# Deadpool!!



## Reaver (Apr 1, 2015)

HEY SCRIBES!

Any hardcore DEADPOOL fans out there? Click the link to see test footage for a movie featuring The Merc with the Mouth coming next year. 

**WARNING** Mature content (bad words and a little gore).

*I CAN'T WAIT!!!*


----------



## TheCatholicCrow (Apr 1, 2015)

Deadpool is so ridiculous - I love it! 

Can't wait for the film to FINALLY come out. 

I probably don't have to tell you but Netflix is supposed to be adding a bunch of the Marvel series. I'm stoked for DareDevil. I thought the movie wasn't that bad (Punisher was WAY worse). I wish they'd continue w Agent Carter ... I really liked that one. I definitely preferred it to Agents of Shield (aliens just aren't my thing).


----------



## Reaver (Apr 1, 2015)

TheCatholicCrow said:


> Deadpool is so ridiculous - I love it!
> 
> Can't wait for the film to FINALLY come out.
> 
> I probably don't have to tell you but Netflix is supposed to be adding a bunch of the Marvel series. I'm stoked for DareDevil. I thought the movie wasn't that bad (Punisher was WAY worse). I wish they'd continue w Agent Carter ... I really liked that one. I definitely preferred it to Agents of Shield (aliens just aren't my thing).



The teaser for DareDevil looked great! Vincent D'onofrio as Kingpin?? EPIC!!  Punisher with Thomas Jane was tolerable (imho)... far superior to the "sequel" with that guy from Nip/Tuck. And dare I mention the abysmal Dolph Lundgren foray into the Marvel Universe? 

But I digress... Despite quite a few awful Marvel films, they're still better than anything D.C.'s been putting out there. I mean, since when is Superman all dark and brooding? That's Batman's thing. I won't go into a rant here but I will pose these questions to all the Man of Steel fans: How many countless millions died or were severely injured during the Kryptonians fight in Metropolis?

An even greater question: What is up with the phallic Kryptonian ships? I mean, come on!


----------



## Mindfire (Apr 2, 2015)

Reaver said:


> The teaser for DareDevil looked great! Vincent D'onofrio as Kingpin?? EPIC!!  Punisher with Thomas Jane was tolerable (imho)... far superior to the "sequel" with that guy from Nip/Tuck. And dare I mention the abysmal Dolph Lundgren foray into the Marvel Universe?
> 
> But I digress... Despite quite a few awful Marvel films, they're still better than anything D.C.'s been putting out there. I mean, since when is Superman all dark and brooding? That's Batman's thing. I won't go into a rant here but I will pose these questions to all the Man of Steel fans: How many countless millions died or were severely injured during the Kryptonians fight in Metropolis?
> 
> An even greater question: What is up with the phallic Kryptonian ships? I mean, come on!


Answer: according to the director only about 2000. If you pay attention the buildings were mostly empty. And it was his first time ever being a superhero. What did you expect? Heck, worse damage was done in the Justice League cartoon and people didn't complain then. Heck, Metropolis got WRECKED in Superman the Animated Series. And Superman himself wasn't really dark and brooding at all in MoS. The world around him was darker, but the man himself was spot on. Did you even see the scene where he starts flying for the first time? It literally made a baby smile. There's a video on YouTube. And people say the film was joyless. And don't even get me started on Arrow and Flash. I like the Marvel films, but I will go to the mat for DC. Batman v. Superman will have an awesomeness quotient to rival if not surpass The Avengers. I have found my hill to die on! XD


----------



## Reaver (Apr 2, 2015)

You're a good man, Mindfire. I respect your dedication to DC. I also respect your opinion and maybe SOME buildings were empty but too hard to believe that only 2000 people died in that alien invasion. I call it that because in my opine that's the genre of movie it is.

That being said, DC has yet to impress me with its films (Batman Begins, The Dark Knight and The Watchmen excluded). I mean Green Lantern was a trainwreck, Superman Returns while not a bad film was (again just my opinion here) mediocre.

The Dark Knight Rises was both horrible and laughable in so many ways I couldn't possibly list them all. 

It's my sincere hope that Batman vs Superman, Aquaman, Wonder Woman and Justice League are great. 

I'm a DC fan too. Hell, Batman is my all-time favorite superhero. I also think Bale did a great job in the first two and did the best he could with what he had to work with in the third. It couldn't have been easy following the incredible Michael Keaton and then Kilmer and Clooney's abysmal shitpiles.

A lot of people don't like DareDevil, but I think that Affleck can make a convincing Batman. Only time will tell.

I'll end with this: No comment on the Kryptonian penis ships?    :biggrin:


----------



## Mindfire (Apr 2, 2015)

Reaver said:


> You're a good man, Mindfire. I respect your dedication to DC. I also respect your opinion and maybe SOME buildings were empty but too hard to believe that only 2000 people died in that alien invasion. I call it that because in my opine that's the genre of movie it is.


That's the director's figure not mine. (Though he may have said 5000 now that I think about it.) Were it my film, I would have set the number slightly higher. But not _millions_. I mean, things like this happen on the regular in the DC universe. If millions died every time, earth would be a desolate, unpopulated wasteland inside of a month.



Reaver said:


> That being said, DC has yet to impress me with its films (Batman Begins, The Dark Knight and The Watchmen excluded). I mean Green Lantern was a trainwreck, Superman Returns while not a bad film was (again just my opinion here) mediocre.
> 
> The Dark Knight Rises was both horrible and laughable in so many ways I couldn't possibly list them all.


I mostly agree here regarding the DC films from 2005 onward- except I actually liked the Dark Knight Rises. The plot holes aren't as bad as people make them out to be and you can connect the dots if you try. I honestly think the script just needed one more draft to make it shine.



Reaver said:


> It's my sincere hope that Batman vs Superman, Aquaman, Wonder Woman and Justice League are great.
> 
> I'm a DC fan too. Hell, Batman is my all-time favorite superhero. I also think Bale did a great job in the first two and did the best he could with what he had to work with in the third. It couldn't have been easy following the incredible Michael Keaton and then Kilmer and Clooney's abysmal shitpiles.
> 
> A lot of people don't like DareDevil, but I think that Affleck can make a convincing Batman. Only time will tell.



Affleck is going to be awesome. And all the naysayers will wail in despair. The previous Batman actors were all good in their own way. Including Kilmer, who I honestly think has the best live action Bat-voice so far and just got trapped in a bad movie that wasn't his fault. And Clooney? Why would you bring him up. He's never played Batman before. But Affleck is going to blow them all out of the water. I'm sure of it.



Reaver said:


> I'll end with this: No comment on the Kryptonian penis ships?    :biggrin:


If the Alien and Prometheus movies have taught us anything, it's that xeno-cultures have a penchant for designing things that unintentionally resemble human genitalia.


----------



## Reaver (Apr 3, 2015)

Mindfire said:


> And Clooney? Why would you bring him up. He's never played Batman before.


 
You're joking right? Have you not seen *BATMAN AND ROBIN*? It single-handedly killed the franchise. Joel Schumacher even apologizes for making it in the DVD special features. If you haven't seen it, I recommend never watching it. It will scar you for life.


----------



## Reaver (Apr 3, 2015)




----------



## Reaver (Apr 3, 2015)

Mindfire said:


> If the Alien and Prometheus movies have taught us anything, it's that xeno-cultures have a penchant for designing things that unintentionally resemble human genitalia.



No. I'm sorry but the director had to sign off on those designs. I blame them, not fictional xeno-cultures.


----------



## Mindfire (Apr 3, 2015)

Reaver said:


> You're joking right? Have you not seen *BATMAN AND ROBIN*? It single-handedly killed the franchise. Joel Schumacher even apologizes for making it in the DVD special features. If you haven't seen it, I recommend never watching it. It will scar you for life.


Is the forum glitching? Because I see blank posts. [emoji14]


----------



## Mindfire (Apr 3, 2015)

Reaver said:


> No. I'm sorry but the director had to sign off on those designs. I blame them, not fictional xeno-cultures.


It's a fair cop. But I can see how they wouldn't notice. I didn't notice until I watched Honest Trailers.


----------



## Penpilot (Apr 5, 2015)

Reaver said:


> The teaser for DareDevil looked great! Vincent D'onofrio as Kingpin?? EPIC!!  Punisher with Thomas Jane was tolerable (imho)... far superior to the "sequel" with that guy from Nip/Tuck. And dare I mention the abysmal Dolph Lundgren foray into the Marvel Universe?



Have you seen the Punisher short film made by Adi Shankar? He got Thamas Jane to reprise his role, and to me, they succeeded where the films failed. They totally got the character and the tone right. He also did a Venom and a Power Rangers short film, which can be found on Youtube too. 









Reaver said:


> But I digress... Despite quite a few awful Marvel films, they're still better than anything D.C.'s been putting out there. I mean, since when is Superman all dark and brooding?



The three things that really-really bugged me about MOS was, one, Pa Kent's ridiculously melodramatic forced death. It was supposed to make me cry, but I laughed aloud instead. Two, why does military mastermind Zod attack and reveal himself to be an enemy when all he had to do was ask Kal-El nicely? Just say "Hey Kal-El, we're fellow Kryptonians and need your blood to start a new Krypton on another planet. Want to join us?", then murder him after. I mean Kal-El doesn't know they're bad until they tell him. Not a great tactical move from a general. Third, Superman doesn't kill, or at least he doesn't kill when there are so many other options. To me, that changes a fundamental aspect of his character. He's a boyscout. He's good to a fault. He's supposed to be diametrically opposite of Batman.


As for Deadpool, I'm very curious if they can pull it off. I was a Marvel fan when I was younger, but got out of comics just a little after Deadpool appeared, and before he got transformed from some boring random villain to the Merc with the Mouth. More of a DC fan right now, but not too many of their movies have work out in my eyes. 

I've actually been surprised that Marvel hasn't tried to beat DC to the punch by making a movie using their Justice League analogue Squadron Supreme. It would have been interesting to see what DC would have done if Marvel out-Justice-Leagued the Justice League.


----------



## Reaver (Apr 5, 2015)

Penpilot said:


> . It would have been interesting to see what DC would have done if Marvel out-Justice-Leagued the Justice League.



Marvel already has with THE AVENGERS. Thanks for the info on Punisher. Agreed about all that Man of Steel schlock. It was a godawful trainwreck of a movie.


----------



## Mindfire (Apr 7, 2015)

Penpilot said:


> The three things that really-really bugged me about MOS was, one, Pa Kent's ridiculously melodramatic forced death. It was supposed to make me cry, but I laughed aloud instead. Two, why does military mastermind Zod attack and reveal himself to be an enemy when all he had to do was ask Kal-El nicely? Just say "Hey Kal-El, we're fellow Kryptonians and need your blood to start a new Krypton on another planet. Want to join us?", then murder him after. I mean Kal-El doesn't know they're bad until they tell him. Not a great tactical move from a general.


Except Zod is extremely narrow-minded. He's genetically programmed for war. He's mentally incapable of taking anything but the confrontational route. The idea of asking nicely for anything does not compute in his brain. If you want something, you march in and take it. He doesn't see any other way, it's all he knows. When all you've got is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. That was the entire point of his character. 



Penpilot said:


> Third, Superman doesn't kill, or at least he doesn't kill when there are so many other options. To me, that changes a fundamental aspect of his character. He's a boyscout. He's good to a fault. He's supposed to be diametrically opposite of Batman.


You say that as if Superman's never killed anyone before. Heck, he killed Zod in Superman II- _and smiled_. And as far as he could see in the moment, there were no other options. It was his first day ever being a Superhero. Cut him some slack. I could also make an argument that Superman was not only in the right, but had the authority to kill Zod since, as the Last Son of Krypton, he's the only remaining vestige of Krypton's legitimate government by default. Besides, it's been all but confirmed that his encounter with Zod and it's traumatic ending are the reason Superman adopts the no-kill principle.


----------



## wordwalker (Apr 7, 2015)

_Zod's spraying his heat vision--

Superman covers Zod's eyes with his arm--

Superman's arm burns. Zod's eyes burn.

Superman begs Zod to stop shooting.

Zod doesn't stop, Superman doesn't let go, and Zod burns to ash.
_
That would have been traumatic, but still heroic. (And it would have shown Superman had some idea how to wrestle someone with  eye-beams.) I wish Snyder & Goyer had used that.


----------



## Mindfire (Apr 7, 2015)

wordwalker said:


> _Zod's spraying his heat vision--
> 
> Superman covers Zod's eyes with his arm--
> 
> ...



I'm not sure I'd buy that. Wouldn't that just end up amputating Superman's arm? And Superman didn't know how to wrestle someone with eye-beams. Until that fight, the only person he'd ever known with eye-beams was himself. People keep missing that. He wasn't truly the Superman you know yet. He was an ordinary guy with superpowers thrust into a conflict beyond the scope of anything he'd seen in his life and forced to deal with it. It's a little unfair to expect him to be perfect. I'm not saying what we got in the film was brilliantly executed, but I accept the intent and concept behind it. The sequel should iron everything out.


----------



## Penpilot (Apr 8, 2015)

Mindfire said:


> Except Zod is extremely narrow-minded. He's genetically programmed for war. He's mentally incapable of taking anything but the confrontational route. The idea of asking nicely for anything does not compute in his brain. If you want something, you march in and take it. He doesn't see any other way, it's all he knows. When all you've got is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. That was the entire point of his character.



He's supposed to be genetically engineered to perfectly fit his role as a general. So if he fits into your interpretation of his character then the Kyrptonians did a pretty bad job in creating a general. A perfect--scratch that--any competent general would and should be trained in tactics and part of tactics would be knowing the value of subterfuge. I mean why fight your enemy for something when you can have them just give it to you willingly. 



Mindfire said:


> You say that as if Superman's never killed anyone before. Heck, he killed Zod in Superman II- _and smiled_.



I said he doesn't kill when there are so many other options available to him. He can't use his flying ability to drag Zod into space? He can't pluck Zod's eyes out or cause him so much pain that Zod can't focus on using his heat vision any longer? Bite his ear off for gosh sake. Superman has enough strength to break Zod's neck but can't use it to simply aim Zod's head way long enough for the humans to escape? 

As for Superman 2, yeah that was one of issues I had with that movie. But according to wikipedia "The three Kryptonian villains are arrested in the TV version. In The Richard Donner Cut, Superman reversed the rotation of the Earth to keep the three Kryptonian criminals from being freed from the Phantom Zone." That latter one got my eyes rolling, but my point is many others see Superman apparently killing a helpless Zod as problematic too. 



Mindfire said:


> And as far as he could see in the moment, there were no other options. It was his first day ever being a Superhero. Cut him some slack.



Not really, he's been saving people all his life. It's hardly his first heroic moment. He holds up an burning oil rig for one. And if he apparently can't see any other options, when so many obvious ones are there, that's just bad writing, the hand of the writer forcing the plot into a direction that doesn't necessarily follow. I would have been able to accept Superman killing if it hadn't been so poorly executed. I mean as a writer, if you're going to put a character into a no-other-choice situation then you better darn well make sure there aren't a bunch of obvious options lying on the table, which there are.

As for cutting him some slack, he has years and years of practice with his powers but doesn't know how to used them more effectively than someone who has only had them for a few days/weeks/months? Which might be another issue with Zod going agro like he did. Why not get accustomed to your powers and become acclimated to Earth before confronting Superman? Did I miss something because what was the hurry? 



Mindfire said:


> I could also make an argument that Superman was not only in the right, but had the authority to kill Zod since, as the Last Son of Krypton, he's the only remaining vestige of Krypton's legitimate government by default.



But he's not the last son of Krypton. Zod and his crew are Kryptonian too, and they were actually part of its ruling body. I could argue that they have more right to claim legitimate governance than Superman. Superman was raised on Earth, so knows little to nothing about being a Kryptonian or Kryptonian law.

And besides who knows what Kryptonian succession laws are? But for the sake of argument let's say that he has legitimate Kryptonian authority. That doesn't automatically mean he has the right to execute Zod. Zod and his troops were tried and sentenced by Kryptonian law to banishment in the Phantom Zone. So shouldn't Superman at most only have the authority to return them to the Phantom Zone? I mean their crimes on Krypton included killing yet they weren't executed, so there must be some sort Kryptonian law against execution. But it's hard to say who has what rights because we don't have a book on Kryptonian law to reference. So we could argue rights till we're both blue in the face.



Mindfire said:


> Besides, it's been all but confirmed that his encounter with Zod and it's traumatic ending are the reason Superman adopts the no-kill principle.



Well, it makes me wonder if that's just the writers/producers back peddling because of the backlash. And if that's what the initial plan was, why not include that tid-bit in the movie's denouement. There was plenty of time for it, and it wouldn't have taken long. IMHO it would have made killing Zod actually matter within the context of the one movie. If that's the case it's just bad writing and planning. Because revealing it in the next movie, to me, makes it lose its power. Instead of a great "ohhhh" revelation moment at the end of a film, it's an "oh OK. *Shoulder shrug*" sort of moment at the beginning of another film.

Any way. [/rant]

One of the reasons I really get worked up over this movie is because there is a lot of great stuff in the film, but it all gets overshadowed and spoiled by a mountain of what I consider stupidity. It's made worse by the fact that it all could have been avoided because most of the major flaws are easily fixed by a few simple tweaks in how scenes play out.


----------



## Reaver (Apr 8, 2015)

I'll change the subject slightly by posing these questions:

In Superman Returns, how in the hell can Superman even get close to an entire island made of Kryptonite let alone land on it without dying? How can he get stabbed in the heart with Kryptonite and survive that? Why does Lois appear to forget having sex with Superman? Did Superman slip the proverbial mickey in her drink or did he use some sort of Kryptonian memory eraser? Why is The Fortress of Solitude so damned easy to get into?

Come on DC. Make a good movie besides Batman Begins and The Dark Knight.

( The first two Superman films with Chris Reeve and the Tim Burton Batman films are excluded because in my opinion, they're great.)


----------



## Mindfire (Apr 8, 2015)

Penpilot said:


> He's supposed to be genetically engineered to perfectly fit his role as a general. So if he fits into your interpretation of his character then the Kyrptonians did a pretty bad job in creating a general. A perfect--scratch that--any competent general would and should be trained in tactics and part of tactics would be knowing the value of subterfuge. I mean why fight your enemy for something when you can have them just give it to you willingly.


That actually furthers my point. Because one of the major themes of the movie was that Krypton's system of artificial reproduction and genetic predestination had rendered its people impotent and, for lack of a better word, inbred. Consider the ruling council, ostensibly genetically programmed to govern, and they were content to simply let Krypton die despite Jor-El's repeated warnings that its core was unstable. Competent leadership would have done something _anything_ in the face of a disaster of that magnitude. But they just carry on like it's business as usual. I think if the earth was about to blow up, even our Congress would be forced to take some sort of action.



Penpilot said:


> I said he doesn't kill when there are so many other options available to him. He can't use his flying ability to drag Zod into space? He can't pluck Zod's eyes out or cause him so much pain that Zod can't focus on using his heat vision any longer? Bite his ear off for gosh sake. Superman has enough strength to break Zod's neck but can't use it to simply aim Zod's head way long enough for the humans to escape?


Well, a burst of effort is probably less difficult than a sustained application of force. You could say that if he attempted to fly upwards, Zod would simply counter with an equal and opposite force. As for the other options, maybe he just couldn't think of them in the stress of the moment. Things are alway



Penpilot said:


> As for Superman 2, yeah that was one of issues I had with that movie. But according to wikipedia "The three Kryptonian villains are arrested in the TV version. In The Richard Donner Cut, Superman reversed the rotation of the Earth to keep the three Kryptonian criminals from being freed from the Phantom Zone." That latter one got my eyes rolling, but my point is many others see Superman apparently killing a helpless Zod as problematic too.


Interestingly enough, the movie wasn't originally going to end that way. In the original ending, Zod was sent back into the phantom zone with the others. Zack Snyder actually changed the ending because he felt people would find it anti-climactic. He and Goyer came up with the theatrical ending, to which Christopher Nolan objected because he felt that killing Zod would be out of character for Superman. Snyder's counterargument was that Man of Steel was an origin story, Superman as a character wasn't fully formed yet and as such had no reason to be so averse to violence, but an experience like this would provide a credible, relatable reason why he would choose to avoid such actions in the future. After hearing his reasoning, Nolan- perhaps begrudgingly- approved the new ending. 

No argument here. Just an interesting anecdote.



Penpilot said:


> Not really, he's been saving people all his life. It's hardly his first heroic moment. He holds up an burning oil rig for one. And if he apparently can't see any other options, when so many obvious ones are there, that's just bad writing, the hand of the writer forcing the plot into a direction that doesn't necessarily follow. I would have been able to accept Superman killing if it hadn't been so poorly executed. I mean as a writer, if you're going to put a character into a no-other-choice situation then you better darn well make sure there aren't a bunch of obvious options lying on the table, which there are.


The writing was not brilliant. But I appreciate the ideas behind it and respect the intentions. It all makes sense, from a certain point of view. But I am very much a big-picture



Penpilot said:


> As for cutting him some slack, he has years and years of practice with his powers but doesn't know how to used them more effectively than someone who has only had them for a few days/weeks/months? Which might be another issue with Zod going agro like he did. Why not get accustomed to your powers and become acclimated to Earth before confronting Superman? Did I miss something because what was the hurry?


That could be interpreted as Zod's character flaw: impatience and bull-headedness. I mean, look at the way he conducts himself in the opening of the film. His response to the council's inaction? Overthrow the government! Okay, that could be considered an appropriate- AND ALSO EUGENOCIDE! Um... Zod, I think you've gone a little too far there.



Penpilot said:


> But he's not the last son of Krypton. Zod and his crew are Kryptonian too, and they were actually part of its ruling body. I could argue that they have more right to claim legitimate governance than Superman. Superman was raised on Earth, so knows little to nothing about being a Kryptonian or Kryptonian law.
> 
> And besides who knows what Kryptonian succession laws are? But for the sake of argument let's say that he has legitimate Kryptonian authority. That doesn't automatically mean he has the right to execute Zod. Zod and his troops were tried and sentenced by Kryptonian law to banishment in the Phantom Zone. So shouldn't Superman at most only have the authority to return them to the Phantom Zone? I mean their crimes on Krypton included killing yet they weren't executed, so there must be some sort Kryptonian law against execution. But it's hard to say who has what rights because we don't have a book on Kryptonian law to reference. So we could argue rights till we're both blue in the face.


By Last Son of Krypton, I mean the only surviving member of it's population who _isn't_ a criminal. As far as Krypton is concerned, that makes his word law by default. It doesn't really matter what their succession law is, because the only remaining alternative is the guy who was exiled for treason. 



Penpilot said:


> Well, it makes me wonder if that's just the writers/producers back peddling because of the backlash. And if that's what the initial plan was, why not include that tid-bit in the movie's denouement. There was plenty of time for it, and it wouldn't have taken long. IMHO it would have made killing Zod actually matter within the context of the one movie. If that's the case it's just bad writing and planning. Because revealing it in the next movie, to me, makes it lose its power. Instead of a great "ohhhh" revelation moment at the end of a film, it's an "oh OK. *Shoulder shrug*" sort of moment at the beginning of another film.


Not so much back-peddling as they meant it to go in from the beginning but just sort of forgot to express it in a clear and effective way. But it's all good. They got Ben Affleck and Chris Terrio to help them fix it.




Penpilot said:


> One of the reasons I really get worked up over this movie is because there is a lot of great stuff in the film, but it all gets overshadowed and spoiled by a mountain of what I consider stupidity. It's made worse by the fact that it all could have been avoided because most of the major flaws are easily fixed by a few simple tweaks in how scenes play out.


I'll readily admit that this movie has problems. But I still like it. And in spite of your misgivings about the film, I think we can all agree that this scene was pretty perfect:




That moment alone was worth the price of admission for me. Still gives me chills.


----------



## Mindfire (Apr 8, 2015)

Reaver said:


> I'll change the subject slightly by posing these questions:
> 
> In Superman Returns, how in the hell can Superman even get close to an entire island made of Kryptonite let alone land on it without dying? How can he get stabbed in the heart with Kryptonite and survive that? Why does Lois appear to forget having sex with Superman? Did Superman slip the proverbial mickey in her drink or did he use some sort of Kryptonian memory eraser? Why is The Fortress of Solitude so damned easy to get into?




Allow me to answer these questions.


Because... the power of love.
Also because of the power of love.
Remember the memory erasing kiss from Superman II? Yeah... kinda creepy in retrospect. And also completely ridiculous.
The second one.
Because the only security required to protect advanced technology and alien secrets from a depraved maniac who knows the location of your secret fortress and will do anything to get what he wants is a few hundred miles of ice. And also because the plot required it.


----------



## Reaver (Apr 8, 2015)

Mindfire said:


> Allow me to answer these questions.
> 
> 
> Because... the power of love.
> ...



Excellent answers, Mindfire. I would have also accepted "because...reasons?".  This answer is the only acceptable answer to address all of* The Dark Knight Rises *plot holes and f**kups.


----------



## Penpilot (Apr 8, 2015)

Mindfire said:


> But it's all good. They got Ben Affleck and Chris Terrio to help them fix it.



I'm crossing my fingers. I'm hoping they don't get too caught up in trying to catch up to and competing with Marvel. DC has it's own style of superhero and Marvel has theirs. If hey just stay true to their heroes and just worry about doing their own thing, and doing it right, they'll be fine. Otherwise they'll get another Green Lantern.


----------



## Mindfire (Apr 8, 2015)

Penpilot said:


> I'm crossing my fingers. I'm hoping they don't get too caught up in trying to catch up to and competing with Marvel. DC has it's own style of superhero and Marvel has theirs. If hey just stay true to their heroes and just worry about doing their own thing, and doing it right, they'll be fine. Otherwise they'll get another Green Lantern.


True that. But that scene with Superman taking flight for the first time was just so incredibly perfect. If they can nail the spirit of their characters in the rest of the movies like they did in that one scene, they'll do just fine.


----------



## Reaver (Apr 9, 2015)

Penpilot said:


> Otherwise they'll get another Green Lantern.



And another Dark Knight Rises, Batman Forever, Batman and Robin, Superman Returns, Superman III and Superman IV: The Quest for Holy Shit! They're Raping Superman! Dear God in Heaven! Someone Needs To Do Something!


----------



## Reaver (Apr 9, 2015)

DC should let Rocksteady and WB Games make their movies.


----------



## TheCatholicCrow (Apr 9, 2015)

Back to Deadpool ... 
Q: Is there a limit to how long you are willing to follow an anti-hero? 

My family was discussing House of Cards and I decided I was kind of over it- don't feel the need to watch the new season because I've lost interest w Frank Underwood. 

The same thing w Dexter- watched all but the last 1/2 of the last season b/c by then I got kind of bored w it (even though crazy stuff was happening I just didn't feel compelled to invest another 6 hrs or whatever I had left).

I watch Blacklist faithfully but Red's not the only MC so I think that might be different. 

So I'm wondering- with anti-heroes is there a tolerance threshold? If so, are we (the audience & consumer) expected to invest in secondary characters long enough for the anti-hero to regain our attention? 

Is it that there's a greater need for complex subplots in anti-hero stories or do writers just lose touch with balancing the MC's qualities (making [him] too much of a jerk and not humorous or quirky enough)?

I guess I'm just having a hard time imagining Deadpool as a (tv) series while I can easily imagine it as a movie (with no more than 2 sequels). Any thoughts?


----------



## Penpilot (Apr 9, 2015)

Reaver said:


> And another Dark Knight Rises, Batman Forever, Batman and Robin, Superman Returns, Superman III and Superman IV: The Quest for Holy Shit! They're Raping Superman! Dear God in Heaven! Someone Needs To Do Something!



I'm sorry sir, I don't believe I'm familiar with any of those films after Dark Knight Rises. Are you sure they even exist? I don't think they do. Not at all.... never existed... at all. Never 




TheCatholicCrow said:


> Back to Deadpool ...
> Q: Is there a limit to how long you are willing to follow an anti-hero?



I guess it depends on the quality of the writing and how often they tread over the same ground. Also I think the latter is a limiting factor on how long anything can go on for. I mean generally speaking there's a limit to the amount of good stories you can write without a character changing in significant ways. We see it a lot on episodic TV. Shows go stagnant because they don't advance things, advance them too slowly, or just run out of places to go with the story.

I think that happened with House, but it luckily ended before it fell too far from grace. 

But who knows how long something can go on for as long as the writing is good and they keep finding new territory to explore. Some shows just automatically lend themselves to both theses things. Not an anti-hero, but for example Doctor Who has a built in mechanism in the Doctor's regeneration that lets the show refresh itself every few years. Same with James Bond.

As for Dexter, by not watching to the end, you deprived yourself of a large glass of hatorade. You know how a bad ending can spoil a good book? That's exactly what happened with Dexter. It must be one of the worst endings to a series ever.


----------



## Reaver (Apr 10, 2015)

TheCatholicCrow said:


> Back to Deadpool ...
> Q: Is there a limit to how long you are willing to follow an anti-hero?
> 
> My family was discussing House of Cards and I decided I was kind of over it- don't feel the need to watch the new season because I've lost interest w Frank Underwood.
> ...



Excellent questions!

Personally, I'm a fan of anti-heroes. Deadpool, The Punisher, The Comedian, Rorschach, Dr. Manhattan (Hell, basically all The Watchmen).  I liked Dexter a lot and I agree with Penpilot that the ending sucked. Very anti-climatic. 

Haven't really watched House of Cards, so my opinion is invalid regarding that. Never watched Blacklist although I like James Spader.

Deadpool wouldn't make a good TV show. His antics would get stale too quickly. Three movies would be just right (with the same director and writers though).



Penpilot said:


> I'm sorry sir, I don't believe I'm familiar with any of those films after Dark Knight Rises. Are you sure they even exist? I don't think they do. Not at all.... never existed... at all. Never



Had I'd been born 30 years later, I'd have been spared the mind raping of those films but still would've suffered the Star Wars Prequels. SMH


----------

