it is a really strange universe and I dont like angry emotionally driven batman or meh to everything superman... wonder woman was dope. I wasn't "poo-poo" and turned it off but I also dont eagerly await the rest of the shows. It is visually worth watching to see comic book super hero use their powers.

This doesn't get me excited at all and I'm the target market. Zack killed DC comic book movies for me.... I'll save me money for whatever Marvel puts out.

Deadpool is my favorite Batman

Last time I really enjoyed Batman was when Adam West was Batman. I'm old.

Although i did dig the artwork in Frank Millers, The Dark Knight Returns. So, whoever that Batman was. Matter of fact i still have 4 untouched sets of that comic book series in a box somewhere.

Not the answer you were looking for. I know, i'm a disappointment

As someone who doesn't enjoy "super hero" films or read comic books, I thought Deadpool was much more enjoyable than any other film in the genre.

I did however also enjoy the first Iron Man and Guardians of the Galaxy.

Not that anyone cares of course

Whenever someone is talking up Deadpool to me it's always: "The references..." (to other comic book movies I didn't care for), "the self-deprecation..." (agreeing with me that some of those movies were indeed shit), "breaking the fourth wall... ooh!" (a dramatic device so old it's Elizabethan... at least). And I'm supposed to be impressed by all that? Meta-, or up it's own ass?
Seems like you need to have watched every other comic book movie to enjoy Deadpool. Both to get the in-jokes no one else cares about, and to have a pile of mediocre crap that this movie can shine next to in comparison.
To me it was just another uninteresting superhero movie but this time with swears.

I kind of get it. But on the other hand, every time you change mediums the way you tell the story changes. Every time a movie comes out based on a book (I mean an all-text novel, not a graphic novel / comic), most people that love the source book *think* that they want the movie to be a 100% verbatim adaptation. But the medium just doesn't work the same way.

Describing a setting or a character might take many paragraphs in a book, possibly spread out over multiple chapters or even multiple books. In a movie, *bam* -- you put it on screen, and you can see it. Done. On the other hand, describing a character's motivations can be done very succinctly or in great depth and detail in a book, but it is harder to do that in a purely visual medium like film.

Wolverine's color scheme and costume design works in comic books. His mask/hat thing with the horn-like points works in the comics. But in live-action film, what materials can look or behave like either or those things, and not be jarringly weird? Even cosplay type stuff is generally built to look good in still images -- not necessarily in video, being subjected to action-movie kinds of physical motion. I believe the directors / filmmakers when they say that they have tried more authentic costumes, and felt that they "didn't work".

Deadpool was a very good example of how it *can* work to move the imagery in a direction visually closer to the comic books. But I think the best we can hope for is a happy medium where *some* visual cues are adapted from the comics, in the situations where those things adapt well to the format.

Fracking is exactly he kind of stupidity you would find from comic-book corporations and videogame villains. It's amazing this is going on.

Obvious parallels with the Avengers here, which is odd because the first half of the trailer looked like a gritty, tense standoff between two legends of comic books only to be followed by an action-has-no-consequences, special effects driven, quip marathon with extra characters shoe-horned in (presumably for sex appeal, or am i being too pessimistic?)

There was little chance in the superhero genre (that's enjoying such popularity right now) to build up a strong female superhero that has her own story and relevance. To me, Johanssen's character is nowhere near as deep or involved as the other Avengers are, to the point i can't even remember the character's name but i definitely can remember what she wears. Given that opportunity with Wonder Woman, why is she being introduced as an aside to Batman and Superman? That undermines her right from the start in my view - the male characters all seem to have had their own individual films as introduction.

What i mean is, just as it is for boys, you'd want a young girl to imagine themselves as Wonder Woman and be the centre of focus, in command, important and everyone wants your input or help. In this case, it seems the best you can do is help out her male colleagues with their critically important work, where they both go "oh i thought she was with you."

Oh wow, I hadn't heard about this. Of course this would have to be on HBO to show even half the shit that went on in the comics.
In spite of that I will be keeping an eye on this one, now we just need to wrangle Simon Pegg into a TV or movie version of The Boys, before he gets too damn old to play the role of his comic book counterpart.

For every white superhero, there is a black superhero; and for every 20 black and white superheroes, there is a single Asian S.H.I.E.L.D. agent and/or a Latino comic relief.

I'm kidding, I don't really give a shit -- but it's true.

One argument I've heard is that crime takes place in the inner cities, so of course there will be a larger portion of black heroes/villains.

Anyway, I've read 100s of Marvel comic books, including the Alias, Daredevil, Marvel Knights, and Defenders series (which ISN'T the Defenders we're going to be presented with on Netflix) so I'm definitely excited about seeing Jessica and Power Man.

But more importantly, the Purple Man (Zebediah Killgrave) is a key villain to know and fear. He pulls a lot of the conspiratorial strings of the Marvel universe on earth to come.

I'm glad to see I'm not the only one around hear who actually watched this show when it came out. Although not being 8 yrs old (13) I became disillusioned fairly quickly. I was a fan of the comic book version and was disappointed with the changes made to the storyline. I kept watching though, I was waiting for Dr. Robinson or Major West to shoot Zachary Smith. And I had the hots for Penny.

That basically means that the only way an action scene can be good is via realism, and that's not true.

I would agree so much as to say that I don't think that Avengers scene was necessarily great, but it is good. I want to preface this first with I'm not a huge Avengers fan. I'm honestly not a big comic book fan either, so this isn't coming from a fan boy.

Why was it good? First off, it is very plot connected. It demonstrated Tony Stark being forward thinking and anticipating the Hulk potentially going Hulk and hurting/killing people... It's the same for his motivation to construct what became The Vision. It stays within both his and Hulk's character. Stark maintains his wise cracking self, even when it's not probably appropriate.

Immortality? Hardly. It conveyed how much damage could be done. IE, buildings and stuff didn't just get destroyed because, LOOK! STUFF BLOWING UP! The scene actually demonstrates the flaws/vulnerabilities of both Stark and the Hulk. Stark didn't just beat him, and that was that. They were very lucky nobody died (admittedly pretty conveniently). It took a bit of good luck for Stark to stop the Hulk that there was a huge building under construction nearby. It shows that even just the Hulk could potentially overpower whatever Stark cooks up to stop him, let alone whatever actual Supervillian comes along who is actually scheming to destroy/enslave the world, and he can make mistakes despite his best attempts (which is brought about Ultron as well). It demonstrated the Hulk's fragility of setting him off. Yet it also demonstrated that without Stark, the Hulk would have continued smashing and destroying. That was one of the themes in the movie, that technological innovation is something we need, yet can destroy us all.

Was it potentially overdone and there was some stuff that they could have toned down to keep with that darker ethos? Sure. The scene ain't perfect, but it's really damn good.

Okay, I'll be that guy.

(assumes Comic-book guy from Simpsons voice)

Actually, by the time of Episodes 4, 5, & 6 the technology of cloning from Jango Fett's DNA had been lost. Most of the stormtroopers at the time of Episode 4 consisted of human recruits (as evidenced by their various heights, weights, and voices in the movies). Hence, the stormtroopers' lack of blaster accuracy cannot be attributed to cloning degradation.

Source: Wookieepedia

Agreed.

And @newtboy is right. In the media, men are being pushed into unnatural representations of men's physiques now, in a way they haven't been in the past.

It is the comic book, super hero, action hero thing.

Again selling to men but the sexual aspect of it is skewed differently. More like -- men want to LOOK like them, not penetrate them. Ha. But the destructive message is the same to men as it is to women -- you are not worthy enough if you don't look like this.

Hence my comment said that the makeup of the future would enhance their masculinity, not make them sexually desirable. More manly, to be attractive to women, not to men.

Did you know that all that ab action in the movies is not "natural"? That right before a movie scene is going to filmed, the actor works with his nutritionist and personal trainer for at least a couple of days beforehand? They work to minimize body fat for just that day. Makeup is also used to enhance the ab definition. And that right before the camera rolls, the men do crunches to make the muscles stand out even more?

I say this because I read an interview/article about a man who was working hard to look like those guys in the movies. He was so relieved to learn that his failure to exercise his way into looking like those movie images wasn't his fault.

He didn't know. HE DIDN'T KNOW.

This is not good for men's psyches, goldurn it.

The examples you provide aren't particularly accurate.

The formaldehyde results in the study you're talking about have been misrepresented often. The study actually only showed higher formaldehyde when the vaporizer was run dry, meaning the coil wasn't vaporizing liquid but burning the liquid, wick and coil. Nobody would ever inhale that because it would taste horrible. The actual conclusion of the study showed fewer harmful chemicals in ecigarette vapor than cigarette smoke.

As far as teens using ecigarettes at a higher rate, the only available studies show teenage smoking rates dropping by about the same amount as the adoption of ecigarettes. There's no evidence of a net increase in nicotine use among teenagers. Instead, some teens that would have smoked are using ecigarettes.

Rock music is corrupting kids, comic books are teaching children bad morals, pinball leads to juvenile delinquency, video games make kids violent and ecigarettes are turning teens into addicts. Great headlines, zero facts.