Eh... Uh... What?

10 Sep 2014 08:08 #38071 by Albais
Eh... Uh... What? was created by Albais
Sincé wasn't able to decide where to post this i'd thought to open a new thread here. Just found that less of 5 min ago:

Can't be or can be not but here's what those guys said... :ohmy:
The following user(s) said Thank You: kilgoretrout

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

  • Albais
  • Albais's Avatar Topic Author
  • Offline
  • Junior Member
  • Junior Member
10 Sep 2014 09:37 #38073 by TwiceOnThursdays
Replied by TwiceOnThursdays on topic Eh... Uh... What?
I came her to post this.

It's a well thought out analysis and it seem fairly spot on. I fear that it's correct.

And if true, it shows that DC has the wrong people making this movie, and maybe they should put someone to write it who actually understands the source material and actually likes it.

I get that you change things for a movie, to tell your story. This is needed and good. But this is the work of someone who doesn't like any of these characters.

Goyers statements on Manhunter and She-Huk might be "a joke" but they show a profound lack of understanding of either character. Sure he might be changing Manhunter of his movie -- but to not grasp WHY the manhunter was the way that he was... that's a sign of someone who either fails to grasp it or just doesn't care about it.

So, I'm afraid that this is true -- and if so -- it leads to a movie that now might be good, but it won't be great.

I don't think Goyer likes superheroes. And to apologize for saying Superman in a movie about Superman means that the people making it should have been fired early on. This "serious" thing means that they're going to great lengths to make the movie actually ridiculous.

Marvel finds writers and directors who LIKE the characters and want to do something with them, but aren't afraid to change them. But they still LIKE them. And they definitely don't apologize for them. If someone came up and say "I don't think we should say "Asgard" or "Thor" during the Thor movie, Marvel would have fired them on the spot.
The following user(s) said Thank You: lfan, Woodclaw, Albais

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

10 Sep 2014 11:28 #38074 by castor
Replied by castor on topic Eh... Uh... What?
ehh, doesn't sound to likely actually to me Requarding Wonder Woman i can list. three main reasons:

1.-If you blink in the Avengers, its noted that The Hulk is an outgrowth of the Technology that created Capitian America. This isn't the case in the comics. Now as far as i can tell no one got that upsett about it, and it let them simplify there origin a little. This is a similar argument to what he makes regarding wonder woman to make her her supergirl as well.

But if you will note on the list. We have two characters that have confirmed origins in Greek Myth- Wonder Woman and Shazam, as well as another character who adding greek myth has some basis in the text-Aquaman. Now actually all three of these characters where created by diffrent people, and actually diffrent publishers -but if they wanted to streamline these together that could work. You can't make all three of these kryptonians as well.

You could have ancient aliens behind the greek gods-or i am not sure. I suspect that its going to be kind of mysterious what they are especially in Dawn of Justice.

2. The corallary to this is true. One of the big concepts of the movie and at times in the comics is-Well Clark is the Last son of Krpyton. Hes the only one around alone in the universe. The movie is a little vauge if he kills all of them at the end or simply Zod-but well, hes there alone. To throw Wonder Woman into the mix is going to complicate that.

Now they may add some of kryptonian technology(his most convincing argument is regarding Cyborg which has been made before) but out and out another character-doubt that. It makes him less special.

3. Wonder Woman is Supergirl? this is needlessly confusing. We have established that DC is working on a pilot for Supergirl TV show, which may not happen but no need to confuse an audience that may watch both. I think one factor in the show annoucnemt is we are not going to see a Supergirl movie in the near future-keep it all seperate. there is a section on the Flash, and for a similar reason-i doubt we are going to see him on the screen until his TV show is canceled, unless his TV show is a Gigantic hit.

It should be noted in Fall theres going to be three DC shows on Two networks-which really precludes any cross over between them, or really with the movies.Supergirl is going to be likely be a forth on a third network. I think the overall aproach will be with this and the movies is "No Real continuity but don't overly contradict each other"

Now if you ask me-will they monkey around with the origin of Supergirl TV show-maybe. but there not going to give her origin to another character then create one for the TV. These characters have enough place in the public conciousness to avoid stuff...for not really a big reason

It should be noted-David Goyer was the guy who wrote the Nick Fury agent of Shield-the 90s TV movie with David Hasseloff. Its not a great movie, but it is silly. For the argument a couple of weeks ago that "No Jokes", the Nolan Batman Movies, Are all pretty funny with Lucias Fox and Alfred being real comic releif, and Even Bruce getting some Humor in. David Goyer has a reputation as this terrible Writer, and his public persona hasn't helped him to much in the fan community-but...well if you look at the movies hes written not always. Overall i can't judge the Movies yet but i do think there going to be diffrent movies


Ps. Regarding Martian Manhunter - I doubt where going to see him on Screen for awhile, but no i don't think hes going to be General Character from MOS. They could emphasis the Manhunter quality as oposed to the martian, but that may not be the most fan outragy thing ever. The Core of the character is "Alien Shapeshifter" which i think in someways fits well enough in the Universe created by Man of Steel.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Albais

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

10 Sep 2014 11:29 #38075 by kikass
Replied by kikass on topic Eh... Uh... What?
I know its just speculation (i.e. this is NOT from Goyer and no one seems to know his plan/vision. If indeed he is the man who is guiding the DC Cinematic Universe, like Whedon has been for Marvel), but this is from the article linked:

"There was also a prequel comic to MoS that told the story of that craft. Kara Zor-El was the occupant of the open capsule, implying that she will soon be making an appearance in the new DC cinematic universe....My guess is, Kara Zor-El is Wonder Woman!"

If this comes to pass, I will be like "BWAHAHAHAHAHAA!!!! Please DC stop making movies and ruining your comics"

I know Marvel has changed some of their characters for their cinematic journey, but to FUNDEMENTALY change an iconic character like THAT is, well I don't care enough to express it words except to say - F**% You Retard!!! Do they even know who Supergirl is? She is not Wonder Woman and Wonder Woman is not Supergirl. These are TWO DIFFERENT PEOPLE!

This just further reinforces my comment the other day about DC's vision being so far behind Marvel's that it is a joke. DC can't even embrace their own characters and present them faithfully on screen.

Marvel on the other hand has no problem. Why? Because a) they have talented people working on these films; b) they don't take themselves too seriously. Movies should be exciting, interesting and FUN; and c) As someone noted, they have people who actually CARE about the characters and story that is being told.

Now, I'm not saying MOS was a complete disaster. I actually kinda like it. I thought it worked and was a good update. The same with Nolan's Batman trilogy. Have no problem with them at all in terms of Batman or as films. Loved them. However, they worked because they could be grounded in a reality. Superman as an alien is faithful to his origin - he is from another planet. Batman as DC's Tony Stark (or actually Tony Stark is Marvel's Bruce Wayne) is someone human, no special powers except money.

But then you get into the realm of mythology with Wonder Woman, Aquaman and so on. Why not just embrace that mythology and run with it?

Marvel faced a similar problem. All their films have been about extraordinary individuals - Tony Stark, Steve Rodgers, Bruce Banner, etc. But the universe need to expand to continue the story that is unfolding. Enter Guardians of the Galaxy.

On the surface this has disaster written all over it - a walking tree, a gun-totting raccoon, a green-skinned assassin, a blue-skinned pirate, etc. You know what happened? Guardians knocked everyone for six. Why? Because all the people who worked on it, cared about what they were doing. About being faithful to the original comics, about having fun, and about making a great movie.

If I was a WB exec, I would take serious note of that.


The following user(s) said Thank You: Albais

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

10 Sep 2014 12:26 #38076 by Woodclaw
Replied by Woodclaw on topic Eh... Uh... What?
I think that the article is right and wrong at the same time. It's true that the JL is a lot more colorful in origin that the Avengers (at least movie Avengers), but this is something to be expected. As a rule of thumb most comic book team tend to be colorful when you look at their complete rooster because most of them spawned from the idea of putting all the big names in a single basked. Heck, Fantastic Four and Challenger of the Unknown are probably two of the few team books that features a single origin for all their members.
The big problem -- in my opinion -- is that DC character are much more iconic than Marvel's, hence stretching and tweaking on the "lore" of each character is much harder. This is a double edged sword since it makes easier to sketch the character, but also harder to make the various mythos fit together without some extensive cheating. My impression is that Goyer decided to go the easy way and toss the entire mythos down the toilet and rewrite everything. This isn't too different from what Marvel did with the Avengers in many respects. The problem is that he decided to toss out the good alongside the bad without any apparent regret, which is where the Marvel team actually did the better job (except for Iron Man 3 and Thor Dark World).
Reworking a mythos is tricky and require a deep knowledge of the original subject. Thinking back a decade and half, the Superman Adventures cartoon cheated a lot on the mythos, that Superman was markedly less powerful than any comic book incarnation (for the records he showed pain from being shot with a machine gun), Supergirl wasn't his cousin, Braniac was from Krypton instead of Colouan, Kryptonite was overall far rarer and so on. Yet, it worked because the fundamentals were solidly in place: the characters were recognizable, the roles were somehow defined etc. Same with the Avengers movies, they cheated left and right (Bucky being as old as Steve, Thor never having a human identity etc).

These are my considerations: I can understand the need to update a dated concept, but you can't do that by simply tossing it out of the window and replacing it with something else. You have to know something before tearing it apart.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Albais

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

10 Sep 2014 14:20 #38080 by jdrock24
Replied by jdrock24 on topic Eh... Uh... What?
I stopped reading after viewing the title of the page. It is just one guy's speculation that has nothing to do with reality.

The "WW is Kryptonian" angle has been speculated on many times since MOS's release. Nothing new here...
The following user(s) said Thank You: lfan, www1969

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

10 Sep 2014 20:12 #38082 by berkshirelad2012
Replied by berkshirelad2012 on topic Eh... Uh... What?
If this was the case then we'd be getting one superherione for the price of two, i don't like that idea...not one bit,
The following user(s) said Thank You: Albais

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

15 Sep 2014 22:43 #38117 by shadar
Replied by shadar on topic Eh... Uh... What?
Recall that the Kryptonian "seed" ship crashed on Earth 10,000 years ago, with Kara ZorEl aboard. This was about 30,000 years after the Neanderthals died out, leaving only the human subspecies of Homo Sapiens Sapiens. That's the exact time that we first started moving from hunter-gatherer lifestyles into the earliest of villages, and at the very dawn of agriculture and animal domestication.

Remember what DC did in the prequel comic:
1) Brought Kara ZorEl to Earth and stranded her here when her ship crashes and is buried in snow.
2) She's the only survivor.
3) She walks off in the snow, 10,000 years ago.
4) Some time later, we see that the "eskimos" have etched the Kryptonian "S" symbol into their igloos. Where could they have seen that except on the clothing that Kara wore? Which says she's out and about, contacting the local primitive humans of the day.

After that, in MOS, we see Goyer portray her ship being discovered in modern time, largely intact, with one of the pod's empty and no sign of a body.

These are not random blips --DC and Goyer have worked to plant these seeds in the comic and in the movie.

Which raises the interesting questions: What was Kara up to, how long did she live, how many children did she have and with whom, and how is all that connected to events today?

My speculations:

1) Kara with her science and Kryptonian powers changed the course of human history by introducing the ideas of villages, agriculture, etc shortly after she arrived.

2) Her offspring have been worshipped as gods by every culture until recently, and the last survivors of those "gods" are the Amazons, who live in a hidden dimension (or whatever) of our world. A place you can't put on a map because it doesn't exist anywhere on the globe.

If so, then this new WW, part Krypt and part human, and related to one of Kal El's ancestors, would make for some REALLY interesting stories. Not to mention the fact that he's a pure Kryptonian and WW is part Kryptonian. Imagine their offspring.

Of course... other than the seeds planted in comic book and movie, this is just speculation. You could connect those same dots many other ways. But the dots are still there. They have to be connected somehow.

Therefore, something other than what we know from the traditional comics (excluding the prequel comic) has to be going on.

Good thing I'm not a comic book traditionalist.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Albais

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

  • shadar
  • shadar's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Uberposter par Excellence
  • Uberposter par Excellence
16 Sep 2014 01:14 #38123 by TwiceOnThursdays
Replied by TwiceOnThursdays on topic Eh... Uh... What?
I'm all for changing things as you tell a new story, doubly so when moving between media. I don't get why any of what they are doing actually helps them tell any part of the story they want to tell.

There are a few bits of story telling short hand that I wish they'd grow out of in Super-Hero adaptations:

- Always telling the origin story. Or even the story where the world first learns of the character. You can easily do this via introducing a character new to the story if needed.
- Trying to tie everything up in a neat little bow. Batman, where the Joker killed his parents. Smallville where for seasons it was Meteor Freaks, and everyone got their powers via some connection to Krypton. The New Flash TV show, where it seems he's going to be encountering the Flash Version of Meteor Freaks where everyone has powers given by the same particle accelerator event that gave him his powers. Spider-Man 2 was doing this with OsCorp.

And now here, where it seems DC wants to explain Wonder Woman as a Kryptonian or Kryptonian Decendent. This makes the world "Simpler", allow Kryptonians, and everything flows from that.

If you are trying to lead up to the JLA movie, bite the bullet and lead up to the JLA movie!

And I disagree with the source article on Avengers. It's not all Thor-Asgard tech, and there are multiple alien races (one made just for Avengers). Iron Man, the Hulk, Thor, and Captain America's origins are unrelated (Hulk is an attempt to recreate the Super Solider idea, but it's not the same tech). If Marvel took the same tactic being describe here, then Tony Stark would have based the arc reactor based on tech his father got from the Asgard tech found in WWII. And CA would be also based on something found with the Asgard tech. And ditto for Hulk. So it's all be tech from Asgard, or ramifications from it. And it's not.

Marvel tosses it all in, writes the Characters, and make that work. No one cares about where Thor came from, when he's kicking ass next to the Hulk. And then the Hulk shoves him, and we all can't stop laughing. Because the STORY was more important than making some unifying narrative that connects everyone origins and powers.

So they can still make a movie. But I maintain if this is what is interesting to them, and part of what they are focusing on, then they aren't focusing on a good story, they aren't focusing on a good plot, and they aren't focusing on writing good characters. They're making pretty puzzles.

And I don't know why they are bothering. Is WW's greek god origins any worse than Thor?
The following user(s) said Thank You: oldHarmonyMotion, Jabbrwock, Albais, Markiehoe

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Time to create page: 0.070 seconds