Jump to content

The Question

Members
  • Content Count

    747
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About The Question

  • Rank
    Nick Necro's trenchcoat

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://
  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Female
  • Location
    Canada
  1. That's not quite the way I looked at the challenge. The list I presented isn't the list of movied I'd love to see, it's the list of movies I figure would work within the confines of Hollywood. I mean I'm sure most fans would love to see a big JSA/JLA cross-over movie, but that would involved too many characters with too many back-stories and too many origins to be easily translated into a two hour movie. Now it is possible to get a big cast into a movie, but it helps if they all have a common origin that could be summed up with a line or two of exposition: they're all mutants, or they were all exposed to the same cosmic rays. Using similar logic, I figured any character that was dependent on another (say Batgirl or Nightwing) or in the case of the original list, Shulkie, was also out. I also figured that the concepts are fairly simple. The stories can all be told with a one-line elevator pitch (young girl discovers she is the missing teenage princess of a magical kingdom) and most of them can even be described in terms that would make sense as a Hollywood pitch (Road to Perdition meets the Maltese Falcon). I tried to stay away from deeply philosophical books or books that are too "talky." Dr. Fate or Dr. Strange would the ones that stray furthest into this territory, but I think they would be workable. We could listen to Kent Nelson doubt his sanity as the helmet slowly takes over his personality and we could hear the Nabu (have I got the name right -- it has been a while) personality talk to him, much in the way the Green Goblin talked to Norman Osborne. Now I'm not saying that Hollywood couldn't produce a complex, deep, authentic adaptation of a epic work, but given its track record, I figure it is best to start with baby steps.
  2. We've had this (or very similar discussions) and I'm sure I'm just repeating my list (or portions thereof), but here goes: Adam Strange (Farscape meets Star Wars, it would be a nice way to bring a space opera down to earth and to bring big budget space movies back from the brink.) Nathaniel Dusk (Noir all the way, baby.) Dr. Fate (this one would be the most problematic, but it could be interesting in the right hands). Dr. Strange could also be done properly, although it always seems difficult for Hollywood to come up with nasty, mystical bad guys. Amethyst (we've seen that the kiddies like Harry Potter, and Narnia so lets give the girls somebody to root for, and a whole new pop princess to over-market to death) Deadman (could be all kinds of fun, it's a movie that could have a nice balance between heavy, dark revenge and silliness) Cinder and Ash (easily workable as there aren't a lot of super duper special effects and doesn't have to be marketted to comic geeks only) Cloak and Dagger (yes it's very dated and I'm sure people here have a problem with the strict anti-drugs stand, but at the time I always thought this would make for an interesting adaptation, plus it would hit all the right buttons with Hollywood marketing types, young teenage types, check; ethnically mixed team, check; urban roots therefore cool music and clothes, check, etc.) I'm sure there are plenty more that would work, but they're not coming to mind at the moment. Oh, and the list doesn't include characters like the Human Target who have already been brought to life on film (even they were completely corrupted in the translation.)
  3. Generally, I agree with you - I really do love Aparo's self-inked work from the late-'70s/early-'80s, and I don't think DeCarlo's inks do him a lot of favours - but I still think there was a marked decline in the quality of his work from the late-'80s onwards. I still enjoy a lot of the art Aparo produced for his late '80s Batman run with Doug Moench (not a classic run, by any means, but with a few enjoyable issues), but by the time of Knightfall, by which point Aparo was inking his own work again, his art is, to my eyes, genuinely poor. Some of the immediately pre-Knightfall issues are just dreadful - blandly cartoonish, with Aparo's distinctive style reduced to a broad, unappealing caricature of its earlier power and impact. I don't know if it was simply a lack of interest in the material he was being given to work with causing him to cut corners (if so, it'd be hard to blame him), but comparing some of those classic Brave & The Bold issues with, for example, the first part of Knightfall (just to pick an example which I happen to have handy), and the contrast is glaring. It has been a long time since I've looked at the Nights of the Beast issue, but I thought there was still a spark of Aparo magic in them, although I'm willing to admit that I could be wrong about that. As for Jim's skills falling off in later years, especially during the era of that Knightfall/KnightQuest/KnightShit mess, that could very well be the case. I've tried to block that mess out of my memory entirely. That run was pretty much wrote finis to my time as comic collector and reader.
  4. That shirtless Batman image (which I first viewed in the mid-70s) is among the select group of comic panels that are forever seared into my memory. Absolutely stunning. The problem with the art in that run wasn't so much Aparo being past his prime, but that he wasn't inking himself -- that is if my faulty memory isn't feeding me the wrong data -- I think it was DeCarlo with the pens. As much as I absolutely loved Jim's work (as I've waxed on about on this forum before) he was always at his best when he was doing his own inking and lettering. Oh, and I'll agree with you that MacFarlane's early Spider-man was a bit of a treat. It was a little more light and fun and free than his Infinity Inc. work, and you're right, he never was as good afterwards. It's funny, considering the nature of comics themselves, I've never really been a fan of the big hero fight scenes. Yes they can be fun (Bats popping Guy Gardner) and even beautiful (the O'Neil/Cowan Question certainly qualifies on that account -- I loved Denys' slow motion approach to the punch ups) I can't say I've ever gone looking for a bunch of fight comics to read. I guess I've always treated a good fight scene as the icing on the cake.
  5. John reviewing a movie:"Oh and animated baby penguins - cutest thing EVER!" (Sorry Malin, the line was too precious not to use.)
  6. A bit of controversry to heat up a letter page is never a bad thing, and coming out and essentially calling somebody a liar would certainly fit the bill -- as long as it is done tactfully and reasonably, and not just like a typical whining fanboy. A good editor or reporter doesn't like being lied to, and should have feelings about having the publication used in that manner (although as I don't know the magazine in question, I could be going out on a very thin limb here, especially if it is one of those pubs that does little more that regurgitate press releases.) Mind you if they were better reporters, they'd had done a quick serach on this forum to see what type of interaction the film people had with the fans, but as I've said before, there is no excuse for sloppy reporting.
  7. Lies? truth? A horrible nightmare on my part? I'd be grateful if you could find out the issue name and number and maybe get a scan. Oi, Warners: we've always been listening. It's you lot who need to clean out your ears. So has anybody written a letter to the editor and notified the magazine that the people behind this film are off to yet another wonderful start? Actually I'm sure the editors would love to hear from a representative of the forum.
  8. Ummm, you realize it's not a real tattoo on a real person, right?
  9. This was a new-to-me issue, and I can honestly say I don't think I missed anything by not buying it. I can't quite pin it down, but it didn't feel like a fully thought out, original story. It almost had that emergency fill-in issue feel. Also, as others have pointed out, the artwork wasn't first class. In at least one panel, I'd swear Harrison Ford had been used as the model for John. :D Of course, I really don't care anything for soccer/football. I don't think that should make that much of a difference, as I can read a compelling story about any sport, but it the subject matter didn't help sell me the story. I'm not sure about a numerical rating, but I'm thinking about four or a five.
  10. I read the first Morrison issue in the bookstore. That is the Batman I love and remember. Even though it was just a bit jokey, it was almost enough to drive me back into the comic book store. I guess I'll just have to make it a point of getting to the bookstore again next month...
  11. How could anybody find Thor Frog boring? ;) (Or was that not Simonson? I was never the biggest Thor fan, and my memory is likely rusty.)
  12. One of the reasons I like Ferguson is that he interviews writers and intellectuals (scientists, academics, etc.) on a more regular basis than Letterman, Leno, O'Brien, Kimmel, Daly, etc. and he usually does a fairly decent (for a talk show) job of it. I get the feeling that last night his hands were tied a bit by his corporate masters and that Mina got short changed. If the first guest is married to a CBS bigwig and has a CBS show of her own I can see how she'd get more time on a CBS show than she should ever deserve. I did hear that Mina was scheduled to make a Bouchercon appearance (mystery novel convention) in Chicago (I think that's the location) this year.
  13. I was just about to shut down the TV and hit the hay, when I heard Craig Ferguson announce his guest list for tonight. I double checked the listing, just to make sure I got the name right. It seems Mina is scheduled to be on tonight. Tuesday, July 11 Julie Chen (Big Brother) Echo & The Bunnymen (The Killing Moon) Denise Mina (The Dead Hour) For those not familiar with the show it is on CBS at 12:30 p.m. and is officially titled "The Late Late Show with Craig Ferguson."
  14. Dude, judging from your reviews, you put more importance on a film's music than anybody else I know. So, if you of all people are disappointed by what is possibly one of the BEST pieces of theme music in cinema history, I will be very surprised. I don't see why anybody would deviate from the winning formula of John Williams' AWESOME music from the original. Abhi, Don't get me wrong. I love the original theme. It is one of those pieces of music that grabs your attention, works its way into your consciousness and snaps you to attention, no matter what you were doing when it started to play. Only a handful of orchestral movie themes have the same amount of power, even if there are other brilliant pieces of movie music. (Among the others with similar power, I'd include the key themes from Raiders, Jaws, Star Wars, Psycho and James Bond). To me the problem with the score was just the same one I had with the rest of the movie. It started off promising something new -- something to move the story forward. Instead it ended up reverting back to something very old and very familiar. Yes the homage aspect was respectful, but I didn't feel that it was able to build on the work that had gone before and turn it into something new. The kid and Lois' new relationship aside, I just felt I had seen it all before. As Trace pointed out even the big evil plot came from the same vein as the earlier movies. Maybe it was just weak plotting and scripting (as various people have said) or maybe I'm just too old and cynical to believe a man can fly again (although to be fair I remember coming out of the first movie with a whole raft of gripes and complaints -- a lot of which centred on Marlon Brando, and the vision of Krypton and Kryptonian technology).
  15. Neither could I before I saw it. The reviews were mediocre. I walked in with a bit of dread. When I walked out, my mood was entirely changed and lightened. The idea is a bit strange, I'll grant you that, but they pulled it off fairly well. The magic of this picture wasn't the big flashy stuff -- although the movement in the racing scenes was eerie -- it was the little stuff: the texture on the shop floor, the way the dust in the air glittered, the bouncing of the rubber marbles on the track, the flashes of neon, the photo-realistic shots of some of of the chrome on the quarters, and so on. Actually the shop floor blew my mind. It was absolutely, one-hundred per cent PERFECT. It was every shop floor I've ever seen. That's a hard call, especially as you and I seem to have very different taste in movies and different experiences with automobiles. You wouldn't look at the racing posters and recognize them as existing in real life. You wouldn't have the interaction with Italian car guys to draw upon (and boy did I draw upon my interaction with them :lol: -- there were scenes that just had me killing myself with laughter), you wouldn't likely appreciate the jokes about wide whites or the way that some real-life racers had cameos in the movie, etc. A lot of what I enjoyed about this movie hit me in very personal ways. Outside of all that stuff that only matters to me and to my movie-going companion, I can report that everybody in the theatre (all ten of us) laughed throughout the entire movie. (It was a very late night showing.) The two guys in front of us (both in their late 20s or early 30s) seemed to enjoy themselves. They both walked out of the theatre laughing and smiling. The family of six behind us giggled and laughed and squealed with delight. There were times when only the little kids (all under ten I'd guess) were laughing. There were times when all the adults were laughing, and much to my surprise, there were times when everybody in the theatre were busting a gut. Nobody seemed to enjoy the short that was played at the beginning. On the down side, the plot was very simplistic and moralistic, but you have to accept that given the movie's intended audience. While I love and adore Paul Newman, it sounded as if his false teeth were a bit loose and his delivery was a bit muffled. Owen Wilson was his typical, annoying self. At one time I really thought that guy had the potential to act, but the more roles he gets, the more intrenched he gets into his Annoying Man character. Bonnie Hunt, however, was pleasantly effective. I really believe most kids (especially young boys under eight or ten ) would enjoy this movie, especially in comparison to Superman Returns. As for my feelings on Superman Returns, the movie was fine but not spectacular. Nothing in it made my soul sing. Sure the inner geek in me let out a big "oooohhhhh" when the blue credits rolled on the title sequence. Yes, lines of dialogue and small references that we all know from the Reeve movies gave me a nice sense of the familar. Yes, the depictions of those iconic cover shots were wonderful to see (although I wouldn't have used a first generation Mustang, and I would have put Parker Posey in an outfit that matched the era of the car, but that's just me being picky about certain details). Overall I felt like the moview didn't go anywhere. It just seemed to try too hard to be a sequel and not to stand on its own. It seemed in conflict with itself. Routh did an admirable job doing a Reeve impersonation but that was in conflict with Bosworth being the anti-Kidder. I really disliked her Lane. She lacked an edge and a grit that I want to see in Lois. I would have preferred to see Posey in the role. I disliked that kid, I disliked the way she hauled the kid around, I disliked the retconning they had to do to the Reeve movies to make the kid's physical traits in keeping with young Clark's. This last bit wouldn't have bothered me in the least if they had started fresh with this movie, but if they wanted to use the first two as the Bible and the foundation, then they should have been faithful to what was established before -- as I said, it was another element of internal conflict. I did really like Marsden. It figures that he had to go through three X-Men movies before he got a decent role in a Superman picture. The ages of the characters (as has been mentioned by other posters here) seemed in conflict with the supposed history of the narrative, which again caused more internal conflict, and annoyed me. I'll also skip over the plot holes (just to keep this as spoiler free as possible, even though I'm betting that everybody here already knows the full plot) and move onto the special effects. For the amount of money poured into this pictures, and for the amount of hype it got about being at the technological edge, the effects left me cold. There weren't really any shots that trully hit me as "wow" shots. A lot of the CGI had that real CGI feeling -- something about the lightness and quickness of the movement -- that always pulls me right out of the narrative of the movie and makes me aware of the technicality of it all. I think I would have been more receptive if Singer et al had just started from scratch. It didn't need to be an origin story, but I think an original take on the characters, situations, plots, etc. would have made for a stronger movie and would have left them more room for a sequel. I really feel they have painted themselves into a box with this movie. Since I know that music is important to you, I was a bit disappointed that so much of the score was Williams. Yes I admire the original composition and yes it still strikes a chord in everybody who hears it. It is just that the beginning there was a variation on the Superman fanfare, and I thought that was a nice, appropriate touch for a new Superman and a new era, but by the end it was just more of the same-old, same-old. Again, it was a pefect display of the conflict I've mentioned before -- the internal struggle between the old and the new where neither really ended up winning. Overall, as I said, it was a fine movie, but at the end I was left feeling cold about the full experience.
×
×
  • Create New...