Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!
You telling me there is no difference between a animated chidlren show like Sponge Bob Square Pants, and an Anime like Dragon Ball Z, or adult cartoons like Duckman. Stuff like Sponge Bob Square Pants really shouldn't be watched by adults. For the same reason you no longer play in the sandbox, soil yourself, or catch cooties.
You can get away with watching more "mature cartoons" like Dragon Ball Z or Gundum Wing but that is pushing it. Adult cartoons like Duck Man or Aeon Flux is really geared for adults despite being animated. American made animated cartoons really aren't the same as Japanese Anime or animated adult shows. The difference is the intended target audience.
Is a production like say the Lion King a great cinematic master piece? Yes Should a 40 year old man be watching it alone no kids involved? No
In conclusion adults should be doing adult things. Watching kids cartoons is simply behavior unbecoming of an adult. Let's not kid ourselves here you gonna have to stop watching Power Rangers and collecting G.I. Joes sometime! LOL
You telling me there is no difference between a animated chidlren show like Sponge Bob Square Pants, and an Anime like Dragon Ball Z, or adult cartoons like Duckman. Stuff like Sponge Bob Square Pants really shouldn't be watched by adults. For the same reason you no longer play in the sandbox, soil yourself, or catch cooties.
You can get away with watching more "mature cartoons" like Dragon Ball Z or Gundum Wing but that is pushing it. Adult cartoons like Duck Man or Aeon Flux is really geared for adults despite being animated. American made animated cartoons really aren't the same as Japanese Anime or animated adult shows. The difference is the intended target audience.
Is a production like say the Lion King a great cinematic master piece? Yes Should a 40 year old man be watching it alone no kids involved? No
In conclusion adults should be doing adult things. Watching kids cartoons is simply behavior unbecoming of an adult. Let's not kid ourselves here you gonna have to stop watching Power Rangers and collecting G.I. Joes sometime! LOL
You telling me there is no difference between a animated chidlren show like Sponge Bob Square Pants, and an Anime like Dragon Ball Z, or adult cartoons like Duckman.
No, we're not telling you any such thing. There's plenty of difference in approach and focus. But that doesn't mean that shows of all those different types can't be intelligent and entertaining.
Stuff like Sponge Bob Square Pants really shouldn't be watched by adults. For the same reason you no longer play in the sandbox, soil yourself, or catch cooties.
That's just silly. "Shouldn't be?" Says who? Like I said, isn't the whole point of being an adult that you're free to watch, read, or listen to whatever you want without having people tell you that you can't? The only person imposing such limits on you is yourself.
As I also said, I watch plenty of "children's" shows that are smarter, funnier, and better than the majority of what passes for "adult" programming. Because our culture assumes that "adult" programming means something with sex and violence and cuss words, no matter how stupid it is, and that "children's" programming means something without those things, no matter how smart and high-quality it is. I for one would rather base my viewing choices on the intelligence and quality of a show first and foremost. And there are plenty of smart, well-made shows out there that are designed to be accessible to children.
You can get away with watching more "mature cartoons" like Dragon Ball Z or Gundum Wing but that is pushing it.
Nonsense. Adults should have the freedom to define themselves on their own terms. You're living in a self-imposed prison because of these ridiculous prejudices. And you're missing out on a lot of enjoyment and fulfillment as a result.
Our society is too dismissive of the value of childish things. Childhood is a time of imagination, of discovery, of adaptability and growth. Those are qualities that people ideally should hold onto throughout their lives, but our society tries to browbeat them out of us because of this idiotic prejudice that there's something bad about thinking like a child. Society teaches that we should grow up and stop daydreaming and limit ourselves to drab reality -- but where would we be without the people who cling to their imagination well into adulthood and become novelists, filmmakers, artists, inventors? Society pressures us to abandon the childhood drive to explore and push boundaries, instead settling for our rigid, narrow lives, but it's the people who never stop pushing boundaries and asking questions that make new discoveries and lead social revolutions and change the world. Adulthood should keep the worthy qualities of childhood and add to them, not abandon them altogether.
Would either of you two be ashamed to watch saturday morning cartoons in front of your friends, family, co-workers, peers, or significant others? If not then I guess you win if not then I guess I do.
Doesn't look like either side is giving any ground so lets just leave it at that shall we...
Absoulutely not. In fact, most of my "peers" also watch "cartoons" of various stripes, either solo or WITH their families. Our indiviudal tastes differ of course, but the watching of "cartoons" itself is a non-issue.
Circling back to this SPECIFIC "cartoon", you can hardly argue that the matierial presented is "kiddie" in any way shape or form. You have characters dying, homicidal psychopathology, sexual innuendo, and more. Not something that most people would consider "children's fare"...
Absoulutely not. In fact, most of my "peers" also watch "cartoons" of various stripes, either solo or WITH their families. Our indiviudal tastes differ of course, but the watching of "cartoons" itself is a non-issue.
Circling back to this SPECIFIC "cartoon", you can hardly argue that the matierial presented is "kiddie" in any way eroshape or form. You have characters dying, homicidal psychopathology, sexual innuendo, and more. Not something that most people would consider "children's fare"...
Well a few things. One you screen name is a reference to a cartoon "Darkwing Duck" and your avatar is a reference to another cartoon "G.I. JOE A Real American Hero". Based on this fact alone I am concerned you may no be able to be objective on this topic. Futhermore both of those shows ware targeted a kids in the sence of people less than 18 or maybe 13. The target demographic certianly was not people in the 30s or 40s.
Many Cartoons have death and sexual innuendo, but they are still developed and marketed to chldren. Take the cartoon Justice Leauge. There where multiple instances of sexual induendo and a few deaths but it was still done in a PG sort of way. There was no blood and no gentials shown.
Two characters in the show Darkwing Duck are "killed". They are Major Synapse and Splatter Phoenix. This hardly makes Darkwing Duck an adult program. In GI Joe the movie the ending was changed Duke was supposed to be killed by Serpentor, but after a backlash from the Death of Optimus Prime in Transformers the movie this was changed becasue it upset children and some parents. All this does is prove that the shows are aimed at kids. This movie was PG-13 which is just big kids. I would not expect ths to be shown at old folks homes.
I beleive your argument is that many age groups could enjoy a show like this and I agree, but it is still a cartoon and targeted at kids, the youth, adolecence, teens, preteens, and children. Not Adults. The creaters of this Justice Leauge where not going after the 18+ crowd with this show. It was shown on Cartton Network albiet in primetime. It might has well been on Nick Jr. What's next you gonna tell me Dora the Explorer is going after senior citizens.
Would either of you two be ashamed to watch saturday morning cartoons in front of your friends, family, co-workers, peers, or significant others? If not then I guess you win if not then I guess I do.
Absoulutely not. In fact, most of my "peers" also watch "cartoons" of various stripes, either solo or WITH their families. Our indiviudal tastes differ of course, but the watching of "cartoons" itself is a non-issue.
Well a few things. One you screen name is a reference to a cartoon "Darkwing Duck" and your avatar is a reference to another cartoon "G.I. JOE A Real American Hero". Based on this fact alone I am concerned you may no be able to be objective on this topic.
Whaaat? First you say that if they like this stuff, they win the point-- then when they do, you claim their opinion doesn't count. Dude, if you're going to move the bar, at least do it when no one is looking.
Futhermore both of those shows ware targeted a kids in the sence of people less than 18 or maybe 13. The target demographic certianly was not people in the 30s or 40s.
Two characters in the show Darkwing Duck are "killed". They are Major Synapse and Splatter Phoenix. This hardly makes Darkwing Duck an adult program... All this does is prove that the shows are aimed at kids. I would not expect ths to be shown at old folks homes.
I beleive your argument is that many age groups could enjoy a show like this and I agree, but it is still a cartoon and targeted at kids, the youth, adolecence, teens, preteens, and children. Not Adults.
Okay, and they were saying that there's nothing that keeps an adult from enjoying this stuff too. You were arguing that they "shouldn't be watched by adults" and "adults should do adult things." Says who? You? The Moral Majority? The President? No one dictates that sort of thing. And if you're just stating an opinion, you'll find you're in a distinct minority here... which shouldn't come as a surprise on a thread devoted to an animated movie.
What's next you gonna tell me Dora the Explorer is going after senior citizens?
Would either of you two be ashamed to watch saturday morning cartoons in front of your friends, family, co-workers, peers, or significant others? If not then I guess you win if not then I guess I do.
Absoulutely not. In fact, most of my "peers" also watch "cartoons" of various stripes, either solo or WITH their families. Our indiviudal tastes differ of course, but the watching of "cartoons" itself is a non-issue.
Whaaat? First you say that if they like this stuff, they win the point-- then when they do, you claim their opinion doesn't count. Dude, if you're going to move the bar, at least do it when no one is looking.
Futhermore both of those shows ware targeted a kids in the sence of people less than 18 or maybe 13. The target demographic certianly was not people in the 30s or 40s.
Two characters in the show Darkwing Duck are "killed". They are Major Synapse and Splatter Phoenix. This hardly makes Darkwing Duck an adult program... All this does is prove that the shows are aimed at kids. I would not expect ths to be shown at old folks homes.
I beleive your argument is that many age groups could enjoy a show like this and I agree, but it is still a cartoon and targeted at kids, the youth, adolecence, teens, preteens, and children. Not Adults.
Okay, and they were saying that there's nothing that keeps an adult from enjoying this stuff too. You were arguing that they "shouldn't be watched by adults" and "adults should do adult things." Says who? You? The Moral Majority? The President? No one dictates that sort of thing. And if you're just stating an opinion, you'll find you're in a distinct minority here... which shouldn't come as a surprise on a thread devoted to an animated movie.
What's next you gonna tell me Dora the Explorer is going after senior citizens?
He lost all credibility when he said that adults shouldn't watch Lion King unless they were taking children to see it. Apparently he doesn't follow Broadway, because THEY do Lion King...
Quantum is an adult in a thread about a cartoon in which he gives a detailed review about said cartoon (demonstrating a recent and detailed knowledge of cartoons). He then proceeds to explain why adults should not watch cartoons.
Would either of you two be ashamed to watch saturday morning cartoons in front of your friends, family, co-workers, peers, or significant others? If not then I guess you win if not then I guess I do.
Well, there aren't that many cartoons on Saturday mornings anymore. But I have never made a secret of the fact that I'm a Power Rangers fan, or that I enjoyed Teen Titans and Avatar and plenty of other shows whose main target audience is children. Every quality children's show has adult fans. After all, as I already said, those shows are made by adults, and they always put in things to make it interesting for themselves, as well as for the parents that they expect to be watching the shows along with their kids. It's a total falsehood to assume that every children's show is completely devoid of anything that adults would enjoy.
And really, I don't know why we're having this debate in a thread for Crisis on Two Earths, a movie that's rated PG-13 and specifically targeted at teens and adults.
Getting the thread back on topic, I finally got Crisis on Two Earths from Netflix — which may have been the wrong way to go, since their version lacks the DC Showcase: Spectre short film. I'm rather annoyed about that.
As for the movie itself, it's pretty obvious that it's a slight revamp of the Worlds Collide movie between JL and JLU -- so much so that you wonder why they didn’t either do it in the DC Animated Universe as originally intended or else rewrite it more heavily to make it stand more apart. As it is, it’s kind of betwixt and between.
The story's pretty thin and straightforward, and doesn't have the depth of JL's "A Better World." Here there's no moral ambiguity or introspection, no "we could become that if we lose our way," just clear-cut heroes and villains. It's basically just an action romp.
But accepting that, it was executed very well for the most part. McDuffie's story may not be the deepest thing ever, but it’s got a lot of the clever dialogue he does so well. The animation, co-directed by Sam Liu and Lauren Montgomery, is fantastic. In past projects, Liu has shown a knack for really big action and Montgomery has demonstrated great skill with subtle, expressive character animation, so putting them together results in a film that's really compelling to look at. The music, by James L. Venable using themes by Christopher Drake, didn't really grab me but was pretty good.
The casting, however, was a mixed bag. Of all the actors that Andrea Romano has cast as Superman and Batman, this film's choices are probably the weakest. I thought Mark Harmon would be an interesting choice for Superman, but he was just too strident and unsympathetic throughout. And William Baldwin… well, I'm being too harsh. He didn't do a bad job, it was perfectly serviceable, but his performance didn’t stand out the way a Batman voice should. It paled in comparison to James Woods's extremely creepy and menacing Owlman. Not to mention Chris Noth, whose heroic Luthor kind of stole the show, really sounding the way a superhero should sound. And Gina Torres was devilishly sexy as the psychopathic Superwoman. Josh Keaton (the lead on The Spectacular Spider-Man) made an excellent Flash. Vanessa Marshall (Mary Jane on the same show) was a serviceable Wonder Woman, neither better nor worse than Susan Eisenberg from JL/U (who barely beat out Marshall for the role in that version), and nowhere near as impressive as Torres. So kind of a pattern: Noth would’ve made a better Superman (if a tougher one than usual), Woods a better Batman, and Torres a better Wonder Woman.
I think this review sounds more critical than I intended. I found the movie a satisfying experience, but it’s a thing better just experienced than analyzed. It's a popcorn flick, and a good one, aside from the disappointing casting of the Big Three heroes.
As for the controversy over the ending:
As a rule, I agree that Batman shouldn't kill, even by omission. But given that the fate of the entire universe was at stake, I can see how Batman might've been willing to do what had to be done. And he did give both of them an out. Yes, he sent Owlman to an abandoned Earth where the QED wouldn't destroy everything, but he left the "ABORT YES/NO" dialog box active, so Owlman could've shut the bomb down, saved himself, and used the dimension-hopping device to escape to a habitable world. He just chose not to. As for Johnny Quick, Batman tried to get him to stop as soon as he got back, but it was too late. He knew there was a risk, but it wasn't necessarily a suicide mission.
Okay, admittedly those rationalizations are a bit flimsy. And I'm not saying Batman shouldn’t be haunted by his decisions here. But it's not as badly out of character as the Tim Burton movies where Batman blew up a warehouse full of bad guys or the '80s comic where Batman sealed up a villain and left him to die of starvation.
Oh, and I have decided to include this in my DCAU chronology, after a fashion. I added an entry for "events corresponding to Justice League: Crisis on Two Earths," as well as an explanatory note in the introduction. Overall, there's not too much that would need to be different to fit in the DCAU (ignoring design and casting differences). You'd have to have John Stewart (with his more straightforward ring constructs) instead of Hal Jordan, but GL is such a minor player here it hardly matters. Some of J'onn's memories (White Martians, Dr. Erdel, Starro) would have to be different. And I don't think Aquaman would be among the backup team, certainly not with his old look. Also, Luthor had been pardoned by this point in the DCAU, so he wouldn't have been in jail and the cops wouldn't have reacted to him the same way. Hmm, that's actually a more significant change than I'd realized. I wonder how it went in the original.
As a rule, I agree that Batman shouldn't kill, even by omission. But given that the fate of the entire universe was at stake, I can see how Batman might've been willing to do what had to be done. And he did give both of them an out. Yes, he sent Owlman to an abandoned Earth where the QED wouldn't destroy everything, but he left the "ABORT YES/NO" dialog box active, so Owlman could've shut the bomb down, saved himself, and used the dimension-hopping device to escape to a habitable world. He just chose not to. As for Johnny Quick, Batman tried to get him to stop as soon as he got back, but it was too late. He knew there was a risk, but it wasn't necessarily a suicide mission.
Okay, admittedly those rationalizations are a bit flimsy. And I'm not saying Batman shouldn’t be haunted by his decisions here. But it's not as badly out of character as the Tim Burton movies where Batman blew up a warehouse full of bad guys or the '80s comic where Batman sealed up a villain and left him to die of starvation.
^Yeah, Batman was a killer in the pulp tradition for the first year or so of the comics, but once Robin ("The Sensational Character Find of 1940") came along, Batman began to be domesticated, and he very quickly went from a casual killer to someone who expressed remorse about being forced to kill to a clean-cut hero who had never used lethal force and never would (continuity was a concern of later generations). So really the gun-toting Batman of 1939-40 can be chalked up to the character's growing pains, a concept that fell by the wayside, like the claim of early comics that Batman operated out of New York City.
I watched this the other week and found it to be incredibly dumb. It was just a dumbed down action movie with no emotional investment. I found myself not caring about any of these characters, and the weak, uninspired voice work didn't help matters much.
Also, what really bugged me about this movie is the physical damage these characters should and shouldn't be receiving. For example, Superwoman wails on Superman pretty hard and it seems he gets somewhat hurt when trading punches. Keep in mind: she is hurting Superman. She does the same to Batman and he's able to walk away just fine (besides breaking his leg or something - I dunno, it was pretty much forgotten after it happened). My point is that I hate it when they give Batman these superhuman characteristics in order for him to "compete" with the other heroes.
Also, why are any of the Justice League in this movie? They don't really do anything of importance. Superman and Wonder Woman just kinda stand around. Flash cracks jokes, but doesn't contribute anything. Green Lantern...I don't even remember what he did. Martian Manhunter had a decent subplot, but creepy would be another term I would call it. Batman was sorta the main character here, but he didn't really come into the movie until over half way through, before which he wanted nothing to do with this alternate world.
The casting, however, was a mixed bag. Of all the actors that Andrea Romano has cast as Superman and Batman, this film's choices are probably the weakest. I thought Mark Harmon would be an interesting choice for Superman, but he was just too strident and unsympathetic throughout. And William Baldwin… well, I'm being too harsh. He didn't do a bad job, it was perfectly serviceable, but his performance didn’t stand out the way a Batman voice should. It paled in comparison to James Woods's extremely creepy and menacing Owlman. .
I actually liked Mark Harmon as Superman, although at times I did wonder if they chose him because he is strongly reminiscent of George Newbern.
As for Baldwin as Batman..... I had zero expectations (If it ain't Conroy I don't get my hopes up.) so in light of that fact he did a serviceable job. But he was incredibly bland.
James Woods steals the movie hands down, he put his all into the role and made Owlman the most interesting character to watch in the whole movie.
Over the movie made a mistake in making me recall JL/JLU which made the movie seem like some halfhearted attempt to recapture lightening in a bottle.
But even the worst DC DTV movie is better than most of the Marvel DTV's.
Also, what really bugged me about this movie is the physical damage these characters should and shouldn't be receiving. For example, Superwoman wails on Superman pretty hard and it seems he gets somewhat hurt when trading punches. Keep in mind: she is hurting Superman. She does the same to Batman and he's able to walk away just fine (besides breaking his leg or something - I dunno, it was pretty much forgotten after it happened). My point is that I hate it when they give Batman these superhuman characteristics in order for him to "compete" with the other heroes.
To be fair, Superwoman was presented as being attracted to Batman and wanting to "play" with him like a cat toying with a mouse. So sure, she could've punched his head off without chipping a nail, but she was presumably holding back, toying with him for her amusement.
Although it's true that that stone column landing on top of him should've broken his legs. But that's about par for the course in comics and animation.
Would either of you two be ashamed to watch saturday morning cartoons in front of your friends, family, co-workers, peers, or significant others? If not then I guess you win if not then I guess I do.
No. There's no reason to care about such things other than taking oneself too seriously and/or an unhealthy concern with the opinions of others.
That's quite aside from the fact that mature adults don't actually tend to judge others harshly for personal tastes and enthusiasms of this kind - that's much more an adolescent behavior whether found in teenagers or fifty-year-olds.
I really enjoyed it. I liked the action scenes and the SF references (Jedi mind trick, trek speak, power loader).
It's great that the heroes don't always agree on the course of action. They used realistic and general arguements like jurisdiction, world police, isolationism, appeasement, etc. They kept any politcal message subtle. I also liked the CSA new look and that they are set up like organised crime.
Didn't care for the Martian's love story or Ultraman's voice. I would've like see more of Lex's Justice Leauge. But great overall and, IMO, it's on par with JL : A Better World.
