Jump to content
Hondo's Bar

Jumbie

Drunken Deities Royalty
  • Posts

    7,192
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    42

Posts posted by Jumbie

  1. I wouldn't bank on anyone getting a comeuppance in this series. It seems to take a very existentialist stance that suffering and success in life are detached from 'goodness' and 'badness'. No such thing as karma.

     

    Granted a lot of bad guys get horrible deaths, but that's just cuz everyone gets bad deaths.

     

    You might see just rewards in someone's purple-faced and anguished death until you recall all the people they killed who didn't deserve it.

     

    And Martin's already given a few bad guys routes to redemption or at least made us glad to have them around because they end up helping the cause of 'good'. Like say the child-murdering Melissandre or child-murdering Theon or the child-murder-attempting Jaime.

     

    It would be just like him to have a despicable person like Ramsey help save the day at the wall in some way and live 'happily for now'.

  2. The implication of 'because' HHH/WWE ditched her is unfair to HHH. (Don't know if you realized you were doing it, but it's been a common sentiment the last couple years that this is somehow HHH's fault.)

     

    As if she wasn't doing drugs and such when she was hanging with them and simply continued the lifestyle. Remember, Razor Ramon, Shawn Michaels and a lot of others from that cliq almost died too carrying on the old party ways after WWE cleaned up and started mandatory drug testing for active performers and they couldn't fit in as professionals anymore.

     

    Chyna was just already in too far. The others got lucky. Shawn Michaels especially managed to hook himself into some clean living and finish his career strong. HHH is actually low-key straight edge so he escaped it entirely.

     

    Point is, they all got 'dumped' by WWE's wellness policy and some fell in line and came back. Others couldn't.

  3. Doesn't it kind of undermine the idea that this is some philosophical dispute about how to safeguard humanity if you're using fight night imagery?

     

    Whatever was wrong about civil war 1, they still got the look of the comics perfect to suit the story.

  4. Given what happened to Teen Wolf as a tv series, I think they could definitely make it work as a different genre from the original.

     

    Most likely we end up with Dawson's Creek II

     

    Also, that Riverdale pic at the top: They put the gay guy and the black girl to stand back. Heh.

  5.  

     

    You put Ndamukong Suh, Sean Payton, Michael Vick, and Ben Roethlisberger all in the same category.

     

    I never equated the acts of those people to each other. (Or in the cases of Payton and Roethlisberger, alleged acts)

     

    NEVER.

     

    I said I had negative reactions to all of them and that the reactions for each were enough to not support their teams. To say I equated them because I put them in the same category is like saying that because Bernie Sanders a socialist he's in the same category as Stalin, so Sanders is as bad as Stalin.

     

    Categories still allow for broad levels of difference within the category!

     

    I also NEVER said that I had the same level of negativity to each of those people. I was talking about a threshold: They all at least met the minimum to make me pissed off enough to not support their sports team. That's not AT ALL saying they disgusted me equally.

     

    - - -

    Given that in trying to respond to you more on this 'monster' issue I would end up picking at Donatella, I'm not going to continue discussing this here. If it means enough to you, you can find me on private messenger to hash it out.

  6. I don't enjoy the fighting, which those two did. Plus Panch never wants to have the good kind of make-up sex.

     

    Dude, you're known for talking out of your ass. Giving frat-boy rapist Ben Roethlisberger A PASS while condemning Sean Payton for bountygate. This is just par for the course from you.

     

    I gave who a what now? I dare you to find that quote. Hondo's makes it easy to quote a post. Go on.

     

    I never said that. Or anything close to that.

  7.  

     

    I agree. Dude is the douchebag KING. And "knowing" someone "worse" in your family isn't really an excuse for giving this guy a pass.

     

     

    I ain't give nobody a pass! Especially not in this thread where I specifically said Gibson was out of line for acting like Ricky Gervaise shouldn't be giving him crap.

     

    I'm fine with calling Gibson douchebag king or a piece of shit and I definitely don't enjoy his movies anymore because of what I know about him. (Only watched the Mad Max movies before the new one came out so I could prepare)

     

    But I tend to think 'monster' is reserved for people who at the least commit a heinous murder, or callously assaults a child or something on that level.

     

    From a purely linguistic point of view, if Gibson is an 'absolute monster', then what's Stalin or the guys who shot Malala or Fidel Castro? We're losing the sense of proportion on that.

     

    My reference to knowing people worse than Gibson is simply to point out that he's not exceptional in his stupidity and ignorance, therefore there's no 'absolute' involved. I think that there is a danger in labeling Gibson as an outlier. He's representative of a good chunk of humanity. Using terminology that acknowledges that is more useful for me. He's an asshole/king douche/thug etc are good words for him.

  8. I think calling him an absolute monster is hyperbole.

     

    He's f*cked up for sure and every time I see see Ricky Gervaise give him shit, I cheer and every time he acts like Gervaise is bullying him, I think, 'Don't act dumb Mel. Until you stop acting like all you did was fart in church, I'm not taking you seriously.'

     

    But, no, monster isn't what he is. I personally know lots of people more racist and hostile to women than he is and I still talk with them and even count them as friends. (What can I say, school bonds people very strongly. And cousins and uncles can't be gotten rid of.)

  9. Rewrites can be done pretty fast. Given the money committed already, contracts signed etc, the most likely outcome for JL is a budget drawback and rewrites.

     

    The movies for Flash, , Aquaman, WW and even Batman can be put on hold to see how it pans out.

     

    *Even with the good reaction the characters/portrayals of WW and Batman got, the risk of investing money in them plus the loss on the BvS is probably going to cost them their solo movies depending on how contractually committed the studio is.

  10. BTW, I hear a lot of people seem stuck on puzzling out the Superman/Jon Kent dream sequence...

     

     

     

     

    After Superman died in the comics, there was a one-off issue where Superman's spirit basically fights its way out of the afterlife with the help of his dead adoptive father against demons who want to keep him trapped there.

     

    The movie dream scene was probably to set that up for later.

     

    I'm betting money now that the Superman resurrection movie, be it Justice League or something else, is going to have Kevin Costner fighting demons to save Henry Cavill.

     

     

     

  11. An Academy Award winning screenwriter happens to be one of your stars? Why isn't that option one? Article says it's merely an option.

     

     

    Good Will Hunting was a well-written, well-plotted movie. Preachy, but Affleck's had time to become cynical since then so that idealism won't get in the way.

     

    The best thing about Good Will Hunting from the POV of a Justice League movie is that there were a lot of 1-1 relationships portrayed with people philosophically opposed to each other, bumping against each other and then some prevailed and others didn't and it all played out very naturally.

  12. Batman doesn't kill, he doesn't let people die, he doesn't let people kill other people, it's his thing

     

    It's his thing...in the comics...since about 1975.

     

    In the silver age, no one killed, so it wasn't HIS thing, just a thing.

     

    Before that, he killed and carried a gun even.

     

    Don't get me wrong, I really dig the anti-killing batman to the point I greatly prefer it, but jumping the story to another medium allows me to adjust for a new interpretation.

     

    If they tried this shit in the comics after decades of setting up a persona that was against it, then I'd object.

  13. The TL DR or why Roman's not getting traction is that they let him talk.

     

    He's not good at it.

     

    He had the crowd on his side when he was in the Shield because he'd do this silent badass thing. His body language is actually good most of the time.

     

    He's not ready for witty banter, especially with the angle WWE is giving him of gutsy fighter against authority when everyone knows he's with the authority. He should have done a heel stint to build cred and I still can't comprehend why WWE wont let him do it.

     

    Cena sucked his first time is a good guy and got over as a heel. Rock got booed his first try as a face and got over huge as a heel. Even MIZ was able to use his heel persona for a successful face run (which ended prematurely due to injury and/or his movie schedule)

  14. WM32 in one week!

     

    I'm really up for whatever Kevin Owens ends up in and Brock vs Ambrose is the match I'm buying to see. Plus Jericho and AJ will be meeting in some way though a one-on-one hasn't been announced. But their lead in has been fun.

     

    But WWE is devastated by injuries right now, with at least 5 guys out who would have been automatic WM participants so the overall show feels flat, especially with the fan rebellion over Roman ongoing and even peaking.

  15. Right after I watched BvS, Batman Returns was on TV (Keaton's 2nd). Batman casually, but deliberately, sets a street hood on fire *with the batmobile jet flame* in the first 15 minutes. And it's basically played for laughs because the guy was wielding a flamethrower hence poetic justice! So, the movie batman IS a different beast and always has been.

     

    As for BvS

     

    Spectacle: 9/10, there's more good stuff than just the end fight.

    Characterisation & Acting: 7/10, dragged down by flat Lois, kept afloat by Irons, Affleck (!) and Cavill

    Plot/story: 4/10, steered to some real and relevant issues. Couldn't connect events.

    Pacing/editing/camera: 5/10, Ton of unnecessary crap.

    Music: 4/10 for intrusive bombast

     

    Overall: 6/10 Good, not excellent.

     

     

     

    --Everyone agrees there was some good staging in the last fight, so let's move on. The Batman chase sequence was good spectacle. The opening ground view of the Zod fight was excellent spectacle for giving that 'Marvels' kind of common man view.

     

    I didn't care for the dream sequence too much, but that's probably cuz I hate anything that reminds me of Red Son.

     

    --Bats felt well portrayed as did Superman. His playing second string reporter to Lois was fun and also his crusading journalist schtick was good, though it was a great missed opportunity t explain why he felt justified in his vigilante ways compared to Bats. (Some vague stuff about cruelty?)

     

    I seem to be the only one that LIKED Luthor in this movie as a character and the way he was portrayed. I liked that Luthor is respectable but kind of 'trips out' at times when his mind can't deal with people/reality. And he does have some of the more insightful things to say. And his character makes sense, except as pointed out by others, for the senate scene...

     

    I know people have criticized this movie for being too serious, but I didn't mind that at all. (It was the length that made the tone burdensome. The tone itself was fine)

     

    --But that brings us to the plot. If you're going to go with the earnest/serious/realism spirit, you double the pressure on yourself to do the realistic plot and that's all problematic here.

     

    Disorganised? yeah, but that's not the sin. And they don't commit the cardinal offense of unlinked events. Everything is happening for a reason, except the aforementioned senate scene.

     

    But the links are WEAK. "Kill Batman in an hour or your mom gets killed?" And he goes for it? The guy who flew to MEXICO to save a girl in a window can't figure out where his mother is in an hour?

     

    He gets to Gotham (conveniently within SIGHT) and falls into the oldest comic cliche of all when he gets attacked by Bats before he can finish explaining about his mother so the whole fight is because of a misunderstanding. This isn't some rom-com where you can have the guy and girl fight because they misunderstood what one of them was apologizing for.

     

    And BECAUSE they went with the extra-serious tone this is all more critical. You can excuse coincidence in the goofy Spiderman 3 (meteor lands right next to planet's only superhero...) You can't excuse it here. Batman just happens to perfectly time his challenge for when Lex kidnaps Mrs Kent? Convenient.

     

    --So much felt unnecessary. So much felt needed.

     

    Why have Supes framed for instance? He's already guilty from the first movie of lots of collateral damage. Wheelchair dude proved there was juice in that angle, why not run with a real thing Superman was involved in instead of the lexcorp metals plotline which ultimately went nowhere because by the time Lois discovered it, Lex revealed himself anyway and it made no difference.

     

    In contrast, I see a few complaints about the lack of bat detecting, but I thought they went to great lengths to show that. The problem was the fight club and the party scenes weren't too connected to the main plot in an obvious way.

     

    The cyborg sequence as mentioned did feel so much like fluff and tonally off.

     

    We needed some more Bruce/Clark sequences. They had the one party scene with Bruce correctly calling out Kent for criticising the Bat when Supes gets good press, but there's so much more that could have come from a later face-to-face scene like the Heat Pacino/De Niro scene. That whole great speech Bruce gives to Alfred about the 1% chance of Superman going bad? It should have been Affleck speaking to Cavill in front of the Robin costume. Let's see Kent shaken up from being told that and question himself a bit. Or maybe he has a witty and insightful comeback, I don't know. But geez what a missed opportunity.

     

    --Why was the music so overdramatic? The rule of thumb is that if you notice the music during the movie it's overdone. I noticed it a lot.

     

    -------------

     

    I know Baytor thinks the backhanded compliments are hurtful, but I tend to criticize more over missed opportunities than with things that are conceptually bad.

     

    BvS had all the core elements set up by the segue from the first to the second movie. And in the end, I don't mind the fluff like Lois shinanigans or Justice League extra curriculars, but I think they hit a pop fly on the main conflict. They got a lot right, enough to make the movie click, but they never really convincingly answered the question.., Why would Supes fight Bats?

     

    And when you think about it, all the justification for the first fight was in the batmobile crash scene: "I'm shutting you down" followed by "Do you bleed?"

     

    In The Dark Knight Returns comic, the only reason they had for fighting was that Superman was playing high and mighty and deciding that Bats couldn't do his Bat thing because Supes felt the Supes thing was more important. And that was an epic fight that is still the gold standard. Luthor didn't need to blackmail that fight into happening.

     

     

    - - - -

     

    So Yeah, worth seeing on a big screen, but not as good as it could have been.

×
×
  • Create New...