Batman
-
I agree Mega…..and fixed!!
The suit impressed me more than the Batmobile, looks totally BATass.
-
The Joker, from an article at Forbes.
-
Gotta be better than Heath Ledger.
-
Same reason I hate Bale as Batman…...totally misses the point of the character. It's not really the actors fault, the movie was written for people who don't really like Batman.
-
Admit it- you're a comic nerd purist. No one would ever be able to do it right. Too much complexity to stuff into a two hour movie.
-
Honestly, that's not true. Lots of things from comics have been done right…
- DC animated movies
- Arkham computer games.
- Andrew Garfield was a great Spider-Man in bad movies.
- Christoper Reeves was a great Superman
- Brandon Routh was a great Superman in a much under rated movie
- Edward Norton was a great Bruce Banner
- The Joker in the 60's Batman was definitely the closest.
- Michael Keaton was easily the best Bruce Wayne
- Most of the Avengers casting is spot on.
- Ryan Reynolds was a great Hal Jordan in a bad movie.
I could go on and on and on....
-
- Edward Norton was a great Bruce Banner
True but he wanted greater creative control from a studio that was only just finding its feet, so it's his own damned fault…
I much prefer Mark Ruffalo.
-
Idk Mega. I thought Heath did a great job for the role he was given. Bale was prob the 3rd best batman tho, right after keaton and west
Also heard that Jared Leto is gonna be the new Joker? Hahahahahahahahahaha
(pun intended) -
He just needs a hug. The lil green headed emo
-
Yeh, they really couldn't have picked a worse photo to release.
Suicide Squad is a strange choice for a movie, and the casting seems bizarre, but I remember thinking the exact same about Guardians Of The Galaxy and that turned out pretty well.
-
Mega, I agree with you pretty much on every point, but Norton was NOT a good Banner. Given, there is still no real way to appropriate the comics to film (I think Hulk is a garbage hero), but Ed Norton was not given enough of a story to wor with. They tried to make it dramatic before the film was ready to go there. Ed Norton was just too good a character for the cinematography style and Steven Tyler's daughter. It just did not work for me, but I agree with you, Ed Norton is one of the best actors on the planet!
-
I thought that he did well with what he had to work with, especially in the early parts of the movie (the Brazil bit), and gave enough to suggest that the character could be developed. Hulk is a tough one to get right on screen, you can simply go with the comic relief element he provides in the Avengers, or you have to go into the real dark stuff that Peter David wrote (the Aids storyline was astounding for the time). The obvious Hulk story for movie adaption is Planet Hulk, but when you think about it, it would have to be 90% CGI so I remain to be convinced about that.
Mark Ruffalo is also very good, he does a nervous Bruce Banner well, but that makes the character a little one dimensional in my opinion, and the only development you can really get from a movie Hulk is through Bruce Banner.
Personally I think that Marvel have realised that, and hence he only gets wheeled out for Avengers movies at present, although a movie is slated for release in 2018!
-
Mega, I 100% agree with you. Mark Ruffalo knows how to do the anxiety / nervousness which is at the heart of Hulk. The things, I, personally, don't feel like he's that great of a hero, she-hulk pretty much stole his spotlight for the last couple of years and he doesn't have anything new coming out. Hulk is way to big to be relegated to the background in any film, and I agree with you 100%
-
Just wondering, how much do superheroes actually evolve and change over time? I don't read comics or graphic novels much these days, and am more of a film geek in any case.
I'd have thought that the long-running nature of comic books would mitigate against this. It's not as though Batman has a story with a beginning, middle and end. I get the impression that if there are big changes they tend to get rebooted, retconned, or otherwise explained away in a really convoluted plot so as to maintain the status quo.
Imagine if Peter Parker had aged in real time from a teenager when he was published in the sixties through to a 70 year old now. You'd probably be onto his son or even grandson as the current Spider Man. Or a grumpy old man kicking ass and taking names.
That makes the origin story the most interesting part. I haven't watched Arrow, but I believe they've interspersed that throughout the series, rather than getting it out of the way in the pilot. I think that's the way to do it.
-
There's no chronological evolution, but the writers go with times, 60's Batman comics were much like the Adam West TV show, 80's Superman had a mullet. Character development is more a necessity the movies, it's much easier to change a comic book history than movies, which generally do require the dreaded reboot.
-
for gav
