Warner bros announce superhero films through 2020

[Anwar]

What's the difference?

Traveling back in time means there can still be errors made and there's a chance of failure (very small, if he can keep going back) so there's still some tension.

Controlling the flow of time itself just makes him omnipotent, and kills the story dead.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Superman is a mortal being, so there is always a chance of failure, no matter what he does.

 

[Anwar]

Superman is a mortal being, so there is always a chance of failure, no matter what he does.

Not when they keep inventing new powers for him to have, from all his abilities to time manipulation to wall rebuilding vision, to being able to erase a persons' memories with a kiss, etc.

 

[crookeddy]

Not when they keep inventing new powers for him to have, from all his abilities to time manipulation to wall rebuilding vision, to being able to erase a persons' memories with a kiss, etc.

Yup a problem with Superman in the comics as well as movies...

 

[CorporalCaptain]

However many powers Superman has doesn't change the fact that he is vulnerable to certain things and mortal.

 

[Captain of the USS Averof]

Or fans that know the potential all of these movies have because of their love of the comics and the characters that, for many varied and often personal reasons, they feel they didn't get with some of the recent movies.

It's like that phrase about being easier to hurt the ones you love.

When you have the same exact people who constantly piss over even highly acclaimed and iconic comic book movies such as Richard Donner’s Superman (1978), Tim Burton’s Batman (1989) and Christopher Nolan’s The Dark Knight (2008) it’s easy to recognize genuine comic book fans from the Disney fanboys.

 

[crookeddy]

When you have the same exact people who constantly piss over even highly acclaimed and iconic comic book movies such as Richard Donner’s Superman (1978), Tim Burton’s Batman (1989) and Christopher Nolan’s The Dark Knight (2008) it’s easy to recognize genuine comic book fans from the Disney fanboys.

I don't disagree with you.... butttttttt.... critically acclaimed movies aren't necessarily good comic book adaptations.

 

[Captain of the USS Averof]

I don't disagree with you.... butttttttt.... critically acclaimed movies aren't necessarily good comic book adaptations.

True. But billion dollar comedies aimed at kids and pre-teens aren’t necessarily good comic book adaptations either.

 

[F. King Daniel]

However many powers Superman has doesn't change the fact that he is vulnerable to certain things and mortal.

It's nothing a little nap can't fix.

 

[Anwar]

When you have the same exact people who constantly piss over even highly acclaimed and iconic comic book movies such as Richard Donner’s Superman (1978), Tim Burton’s Batman (1989) and Christopher Nolan’s The Dark Knight (2008) it’s easy to recognize genuine comic book fans from the Disney fanboys.

Nah, we just figured after 10 years of abuse that there's nothing wrong with pointing out that the past was hardless flawless.

 

[Enterprise is Great]

Christina Hodson to write Batgirl script

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

When you have the same exact people who constantly piss over even highly acclaimed and iconic comic book movies such as Richard Donner’s Superman (1978), Tim Burton’s Batman (1989) and Christopher Nolan’s The Dark Knight (2008) it’s easy to recognize genuine comic book fans from the Disney fanboys.

Well said. I've never been fond of Burton's film, but Donner and Nolan are among the few directors responsible for superhero films that are not only the cream of their genre's crop, but have been considered great films in general. Aside from that, only the other Nolan Bat-films, Spider-Man 2 (Raimi's), Wonder Woman, and Captain America: The Winter Soldier and Black Panther have received anything near that level of acclaim.

True. But billion dollar comedies aimed at kids and pre-teens aren’t necessarily good comic book adaptations either.

Again, well said.

 

[Anwar]

Well said. I've never been fond of Burton's film, but Donner and Nolan are among the few directors responsible for superhero films that are not only the cream of their genre's crop, but have been considered great films in general.

Donner only made 1 good Superhero film, and even that one had major problems. Nolan's works are as pretentious as all, high on their self-importance.

Aside from that, only the other Nolan Bat-films, Spider-Man 2 (Raimi's), Wonder Woman, and Captain America: The Winter Soldier and Black Panther have received anything near that level of acclaim

Spider-Man 2 had serious issues, especially with it copped-out on its villain. WW is a fairly basic story shielded by political correctness, Winter Solider and Black Panther are both authentic and not sell-outs though.

Again, well said.

Leave it to that attitude, the Thor movies would be about a bunch of delusional LARPers not realizing they're in a Cult and the Guardians of the Galaxy would be a psychotic Biker gang who only think they're aliens.

"Grounded" and all that.

 

[crookeddy]

Donner only made 1 good Superhero film, and even that one had major problems. Nolan's works are as pretentious as all, high on their self-importance.



Spider-Man 2 had serious issues, especially with it copped-out on its villain. WW is a fairly basic story shielded by political correctness, Winter Solider and Black Panther are both authentic and not sell-outs though.



Again, well said.

[/QUOTE]

Is there a name for this level of fan boyness? It's some kind of mental illness, right?

 

[CorporalCaptain]

What superhero film did Donner direct that was released in the theaters besides Superman (1978)?

 

[Anwar]

What superhero film did Donner direct that was released in the theaters besides Superman (1978)?

Most of Superman II. That movie had serious characterization problems. Of course, his own first Superman movie had its issues too. It's just considered "in bad taste" to criticize the film because it's "sacred".

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Most of Superman II.

That's not Richard Donner's film.

 

[The Realist]

Of course, his own first Superman movie had its issues too. It's just considered "in bad taste" to criticize the film because it's "sacred".

It's not considered bad taste; it just indicates poor taste.

 

[crookeddy]

Most of Superman II. That movie had serious characterization problems. Of course, his own first Superman movie had its issues too. It's just considered "in bad taste" to criticize the film because it's "sacred".

The ending of that movie has been criticised to death. And rightfully so

 

[Anwar]

That's not Richard Donner's film.

He had enough of a hand in all the characterization problems.

It's not considered bad taste; it just indicates poor taste.

It's poor taste to not think a movie is flawless?