Discussion in 'Science Fiction & Fantasy' started by dodge, Aug 5, 2018.
Really? I thought that was fairly mainstream parlance.
That was not directed at you, it was directed at the person who started this whole Hawk and Dove conversation.
I have to agree that Hawk and Dove were entirely missing the point in this series. I am all for changing the nature of the characters somewhat to fit the shows or movies, but writers need to keep the core of what defines them. When it comes to the point where the character is altered so much that it has nothing to do with the source material, why include them at all. There are probably dozens of characters with a Titans connection that could have been used instead and Hawk and Dove saved for a story where their appearance actually made sense.
Again, the term Hawk & Dove is literally hundreds of years old. You have to be legitimately stupid to not understand what it represents, and using it like titans did is either moronic or literally not giving a single shit. Either way, its infuriating. I've never even seen a comic mess it up, because its so simple even infamously terrible comic people like Rob Liefeld can't screw it up. It is arguably worse then even, for example, making Batman use guns. The very concept of Dove is peaceful. When it gets so bad that even in the context of the show her being called Dove makes no sense, something is very messed up.
This is not just something that some fans think should be done differently. It is legitimately either completely moronic or purposefully being shitty.
Good for you. For me, giving a giant finger to the very concept of the characters is more then enough to call the Titans people what they are.. Hell, what they did to Robin and Starfire qualifies them for that, much less breaking the entire concept of Hawk & Dove. The people making the show are edgelord hacks who are probably the worst group of people to work on a DC property, and I'm including Zach Snyder in that statement.
This is inaccurate. People can be unaware of such euphemisms, as demonstrated by this thread.
Not seeing a down side
I love Will Smith, but it's hard not to see this as an upgrade.
Hmm... Elba's getting typecast as comic-book characters known for their extraordinary vision.
For me it's pretty much an even exchange.
I prefer Idris over Will so I might actually watch the sequel.
Idris Elba playing a master gunslinger?! Whatever could go wrong?
Okay, cheap joke being over with, this is how I really feel:
Huh. When they said Smith was out, I thought they were just dropping Deadshot entirely. This is very unexpected and very interesting. I wonder if Elba will play the character along the same lines as Smith or if they'll try to hew closer to tge comics version.
My best guess is that, just as you don’t hire Will Smith for a blockbuster without expecting him to bring some “big Willie style” to the party, neither do you hire someone of the stature of Idris Elba and ask him to impersonate another actor. Especially when it’s a new director too.
They didn't ask Val Kilmer or George Clooney to imitate Michael Keaton. They didn't ask Don Cheadle to imitate Terrence Howard. They didn't ask Roger Moore to imitate Sean Connery.
Besides, I expect this movie to be essentially a soft reboot. Continuity with the first, failed movie will not be a priority. The only reason they're keeping Margot Robbie is because of her own popularity. Generally in movie series, continuity is not an all-or-nothing affair; you keep what the audience liked and change or ignore what they didn't like.
I wasn't talking about asking Elba to imitate Smith. I'm wondering if Elba's Deadshot will follow the same general interpretation of the character that Smith's did - Ie, a 'bad guy' who is really maybe not all that bad and does kind of seem to follow a code, sometimes. As opposed to the comic book version of Deadshot who really probably would murder his own mother without a second thought if he thought he needed to/had something significant to gain from it and who really only actually cares about one single person in the world (his daughter).
Ah, ok, I get ya.
This movie is a sequel; why would it completely redefine Deadshot's characterization?
^ Given that it’s a different writer/director and has jettisoned most of the original cast, with the one confirmed returning character being played by a different actor, it’s hardly a straight sequel.
Separate names with a comma.