cast a dark-skinned person.

[Lord Dave]

That's because the studio has shifted its focus to a Supergirl movie, which will be an origin story featuring a teen superheroine.

Because of course.

inb4they cast a dark-skinned person.

https://www.ebony.com/entertainment-culture/michael-b-jordan-considered-as-replacement-for-henry-cavill-as-superman?amp&__twitter_impression=true