SuperOz
-
Posts
1131 -
Joined
-
For the record, I grew up on 2000AD and Judge Dredd and all the classic stories of the early Dredd era (The Cursed Earth and The Dark Judges being two of them) and eagerly wanted the first Dredd film to do well. But I managed to find a cheap copy of the Making of Judge Dredd, and Stallone's hand was all over the process.
He couldn't get over the notion that the lead character's face was covered all the time, and thought there should be more humor in the script. And he ran roughshod over poor Danny Cannon, this being his first big-budget movie.
I lay the majority of the blame at Stallone's feet, and hopefully this film, being handled by Europeans last I read, will remember their source. Karl Urban is an oustanding choice.
S. -
Wolverine: The Quest for Peace?
Wolverine IV: The Voyage Home?
S. -
Wolverine 2: The Lupines?
S. -
That is pretty good....
I think earlier on, we had mentions about cynicism being more prevalent than a sense of pervading realism, and I tend to agree with that. I don't know if people I know see the world more cynically and don't actually believe that there's positive things in the world, but I know at least two people personally whom I think I could attribute that to.
As for myself, I've chosen to be positive like McNum and Rian Frostdrake have mentioned. And I've had a heck of a lot of reasons to be negative and just give up. I had both my parents pass away on me within eighteen months of each other back in 2005, and I became profoundly depressed for a very long while.
I can say from personal experience being positive is indeed a choice and I choose to view my life more positively as a result.
I suppose then that there's an argument that I may not want to experience the other end of the spectrum because I've been so inundated in it, but that's not true. One of the largest reasons I believe I have for feeling so concerned about the (for want of a better term) embracing of this cynical sort of 'entertainment' is that it's just that. It feels dehumanising to watch or read about people or characters essentially suffering for no good purpose or reason.
I genuinely learned and grew as a person from losing my parents because I learned (admittedly the hard way) about mortality and letting go. The thing I see in these shows and books is that these people rarely if ever learn and they inevitably must go through more. And why? To make people feel less miserable about themselves? Or that this is a world view that an apparent majority/minority share?
I don't know, but I'm more than willing to hear more as to why it seems to be so prevalent.
S. -
I think you've hit the nail on the head there, Father Xmas. I often think this need to see other characters in worse off situations or behaving far more badly than we might is what also gave rise to the current crop of reality television, Jersey Shore being the prime example. I've never seen the show myself (I don't get cable), but the amount of stories around and about the characters that populate that show have at best been cited as the worst stereotyping of Italian Americans in a generation, yet they're practically venerated as A-List celebrities because of their poor behavior.
I think that's an aspect generally of 'reality tv' that turns me completely off, because more often than not, the shows revolve around rejection (The Bachelor/Bacherlorette, America's Next Top Model, et al) or conflict/competition (Survivor, et al) and so on. There's only been maybe a handful of shows I've seen at best that seem to emphasise what I presume we would all want to see as the best of human behavior and I find it somewhat worrying.
I think I found it hardest to take in the show United States of Tara, because I have a very good friend who suffers from clinical schizophrenia and wanted to see if there was remotely a realistic look at mental illness. Alas, it became an overblown soap opera with Tara manifesting a personality who is her own therapist and her family are fine with it!
I don't mind the balance of good vs. evil or where good doesn't win, etc...I'm a grownup and I know how the world works. But what I can't reconcile to is that every single story I encounter lately seems to be of this deeply flawed, '50 foot tall letter' sort of characters.
The friends I spoke of before cite True Blood as one of their favorite shows. And it's not for the supernatural; it's apparently for the gratuitious T&A and as one of them put it 'seeing what trauma they put the next character through next'.
Tired Angel, I have no problem with an 'agree to disagree' approach to a mature discussion, because that's why I came here. City of Heroes players tend to be grownups who can discuss these things not only politely, but intelligently.
I think you're fine to say the point is just that, it's a matter of taste, but my point has always been that it seems to be overdone and overblown. I think Father Xmas has crystallised my thoughts better than I have so far and I'd refer you to that.
S. -
Quote:Originally Posted by Tired Angel
I have to disagree. I find nothing wrong with adding realistic reactions of an average person when put into extreme situations.
One reason is that there is also plenty of media out there that doesn't do this either at all or to a different extent. And this is me thinking as someone who watches this as entertainment.
To take your example of Russell T. Davies. In recent years he has bought back Doctor Who, created a new series Torchwood and re-introduced another character in the Sarah-Jane Adventures. All three programs are based around the same franchise but each approach the idea of realism of the characters reactions in very different ways.
On one side you have The Sarah-Jane Adventures. Although this has been created as a kids program me and my partner find the program great fun to watch. The characters have interesting adventures, real life situations are dealt with in a mature yet understandable way but everything does turn out ok in the end.
In the middle you have Doctor Who. This program has a mixture of realistic reactions (for example loss, ie the doctor losing his companions) and having fun and thrilling adventures. Not everything is ok at the end, but the spirit of adventure remains.
And on the other side you have Torchwood. This was always billed as the dark side of Doctor Who and it does what it says on the tin. It takes ordinary people and put them in extreme distressing situations. As you mention there is Childrem of Earth but there is always the cannibal episode and the deaths of Owen and Toshiko. Nothing ever seems to turn out ok and every character takes away something from each episode to digest about their inner nature.
Now each of these approach the idea of realism of human nature in different ways and I find each of them as entertaining as the other. If current media was flooded with just the extreme then, yes, it would be a problem but its not.
The problem there is that I disagree with that assessment. I find extremis to be the norm as far as current entertainment, in a great number of forms across a great range of media.
I have no problem with the three Doctor Who programs you cited because I watch all of them and have watched Doctor Who itself since I was a kid in the 70's. I honestly prefer the balance of Doctor Who and The Sarah Jane Adventures over Torchwood for precisely the reasons you state. It takes ordinary people and puts them extraordinary situations...but rarely if ever do you get a balanced representation of those events. I watched all three series of Torchwood and with maybe two or three exceptions, the stories involved putting the characters in horrible situations and they still learned nothing from them.
I disagree also that Torchwood taught something of the characters' inner nature. You mention the deaths of Toshiko and Owen, and what was that in the end other than this doomed, fated romance? Toshiko, even after being decieved and manipulated by an alien and having that revealed to the team, didn't grow as a person. She remained the same intensely shy, withdrawn woman who ultimately didn't get to tell Owen she loved him until right at the end. And then she died.
And Owen was already dead. You add to that the incredibly convoluted moral choice Jack makes at the end of Children of Earth (what, it just so happens that it's his own grandson? Out of all the children on Earth, he has to make a choice of his own flesh and blood?), and I really have trouble seeing how a)These are realistic premesis, and b) That their reactions are realistic, given how unrealistic the circumstances are in which they happen.
I don't mind seeing that kind of writing at all, so long as it's naturalistic and has a good grasp of continuity. If you'd like to explain to me how other than deliberately concocting these events are somehow natural to the flow of the story, then I'm happy to listen. And that is my point. Everyone goes through their real lives or fictional lives experiencing drama, but it often flows out of events in a believable, concievable manner. What I've cited above is more like holding a shotgun to someone's head and pulling the trigger. Children of Earth is very evocative of early 1970's British sf drama particularly and there's nothing wrong with that, except for the fact that the scenarios are constructed and rarely naturalistic or realistic.
I really do thank you for doing your best to think through your thoughts and I'll do my best to respond as I have already above. I have to disagree with your Friends analogy; there was noone I ever spoke to about that show who thought the Ross/Rachel relationship was remotely realistic. In fact, the whole premise of Friends was. I never knew any group of single people in that situation who weren't either sleeping with each other or went through the stages of relationships instead of the incessant 'we're all friends and we're all platonic unless it's called for in the story' device that was employed.Quote:Originally Posted by Tired Angel
There are also programs that try to find a balance with extreme realism and the "its ok in the end" approach. My main thoughts here are about the series Glee. It has dealt with some extremely difficult issues with some quite painful reactions (e.g. Kurt coming to terms with his homosexuality and Quinn's pregnancy) in both hard hitting ways (some intense well acted scenes) and in more approachable ways (when they sing). At the same time it also has a sense of fun and humour to the program.
Now if I look at this as a trained counsellor (which I am) I find I want to respond to what you say here:
I personally think that the characters that are put accross in some of these extreme situations (such as Children of Earch) are quite realistic. You've also got to remember that the point of programs like that is portray the character first and the situation second. When you compare them to media such as Star Wars or Superman the focus is different, these aren't trying to portray the story/situation first and the characters second.
In some ways programs like Torchwood has more in relation with Friends than it would to Star Wars/Superman. It may be a weird analogy but looking at the characters in Friends they are, although slightly exagerated, having realistic reactions to more 'general life' situations (e.g. the Ross/Rachel relationship) while Torchwood has realistic reactions to exagerated circumstances.
Now I am going to stop there as I am getting slightly lost in my own thought process!!
I'd also argue the reverse about your assertion that these programs are about character first. They're not. The situation is created first (in Torchwood's example, the 456's arrival on Earth) and then we see the character's reactions to an imposed scenario. Note that Jack and co. spend no time proactively coming to the story, they spend it reacting (first to the attacks from UNIT, to the revelations about the 456, to discovering the government's plans to finally deciding they must act). An argument can't be made where you say the characters are having realistic reactions and then try and apply that to blatantly unrealistic situations. Owen being already dead isn't realistic. The world essentially capitulating to the 456 (without any contingency plan other than to kill off Torchwood, and UNIT already has fought the Daleks, Cybermen and other alien threats...and they can't do anything here? They're not under the control of the British government....) and doing nothing isn't realistic.
I was flabbergasted at the notion that noone aside from Jack and Gwen would do anything to prevent what was going on, and yet this is what we were shown. The desire to protect our children is probably the strongest impulse amongst parents and yet we're shown to be meek, easily bullied sheep. This says far more to me about the perception of people than a realistic portrayal of people's reactions.
S. -
I feel the same way to be honest....and without trying to sound cheesy, your forum name cheered me up, as it's the name of my current Doctor Who tabletop game. Never ignore what fate shows you, I say.
S. -
Hi all.
I had originally thought to broaden the title on this one to be more inclusive of a lot more media, but I've been struck by the divide I at least personally have with some people I know and have been wondering if I've been overreacting or if in fact a trend towards realism isn't being mangled for the sake of supposedly 'sophisticated' audiences.
Now, don't get me wrong; I studied film in university and am deeply appreciative of adult works and adult movies, such as Kurosawa's Ran, Scorcese's Raging Bull, and was a fan (at least for the first two series) of Dexter.
My problem has become that a 'realistic' portrayal of people and situations seems to have become mistaken for 'conflicted characters who seem to need therapy'. My points of division came over the tv series Battlestar Galactica (re-imagined), Torchwood, and the current run of Stephen Donaldson's White Gold Wielder stories.
All three of these stories tend to concern characters in real extremis and often are in gut-wrenchingly difficult situations, none of which I can honestly relate to my own life, let alone anyone I know or in fact. I understood early that Battlestar wasn't afraid to try and hold up a mirror to modern society (as is the right of science fiction) but seemed to increasingly hang its hat on overt displays of religion, 'morally justifiable' violence and an apparent desire to give the characters a 'realistic' resolution to their stories (though I note the fates of Starbuck, Six and Baltar are glaring here), with the viewer supposedly given the ability to interpret what has happened.
Torchwood: Children of Earth I found profoundly depressing, though many would argue this is what would 'realistically' happen given the story as it's outlined. I came away from the story thinking that Jack Harness has become Russell T. Davies' personal whipping boy, as the character routinely has any happiness stripped away from him and is placed in often convoluted and extreme moral situations (the end of this miniseries is a prime example). One of my friends argued that it was good in that none of the series regulars bar Jack was safe in a very dangerous world and conceded that there were 'unpolished glimmers' of hope and positivity in the story.
Lastly, the above friend has raved about the Thomas Covenant Chronicles and has even expressed intentions to have our tabletop roleplaying group play in this universe. I think the setting of The Land and the story structure sounds very interesting, and Donaldson seems to have a penchant for redemptive characters through extreme catharsis down to a fine art.
However, I couldn't bring myself to accept the explanation that Covenant in the very first novel, convinced that the world is a delusion, commits **** on a female character. My friend argued that it's realistic given his situation and even though he finds frustration in that Convenant takes three books to do what should really take one, that he likes the character.
I have to admit feeling deeply disillusioned with this depiction of 'realistic' characters. I feel often when they're presented to me that they are laden with vastly more negative traits and positive and this is somehow a balanced, realistic portrayal of characters, replete with psychology and modern, adult realised characters. Yet some of my favorite novels (such as Lord of the Rings), movies (Star Wars, Superman) and other works don't have any of these things (or at least their complexity) and are considered as well as if not better than a lot of these works.
I'm not advocating a juvenile abandoning of any mature work or 'burying my head in the sand' approach, but I would like to hear from people on both sides (or any side) of a discussion about this so in turn I can feel I've got a more balanced view of things.
S. -
Quote:Originally Posted by Dark_Respite
Oh, so there are four videos out there that just emphasize why I'm no longer needed. That's reassuring to know. I feel more comfortable now leaving y'all to take up the slack.
*looks at all of her filming scripts and shot footage, then shrugs*
And I'll have more hard drive space again.
Michelle
aka
Samuraiko/Dark_Respite
Please, please....don't even joke about that.
S. -
Ah, fond memories.
I grew up as a kid in the seventies constantly addicted to superhero comics; I have many memories of buying voluminous black and white reprints (long before collected volumes or even regular publications in Australia) of Superman and Batman and the Justice League. It was in my blood and continued well into the 80's.
Fast forward to the 2000's, and like many other folk, I got put on to that behemoth called Globe of Massive combatcraft. But after only six months, I got to level 35, and have a distinct memory of having killed a batch of creatures only to discover I had to kill yet more of them...in the exact same area.
The burnout was high, but lo and behold as I was walking into an EBGames store in late 2005, there was a boxed copy of City of Villains, replete with Heroclix. A superhero MMO? No way, I thought.
Naturally enough, I made a villain...the game being called City of Villains, after all. The ninja I made remains my highest levelled redside character. And then I made a classic Superstrength/Invulnerability tank, as something of a homage to the Incredible Hulk. That remains a character who I have constantly revised the look of over the last 51 months as new costume parts and designs came out. With the ability to save costumes now, I've discovered I have a passion for costume designing and getting things just so.
I've been with a total of three SG's in that period, the third ironically being a Golden Age-themed hero group, coming a neat circle back to where I started with reading comics. Even though the character I made for the group has turned out to be more of a Spider-Man than a Batman or Superman, the character is distinctly mine, something I can honestly say I've had on no game before or since. That's something I think this game can have as its testament, that you have a sense of investment and originality like few others. That how you look as your character can be so fundamentally unique that in turn your experiences feel the same when you play them.
I think Going Rogue solidified that experience, because outside of tabletop gaming, it's a rare online game that gets you to stop and think about your own individual experience. Kudos to Paragon Studios for that.
And I intend to stay on, even if I want some of the usual wishlist request like destructable environments and objects, fingers and the game to look like some PS3 masterpiece.
It's good enough to get me do that.
S. -
Quote:Originally Posted by Pouncer
I don't see Zoe as being the instrument of mankind's destruction - as you say, she's just a girl with daddy issues. I think she was just the first model of how you can put a human consciousness into a Cylon. And she eventually slipped from Dr. Greystone's grasp for the time being.
I'm guessing the direction they were heading was that the STO gets their Apotheosis program going and they eventually download the memories of a bunch of dead STO suicide bombers into the Cylons. They would have the kind of ruthlessness it takes to declare war on humanity.
But we may never know now. I completely agree with Lothic in that they should have done the story in a miniseries format with a tangible beginning, middle, and end, rather than the meandering soap opera they were doing.
Perhaps so, but I was honestly filled with dread with that being the first example. An emo daughter with daddy issues? I'm pretty sure the story was heading in the direction that Zoe and co. would hook up with the STO faction and they'd go after humanity, as you say.
What bothers me is the parallels it draws to the more human Cylons who do exactly the same thing, but much more effectively. Children with parent complexes...? Doesn't sound that far removed, to me.
S. -
My first and only question about this:
What's this guy selling?
You never ever put a video like this up on YouTube
a)Unless you want to just get noticed because you've done something goofy, funny or cute OR
b)You're promoting something.
He's a filmmaker. I go with b.
I would add as someone who has studied film, it's painfully obvious that this is a shadow cast by her own hand (and the shadows are entirely consistent with the film stock and quality of 1928), and as a person I've seen old women protect their faces the same way before now against the sunlight, and who hasn't seen an old woman talking either to herself or someone she's walking with or seen off-screen in a video?
Honestly.
S. -
I came to the conclusion that SyFy like producing gorgeous-looking but thin-as-paper television shows. They saw what they had in BSG, and tried to milk the cash cow.
When you have a prequel show where you know what's coming (Enterprise, I'm looking at you), you kill a lot of the essential tension in precisely that premise. But I agree with what others said; my problem started and ended with Zoe....the way it was being shaped up was that the whole reason the Cylons rose up and destroyed humanity is because they were patterned on a dead teenage girl with a daddy complex.
I mean, seriously?
S. -
It's interesting that the game has finally come to this point, because I had fun making my first (and so far only level 50) character with being a mythological creature to begin with. He's here:
http://68.178.145.67/index.php/Burnum
...and was intended to be a mix of the Incredible Hulk and the Rainbow Serpent, a mythological figure from the Australian Aboriginal Dreamtime. I even went so far when he hit 50 to completely trick him out with IO sets for all of his powers and abilities.
Recently, I played him going through an 'evolution' where his look and outlook changed in response to the possible 'Coming Storm', but this was met with a high degree of derision by my (former) SG. The impression I got was that the notion of characters being more powerful than what's been established in private continuity is challenging and even confronting, and so the Praetorian 'threat' in this case was downplayed.
I actually like the notion of becoming the equal or better than some of the signature characters (if you saw the recent Dev diaries, both the Vindicators and the Phalanx have failed to stop the bigger invasion from Praetoria), and only those with the Incarnate power have the chance to do so.
That being said, I have a number of other characters (two or three at least in the high 40's) and none of them are candidates for Incarnate-ism.
S. -
I know this is a thread to find other roleplaying groups for people to join, but I just had to give my current game, which I'm running, a plug.
It's the Doctor Who Roleplaying Game: Adventures in Time and Space, by Cubicle7. In terms of capturing the feel and atmosphere of the show(s) (Doctor Who/Torchwood/The Sarah Jane Adventures), it does remarkably well, with a Merits and Flaws system (not unlike White Wolf) but a very simple 2d6+Trait+Skill system that makes play fast. And...unlike a lot of games, the emphasis is on talking and not fighting. About being smart and figuring things out and not using brute force.
And as a nearly thirty year veteran of games, I deeply appreciate and welcome that particular angle on things.
The company has been slowed down significantly thanks to the rebranding of the Who license and the change of actors, which meant all their products had to be reworked to cover the new version of the show. Not a great way to get the game products rolling.
But!
I recommend this game for both newcomers and veterans alike; for newcomers with a quick and simple game system and for veterans who want to challenge themselves with a game that has the setting of well....everywhere in time and space.
Check it out!
S. -
As a friend of mine pointed out when I emailed him the link:
The Doctor lies to children. A LOT.
In fact, it's easier to quote him and I trust his vast knowledge on things Whovian:
A) The Doctor Lies, especially to children about difficult subjects like his own death,
B) It wouldn't be the first time Doctor Who writers have ignored things that have been said in the past on this subject, and the older quotes actually suggest there no limits but are also almost certainly exagerations see point
A)
C)Time Lords are NOT naturally immortal. Otherwise Rassilon wouldn't have been such a big deal. Bottom line is if you shoot at the Doctor he is still in jeapordy an can be killed. Whether he is or not references point E)
D) I can think of a thousand plot device reasons why the Time War has changed the rules and so can you guys and
E) Details like this don't matter a fraction as much as the quality of the writing.
I like these arguments.
S. -
Great work, Steelclaw! I used to run a MSH game that lasted about fifteen years and always found it to be one of the most accessible rulesets that ever came out into the market. A true walk-up-and-play ruleset if there ever was one. And I know the stats well...it could use some refinement into the whole numbers that MSH uses, but here's my first ever 50 that was a Hulk tribute originally....
BURNUM (LVL 50 Super Strength/Invulnerability Tank)
----------------------------------------
FIGHTING: 60 (equivalent to better than Captain America)
AGILITY: 18 (Cyclops)
STRENGTH: 108 (Hulk or Thor)
ENDURANCE: 75 (Thing or Magneto)
REASON: 20 (Spider-Man)
INTUITION: 20 (Nick Fury)
PSYCHE: 28 (Hulk, Mr. Fantastic)
He shapes up reasonably well, I have to admit. Unfortunately, you can't then write down the powers which would normally be listed seperately in this situation, which would have some bearing on the final writeup. But a great piece of work nonetheless.
S. -
Have to admit, it's one of the best parodies out there....and educational. Can't go wrong with the Grover...even when Elmo almost loses his face thanks to someone's cleavage...
S. -
Hi David.
Hope you got a pleasant night's sleep for the week coming up.
So, as to my votes as to putting together 10-15 parts and a set.....explanations follow.
1)Kheldian Sash
2)Vanguard Backpack/Jetpack
3)Vanguard belt option #2
4)PPD Gauntlets (large)
5)Freakshow arm options
6)Tsoo Spirit (chest)
7)Tsoo Spirit (shoulders)
8)Tsoo Spirit (belt)
9)Tsoo Warrior (sword sheaths, quivers,back)
10)Cimeroran toga
11)Cimeroran sandals
12)Cimeroran chest option
13)Mender shoulder option (asymmetrical)
14)Mender belt option
15)Mender gauntlets
Special Mention: Leather-textured capes (ala Statesman).
Set: PPD Hardsuit.
First cab off the rank for me are sashes. Out of all the heroic groups, people have wanted these for their Kheldians forever. Plus, it's great for all those Phoenix/Dark Phoenix types out there....but it's such an obvious Belt option, it deserves high consideration.
The back and second belt option from the Vanguard set are numbers two and three here. It's the only example of a cosmetic back-mounted jetpack getting around, and it deservedly should include flight animation ala the craftable boots. People like this armor set a lot and Vanguard types want to look well....Vanguard.
Four and five should be the PPD gauntlets and Freakshow body/arm options. One completes the PPD side of things, the other is just part of that well-loved NPC group.
The Tsoo Spirit armor pieces are at least three choices right there. And back-mounted sword-sheaths! And quivers! And add another three for the Roman sandals, togas, and chest options. The latter has a lot going for it not only in terms of roman-themed characters but also just general fantasy use.
A semi-unique piece: leather-textured capes. Now Statesman has this, but he has a standard cape, just with a leather texture added to it. That is arguably not unique. His belt, his facemask are and even his costume design is, but not that cape (ignoring the clasp/shoulder pattern at the front).
Lastly for the last three pieces I'd argue for the asymmetrical Mender parts as mentioned in a prior post. And for a costume set....
PPD hardsuit. Ever since the Official costume set came up, people have wanted to play as part of the PPD and the latter is so hotly desired by folks it's not funny. That suit broken up as a costume set would greatly expand on what's out there already.
I hope this helps you out with deciding things.
S. -
A couple of things here I've had thoughts about:
Could this version of Ouroboros be a phased instance? That is, as part of its story that Incarnates (those heroes being gifted with the Incarnate ability) that Ouroboros ceases to be a viable contact? I thought of Cleopatra from Praetoria as a good example here, and a great way to reflect the changes in the world. It'd be good to visually show things having changed on the 'upper planes' where the big kids play.
Interesting that Recluse isn't there at all. He drank from the Well of the Furies also...is his status (and by extension that of the Isles) going to be called into question? Even if he isn't everyone's favorite NPC, his backstory kind of entitles him to be there, I would think.
Finally, I'd like to think this was the Coming Storm. If you go to the pictures again, you'll see there are Praetorian Clockwork in not only King's Row, but inside the Vanguard base. It strikes me that these are key strategic areas in Paragon City (we've yet to see any suggestions if this affects the Rogue Isles as well) and definite game-changers. If Vanguard and the War Zone are lost, then the mothership is up for grabs. I can't see the Rikti not being involved at some point as allies.
S. -
Brave and the Bold is definitely meant to have a Silver Age/Earth-1 Earth-2 vibe about it. Robin showed up (as an adult) in his Earth-2 costume; Batman is using all manner of Bat-Gadgets and isn't remotely broody at all and a lot of characters are using their Silver Age look and origins.
That being said, it's a great tie to the glory days of Justice League. In this current season, there is a fantastic story featuring Kevin Conroy, Dana Delany and Clancy Brown in the one episode! And it takes some not-so-subtle shots at Superman...easily one of the most fun shows out there. And as mentioned, Neal Patrick Harris got a gig as a musical villain. Gotta love that.
S. -
I won't call myself a Gleek, simply because I think any musical-themed show has only a set lifetime, and I'm a good generation removed from relating to high school drama, but I agree with most assessments of the episode.
But I guess this is the next hurdle a show with a lot of hype and awards has to work against; its own success. And in this case, giving Lea Michelle (who's clearly suited to Broadway singing and 'big' songs) One More Time was a big mistake. You can tell she wants to sing big, and the song doesn't allow for it. If anything, I wanted to see more Brittany time, as she was stealing every scene she was in.
As for the teen 'sex riot' stuff, that just struck me as a bit of sensationalism for its own sake. What'd concern me is if that starts happening regularly and you're tuning in to see what 'outrageous' stuff was happening next week.
Doing a Rocky Horror show will be a make or break move for me, simply because it's been very hard to touch in a lot of forms, be it on stage or homage.
S. -
Quote:Originally Posted by Warp_Factor
For those who don't enjoy Hulk or feel like you don't "get" the character, check out Peter David's run during the '90s, along with the Future Imperfect 2-shot. I loved Planet Hulk, and liked WWH well enough, but nothing humanized the character like David's run on the book. I would go so far as to say that if you haven't read at least some of it, you really should reconsider even commenting on the character. It's that definitive a run.
I think some would go far as to say PAD's run on the Hulk (which was nearly six years) as probably the definitive run. I certainly would, as I was hooked from month to month and he was spot on with the Hulks he wrote (Grey, Green and Professor) and made him funny and just....fun to read. Future Imperfect with George Perez (my favorite all-time artist who I got to meet this year, yay!) is a stunning story. Couldn't agree more and encourage more for people to read his work on the book.
S. -
To the best of my knowledge, Christopher Nolan is on board for a new Superman movie, but only as a producer. Now, that being said, I think he's the sort of creative mind that looks to the source material more often than not. I don't think anyone who reads these boards could dispute that his Batman movies have probably been the most faithful and accurate depictions of that character possibly ever.
But a director for Superman....hmm....I really think it has to be someone with a passion for superheroes, like Richard Donner did in the very first movie, because it literally shines with passion and great care for the character. So I'd look to the more successful Harry Potter directors first, because they're showing a knowledge and a handling of those stories to bring as much of that detail out. So Alfonso Cuaron (Prisoner of Azkaban) would be good.
Alternatively, the producer and someone who I think learned a lot from Spielberg in Chris Columbus could take a run at it. He has a strong visual style and knows how to treat characters also.
Beyond that...maybe Doug Liman of the Bourne Trilogy? Definitely someone who knows how to tell a tight story and handle strong characters.
S. -
Well, let's be honest about the tv show. With Spider-Man, it was being made on a shoestring budget and did amazingly well for the seasons it was on air, and it had to be sold on 'The Fugitive' premise, where Banner goes from town to town, with the reporter chasing down Hulk sightings.
There was no way you could do justice to the Hulk as shown in the comics at that point, not without CGI or a much larger budget. And if you look at Spider-Man with Nicholas Hammond, that show suffered way more than Hulk did. As for Bill Bixby, he's in 90% of each episode. The show was Banner-heavy, because it needed to be. And honestly, I think he sells Banner brilliantly. Out of all the characterisations of Banner, his is probably one of the strongest, and every time I hear the 'Lonely Man' theme (I think that's the right name), I can feel the sadness and loneliness as his Banner walks off to another town.
Show me another portrayal of Banner that's as haunted by the Hulk as his and I'll concede that to you happily.
S.