Excraft
-
Posts
947 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Articles
Patch Notes
Posts posted by Excraft
-
-
1 hour ago, battlewraith said:
PI posted a still from the trailer and said that he was worried the film would be a hamfisted lecture about the current administration (presumably in the US). This was linked to a reddit post by the Critical Drinker, who I criticized as a formulaic online grifter.
So first, who cares if someone posts a picture and discusses their concerns about the film? Who cares if Critical Drinker dumps on the movie? How is that detracting from your enjoyment or not of a film?
QuoteShardwarrior then kicked off this discussion of critics in general, saying that the industry incentivizes critics to heap lavish praise on their films. This was a non sequitur. Even if it were blatantly obvious that all professional film critics are paid to hype movies, that would not be a defense of online grifters. It is also a false equivalence to view people that may exaggerate the positive qualities of a film in a review with people who denigrate these films along predictable ideological lines often based on a short snippet from a trailer before a film is even released.
As I read it, it was you kicking off the discussion berating Critical Drinker and other "shitty formulaic online grifters" as "hacks" because they don't like a film that you like. All @ShardWarrior did was say that that there are shills on both sides of the fence, which is true. It wasn't a defense of these "shitty formulaic online grifters". Like it or not, there are critics charging for reviews. Whether or not that means its being done with the express expectation of a favorable review I don't know, but at least to me, it does cast some doubt.
Again, If you don't like the content online reviewers are posting, don't watch it. It's that simple. If other people want to listen to their garbage, let them go somewhere else. As for the whole "legitimate sources" thing, what makes some media outlets "legitimate" and others not? You and I may not like Critical Drinker or Nerdrotic, but they've got millions of subscribers. In some cases, they probably have a larger audience than some of these "legitimate" outlets. I'm not sure what constitutes them being "illegitimate" other than you don't like them, and by you I mean people in general you, not you individually.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, battlewraith said:
The bad logic here is evident if you simply swap terms. Some doctors have committed malpractice, therefore it's safe to assume all doctors commit malpractice. Some cops are paid off, ergo all cops are assumed to be dirty. And so on.
I don't know that's what's being suggested. The point as I read it is that some reviews are fake for one reason or another, so take that into consideration when reading them. That's it. A few people here have utterly lost their minds over that possibility that's true for some bizarre reason.
1 hour ago, battlewraith said:“The implication is not that the reviews are grossly inaccurate, on average, but I think as a consumer, you should probably rely on more than one reviewing outlet if you’re making a consumption decision,” says Waguespack."
Yes, that's exactly the point. I don't know why some individuals are conflating that into some widespread conspiracy that every single review everywhere ever is tainted.
1 hour ago, TTRPGWhiz said:lol I’m not going to take the time to point out how much stuff you just made up; anyone who can read can see it.
Your own words.
3 hours ago, TTRPGWhiz said:And nobody has disagreed that studios do shady things, or that sites like Rotten Tomatoes are full of sketchy people. The disagreement is about legitimate film critics being bribed, and the complete lack of evidence of this ever happening. That is all. Nobody has said critics are uncompromisable saints.
-
1 hour ago, TTRPGWhiz said:
And nobody has disagreed that studios do shady things, or that sites like Rotten Tomatoes are full of sketchy people.
This is comical. You're accepting that film studios do sketchy things, but offering stuff in exchange for favorable reviews is too much. That's a line studios that do sketchy things just won't cross. You're accepting review sites are full of sketchy people, but it's impossible that any film critics there are the sketchyones. They're all ok. It's everyone else doing the fake stuff.
1 hour ago, TTRPGWhiz said:The disagreement is about legitimate film critics being bribed, and the complete lack of evidence of this ever happening.
Actually some evidence has been provided, you've just chosen to ignore it.
1 hour ago, TTRPGWhiz said:I’m not questioning anyone’s belief system, but I’m also not going to take it at face value.
I don't see anyone saying you should. Quite the opposite from what I can see.
18 hours ago, ShardWarrior said:You are certainly more than welcome to believe whatever you like, including that there are no incentives - financial or otherwise - for "professional critics" to write favorable reviews of a film or music album or book.
16 hours ago, ShardWarrior said:This is demonstrably false, but as I said earlier, you go right on believing whatever you like.
11 hours ago, ShardWarrior said:Take that with however many grains of salt you like and believe whatever you like.
Anyway, you go right on with your tantrum over the virtues of film critics and put all your faith in them. I wish you well there.
Back to the topic of the thread - trailer was decent. I hope this film does well.
-
On 5/14/2025 at 12:26 PM, Techwright said:
Also, why do fiction/fantasy creators keep making massive shoulders that actually would block the vision of the armor wearer?
Good question. As for the trailer, eh. I agree - no thank you. Nothing against the actress herself though
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, TTRPGWhiz said:
That is not what we are talking about. We are talking specifically about movie studios paying for positive reviews. At no point was this about the general concept of “posting false information”.
I didn't see anyone expressly saying studios are handing over cash in exchange for a good review. I think it very naive to believe studios aren't greasing the palms of critics in some fashion for positive reviews. Whether that means those critics are getting cash (probably not) or studios allowing them exclusive access to celebrities or high profile events or exclusive story scoops in exchange for their positive review, it's all essentially the same thing. That kind of thing has been going on from the get go. I also think it naive to believe that media outlets that are notorious for and have been caught multiple times promoting false news stories somehow miraculously have film critics that are immune from all of that. I agree, not all film critics are liars or taking bribes, but I also don't think they're all saints that are above reproach.
The aforementioned astroturfing is a real thing. I was just watching this video a couple of days ago where he talks about scammers using AI to create fake imagery and paying actors to post fake customer testimonials and positive reviews. This astroturfing shit is rampant on Amazon. With the amount of money at stake on these movies, I don't doubt for a minute studios are hiring people or entire PR firms to flood social media with positive reviews. No, they may not be "major" film critics doing it, but that can and does erode trust in them. I think it naive to put blind faith in anything on the internet really. I personally don't use sites like Rottentomatoes. I'll go with people I personally know.
Back to the topic at hand, I thought the trailer looked pretty good. I'm curious to see Nicholas Hoult's take on Luthor. I'm kind of hoping they don't dive too deep into the "he's an alien so what right does he have to interfere" thing. That was already done in MoS and BvS. I can understand the reservations some may have about the political messaging. The Americans do love throwing that into everything, but hopefully it's not hamfisted.
-
On 5/1/2025 at 10:32 AM, PeregrineFalcon said:
It looks like I called it.
Eh, I'm still going to wait and see. There's definitely people putting stuff out there that isn't true to get clicks on their TikTok on Instagram. James Gunn did well with GoTG, he may do well with Superman too.
-
1
-
-
7 hours ago, ThaOGDreamWeaver said:
Previews aren't necessarily good predictors: Shang-Chi opened low at $8.8m but got legs from word-of-mouth, whereas Cap:BNW had $12m and then died.
I think this movie is going to follow the latter and drop off a cliff.
7 hours ago, ThaOGDreamWeaver said:BTW: if you're not fancying seeing Bucky, Yelena and Bob at the flicks this weekend... go see Sinners.
Really. GO.
Seconded! Great film.
-
1 hour ago, battlewraith said:
1. This movie will suck because of Pedro Pascal
2. This movie will suck because of time travel
3. RDJ as Doctor Doom?!?!
4. This movie will suck because of the fake trailer I just watched. Nothing can polish this turd!
5. Real trailer looks good. Oooops turd got polished.
6. Digression about Superman's disguise.
7. Griping about modern audiences.
8. Of course Reed is a dick and will talk down to his wife.
9. No, Sue can't be a bossgirl. She's a mom. Haven't you seen Aliens?!?
You left out -
10. The parts where you went on and on and on about how female characters written with any inkling of maternal instinct or being a mother as a motivation makes those characters cliche, shallow, weak gimmicks.
11. The parts where you went on and on and on about how changing a character from their source material is SUPER BAD BAD!! (see Ripley not being a mom in Alien, but made a mom in Aliens). Changing a female character to be a mom/have maternal instincts is SUPER TERRIBLE BAD BAD!!! and ruins the character by turning them into a gimmicky cliche and is pandering.
12. The parts where you went on and on and on about how changing a character from their source material who IS a mom and IS a motherly/maternal figure as part of her character (see Sue Storm) while still being well respected, very powerful and a valued team member is NOT SUPER BAD BAD!! because bizarre reasons. She should be made the leader and the boss lady because MEN BAD!!! WOMAN MOM GIMMICK!!
-
2
-
1
-
-
On 4/30/2025 at 11:43 AM, battlewraith said:
I don't have a problem with female characters that have children or display maternal instincts.
On 4/29/2025 at 11:01 AM, battlewraith said:What he did to Ripley was pandering and a betrayal of the character. Cameron does a 180 in the sequel and has her chasing after an endangered child.
22 hours ago, battlewraith said:Cameron ramped up the suspense in a stereotypical way by having her look after an endangered child--which seemed to work for people who mistakenly think that Aliens was the first film. The gimmick worked for one film.
18 minutes ago, battlewraith said:None of the more recent films in that setting, despite having a variety of strong female protagonists, follow that cliche. It was a gimmick that appeared in one film.
18 minutes ago, battlewraith said:Relying on that as a crutch to ramp up interest in a character is weak or cliche storytelling.
-
5 hours ago, ThaOGDreamWeaver said:
I think Whollyodd studios generally - and genre movie producers specifically - are gonna have to get used to not having China as a guaranteed moneyspinner any more.
That's what I meant with regard to the film bombing in China. Hollywood has been banking on the Chinese market for a while now. Losing that doesn't bode well for the profitability of these movies. Although that might not necessarily be a bad thing if the studios become more choosy on what projects to do.
47 minutes ago, Techwright said:Not to get into the minefield of politics, but the current political/economical climate might very well play a large role in the bombing of this film in China.
I don't think you're wrong at all.
-
3 hours ago, battlewraith said:
I don't have a problem with female characters that have children or display maternal instincts.
On 4/29/2025 at 11:01 AM, battlewraith said:What he did to Ripley was pandering and a betrayal of the character. Cameron does a 180 in the sequel and has her chasing after an endangered child.
1 hour ago, battlewraith said:Cameron ramped up the suspense in a stereotypical way by having her look after an endangered child--which seemed to work for people who mistakenly think that Aliens was the first film. The gimmick worked for one film.
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, battlewraith said:
I don't have a problem with female characters that have children or display maternal instincts.
On 4/29/2025 at 11:01 AM, battlewraith said:What he did to Ripley was pandering and a betrayal of the character. Cameron does a 180 in the sequel and has her chasing after an endangered child.
-
1
-
-
The Thunderbolts* is bombing in China, marking the “lowest launch for an MCU film in 14 years” in China. Not a good sign.
-
43 minutes ago, battlewraith said:
More of the same. You just repeat your bias while dodging the argument.
What bias?
44 minutes ago, battlewraith said:There is no reason why Sue can't be a mother AND have a leadership position. It can work. It has worked already in the comics.
I didn't say she can't be a mother and have a leadership position. I've said that she's not the leader of the team in the comics, Reed is. If that's what Disney/Marvel is doing for this movie, ok but I personally don't see the necessity for it, especially if they're going to ruin her character by turning her into the cliche mary sue/girl boss they're known for creating. Sue can be a strong, powerful and valued member of the team without being the leader of it, same as Ben Grimm and Jonny Storm.
49 minutes ago, battlewraith said:Let's try this: I'm an editor for Marvel and I'm going to do a new iteration of one of the superhero teams--West Coast Avengers, or defenders, or something. And I decide that I would like Sue Storm to be the leader of the team. Given all that classic Sue brings to the table--why would she be a bad choice?
I don't think she'd be a bad choice at all. I never said she would be a bad choice for a leader.
-
1
-
-
9 minutes ago, battlewraith said:
You've implied that throughout with respect to Sue.
No, I have not. That's what you would like people to be saying to continue arguing with them, but it isn't. The only person insulting Sue Storm and saying she is shallow, boring and weak has been you.
10 minutes ago, battlewraith said:You give two options: either she serves as the mother figure of the team but doesn't officially lead anything.
Again, being the "maternal" figure to the team is part of who she is. It's not a weakness, it doesn't make her shallow or boring. It's part of her character in the comics and what has endeared fans to her character for the last 60 years. Read the linked article above, I'm not the only one who says this, and anyone with a basic knowledge of her character understands this much about her. She's not a pushover. She's a valued member of the team. Changing that is changing a core part of who she is as a person and a character. That doesn't work for me, same as it wouldn't work for me if they made Black Panther a Chinese midget living in Australia or The Thing the "smart one" and Reed the brute, or Tony Stark a destitute moron who wears rags instead of a suit of armor. It doesn't work. See the last Fantastic Four film.
12 minutes ago, battlewraith said:Or she becomes a leader and is therefore a reimagined girlboss for a modern audience.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with a female character being a leader or in a position of authority. No one has said otherwise. See the aforementioned Captain Janeway, Elizabeth Weir, Samantha Carter et al. All of them well loved, well written characters. There is an enormous difference between a well written, well fleshed out character and a poorly written mary sue/girlboss. This is no different than than a well written male heroic figure and a badly written one. Given the recent track record of Disney and Hollywood in general, it's a safe bet that when you hear words like "modern audiences" and "modern sensibilities" used to describe "updates" to the characters, more often than not, it means they're falling on the poorly written side of the equation. See the most recent Snow White film, Rey in the new Star Wars films, Terminator: Dark Fate etc. There are (sadly) many examples that proof this out, and that is a legitimate concern to have, no matter how much you want to argue.
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
-
28 minutes ago, battlewraith said:
Go into that class and tell those ladies that they shouldn't hold any leadership positions.
That would destroy them--they would become girlbosses. Being a mother and a matriarch is enough.
No one has said anything of the sort and you know it.
-
1
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Marine X said:
I remember a particular Storyline from years ago when Sue became co-opted by Malice. She beat the pants off the whole team. Between the costume she was wearing, and the way she used her powers aggressively, her teammates never guessed it was her. Neither did I. It really showed that she could very easily be the most powerful member of the FF.
Sue isn't some lightweight. She hasn't been for decades and anyone thinking that's she's some milquetoast hasn't read FF comics. Even Dr. Doom has often referred to her as the most powerful member of the Fantastic Four on more than one occasion. She's in no way "weak", "shallow", "cliche" or anything of the sort for being a woman.
As for Sue Storm's cultural relevance and her being "motherly", "maternal" and those qualities being "shallow" and "boring" ...
QuoteGeorge Marston of Newsarama referred to the Invisible Woman as one of the "best female superheroes of all time", writing, "Marvel's first superheroine (debuting 60 years ago this year in Fantastic Four #1 may not have the highest profile of the characters on this list, but Sue Storm set the pace for modern female heroes – and still occupies a fairly unique place in comic books. While it's true that early stories didn't exactly serve Sue particularly well, she developed into the heart and soul of the Fantastic Four, serving as Marvel's first family's de facto – and literal – mother. And that may be one of the most crucial aspects of her character. While Sue Storm is powerful in her own right – many writers have said she's got the most raw power of anyone on the FF – she also represents an important aspect of womanhood that many female heroes have sacrificed or had used against them – motherhood. That Sue can serve as one of the most respected heroes in the Marvel Universe (and its first female hero) while simultaneously raising two children and shepherding the growth of many more through the Future Foundation can't be understated. Plus, it takes a pretty amazing woman to stand up to a blowhard like Reed Richards."
...
Today, the Invisible Woman is a powerful and respected member of the Fantastic Four, and the early issues - however stereotypical - led to the Susan Storm known and loved by the Marvel faithful worldwide.
She's become one of the most well loved, enduring and powerful female comic book heroes of all time, all without needing to be "leader" of the FF. This is the character people are familiar with and want to see, not a re-imagined girl boss for "modern audiences". She hasn't been the stereotypical "damsel in distress" for a long, long time.
-
1
-
1
-
-
18 hours ago, battlewraith said:
I have not seen an epidemic of girl boss cliches in these films. I don't go to see Princess movies and I thought the Force Awakens was a garbage retread of the first Star Wars film so I didn't see the others. I'm not going to judge this film on the basis of Snow White or whatever other creative teams did on other properties.
If you haven't seen an epidemic of poorly written, poorly received girl bosses in movies and television over the last several years, then you aren't watching many movies or television. As far as the MCU is concerned, see the M-She U.
19 hours ago, battlewraith said:Whatever it is--I find that more interesting than her being the mom of the team. I welcome the thought that they might give her character more to do than that.
Sue has always had more to do in the comics than just "being the mom". That's just one minor aspect of her character.
19 hours ago, battlewraith said:Chuck an endangered child in front of them and play up their maternal instincts. It's pandering, weak writing that's really stale and generic. You could do this to make any female character "strong."
So you feel that characters like Sarah Connor and Ellen Ripley were "weak", "shallow" and the writing for their motivations was "pandering"?
17 hours ago, BrandX said:Goes back to streaming. People feel they can just wait now. No, not every movie was going to be a blockbuster, they never were. Some movies just weren't seen in theatres, but some of the movies that haven't made it that big would've done better before streaming, even if they weren't block busters.
Covid, streaming, and yes, some of it with the direction some studios have wanted to go with their movies.
No doubt Hollywood studios are facing increased pressure from streaming as one of the contributing factors for the decline in business. The thing is, they have to do something to compete if they want to keep customers coming to movie theaters. If they don't produce films that people prefer to see in the theater instead of staying at home and streaming, that part of the industry is going to wither away. It could be that Hollywood may just shift to making streaming only content from here on out and let the movie theater industry die. Nobody really knows. Fact is, right now the industry is declining and they aren't producing a product that's getting people back into movie theater seats.
On 4/28/2025 at 8:42 AM, battlewraith said:And honestly this whole discussion is dumb because Sue has lead the team at times in the actual comics.
Yes she was, briefly. For the overwhelming majority of the last 60 years, Reed has been the leader. The Ant-Man, She-Hulk, Spider-Man, Namor, Black Panther among several others have been members of the Fantastic Four in the comics, but we don't see any of them being included.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, battlewraith said:
1. The film industry is probably suffering from competition from streaming platforms and other forms of entertainment. The notion that this decline is the result of the studios producing content that you don't like is silly.
Bizarre response. If movie studios were producing content that people wanted to see and pay for, then they wouldn't be facing a decline. Why is the market moving toward streaming? Better product with better content that people are favoring over what they can get at movie theaters.
1 hour ago, battlewraith said:Most of the MCU depictions diverge from the source material--for good reason.
Bizarre response. How's "diverging from the source material because its 2025" working out for them? Is the MCU getting more popular or less?1 hour ago, battlewraith said:And most importantly, how did you become these people's spokesman?
Bizarre response. When did I say I was?
1 hour ago, battlewraith said:3. FFS. Aliens is the sequel. Ripley was not a mother in Alien. She was not Newt's mother in the second film either. You can't even get the facts right about your example.
Bizarre response. Ripley had a daughter in the sequel, which means she had that child in the first film. It's the "changing and evolving" characters and stories that you're on about. Newt wasn't Ripley's biological child and everyone knows that. Ripley's motivations for protecting Newt are obvious. Newt represented the child that Ripley lost.
1 hour ago, battlewraith said:You seem to have no problem as long as you ascribe it to maternal instinct or being some sort of matriarch. Which makes no sense for this team of adults.
Bizarre response. Adults don't need matriarchs to help with the family and the matriarch of the family doesn't have a vital role in the family? What do you think someone like Queen Elizabeth was to the Windsor family? If you need something to help you understand what a matriarch is and how important they are to a family, watch The Crown.
1 hour ago, battlewraith said:Why is it that you think she would need to be a mother figure to these people?
It's not that matriarchs are shallow. It's that some people seem to have trouble viewing women as anything else.
Bizarre response. Being "motherly" and a matriarch doesn't make a woman any less than any man. It's you who seems to have trouble understanding how this is a source of strength for a female character. It's you who has said that Sue being the mother/matriarch of the FF family is "shallow". You're the one having the difficulty here.
1 hour ago, battlewraith said:Anyone who has the mental capacity to actually engage with the argument.
Nuclear bombs have been around since the 40s. World leaders and governments can have them produced. Therefore, a fictionalized account of the Manhattan Project that features Oppenheimer, his wife, her kid brother, and their college football chum making the first such warhead is somehow not ridiculous. Not only in terms of feasibility, but in terms of what that says about Oppenheimer as a character.
Bizarre response. Once again, how is what Reed does in the comics any more unbelievable than Peter Parker getting bitten by a radioactive spider and gaining super powers? How is it any less believable than Bruce Banner surviving a full on nuclear blast? How is it any less believable than Lex Luthor building all kinds of technology to defeat Superman, who is for all intents and purposes a god who can do anything? How is it less believable than a warrior goddess being sculpted out of clay and her mother using magic to bring her to life? All of those things - not ridiculous, but Reed building a space ship and taking his girlfriend and pals on a space flight - ridiculous. That's truly bizarre.
Rockets that can shoot into orbit have been around since the 1960s. World leaders and governments can have them produced. So can wealthy billionaires who are doing just that right now in real life. Again, truly bizarre.
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, battlewraith said:
Ok, so try actually putting some thought into this. If Bezos had actually designed the spaceship himself, at the beginning of space travel before NASA had done this. And, on it's maiden voyage brings his girlfriend, her brother, and his college friend into actual space in a faster than light rocket, not just something going into Earth orbit. Maybe you'd have a point.
And it's not about believability. It's about his perceived judgement in an era when people actually wear seatbelts.
Bizarre response. Try putting some thought into this - in the real world, Jeff Bezos (billionaire) launched William Shatner (92 year old actor), Katy Perry (singer) and his own girlfriend into space. Who gives a shit if he didn't design the rocket? He still did it and that's real life. You've got Elon Musk designing ships capable of sending real life people to Mars. But a super genius doing it is somehow not believable.
-
2
-
-
3 hours ago, battlewraith said:
Your generic litany about "modern audiences not buying what they're selling" is a joke. There are so many variables about why films in general are decline but you're never at a loss to point out that it's because rankled fans aren't getting what they want.
Bizarre response. If "modern audiences" were getting what they want from Hollywood and buying what movie studios are selling, then Hollywood and box office receipts wouldn't be in decline.
3 hours ago, battlewraith said:And we're having this discussion again about a movie that hasn't come out yet, in regard to how this particular character could be portrayed. Possibly too independent and too in charge for your delicate sensibilities.
Bizarre response. No one other than you is suggesting that Sue Storm is June Cleaver sitting around the house baking cookies, making Reed dinner and doing the laundry. That's not her character. Neither is her character being the leader of the FF and the boss lady, which she is rumored to be in this film. If that's the case, then that's diverging from the source material and the character that the built in fan base is familiar with. This isn't rocket science to understand.
3 hours ago, battlewraith said:Neither Ellen Ripley nor Sarah Connor were mothers in their first films.
Bizarre response. Yes, Ellen Ripley was a mother in the first film. Watch Aliens again. Nice attempt to deflect though. No question Sarah Connor became a bad ass to protect her son.
3 hours ago, battlewraith said:The fact that you associate them with strong mother types is perhaps indicative of the problem--you can't seem to view them as anything else.
Bizarre response. That's complete bullshit. I've no issue with strong female characters. You seem to have a real disdain for anything feminine about the maternal instinct. That just shows you're very shallow and narrow minded and can't grasp that female characters asserting their maternal instincts doesn't make them "weak", "shallow", "boring", a "shit show" or whatever other bullshit you want to call them.
-
2
-
-
3 hours ago, battlewraith said:
Where's the guy on fire and the guy made of rocks?
-
3 hours ago, battlewraith said:
Reed's motivations--do I really need to explain this one? I'm going to build a spaceship and explore the universe--with my girlfriend and her little brother.
Bizarre response. Jeff Bezos launched William Shatner, Katy Perry and his girlfriend into space. That's real life. But some super intelligent guy bringing his girlfriend and her brother and his best friend into space isn't believable.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, battlewraith said:
Bizarre response.
Bullshit. Let's see whose responses are "bizarre" here...
1 hour ago, battlewraith said:No, it's a film that's coming out in 2025. The issue is not about what happened in the comics in the 60s.
Bizarre response. It's a film based on a comic that started in the 1960's and has had a loyal following since then. Look at the setting and set design in the trailer. They're quite clearly going for something of a 1960's retro period piece. The Fantastic Four has had a loyal following ever since their creation. It's absolutely about what happened in the comics throughout their 60+ year history. That's what the fan base is familiar with. The last FF film changed the characters radically. It failed. Miserably.
1 hour ago, battlewraith said:So while contemporary audiences will roll with some absurd plot points, the more reasonable things are the more likely the narrative is going to succeed with audiences.
Bizarre response. Sue not being the "mother type" figure she's always been is "unreasonable" and "unbelievable" and "shallow", but characters being literal invincible gods, getting bitten by radioactive spiders and gaining super powers, surviving full on nuclear blasts and turning into unstoppable green rage monsters, having magical powers are all "reasonable" and "believable". Bullshit.
1 hour ago, battlewraith said:"It's not supposed to be realistic storytelling" doesn't work if you've lost the viewer.
Bizarre response. They've already "lost the viewers". Changing the characters and the plots people are familiar with that drew them to the characters and have held their interest for decades is what the built in fan base is looking for, not "re-imaginings" for "modern audiences". See the previous FF film. How's changing characters people have adored for decades working out for Disney with their princess flicks? Superhero films and films in general are unquestionably on the decline. Box office receipts prove that. "Modern audiences" aren't buying what they're selling.
46 minutes ago, battlewraith said:It would be really disappointing if they just relegated her to being a shallow mother figure character.
1 hour ago, battlewraith said:And that would make sense if it were some kind of domestic drama where Sue is managing various relationships of an extended family.
Bizarre responses. These show a severe lack of understanding on your part on what a mother type figure is. Why is being a mother "shallow" and "disappointing"? WTF do you think Sarah Connor is? What was she doing in T2? Anything and everything she possibly could to protect her fucking child. That's a strong mother type character. WTF was Ellen Ripley doing in Aliens protecting Newt? That's a strong motherly instinct kicking in for a strong mother type figure. Sue looking after her family and doing what she can to protect them isn't "shallow" or "weak" or "boring" or "disappointing". Not in the least.
-
3
-
Critiquing the Critics: Are they critiquing, criticizing, or just paid shills?
in Comic, Hero & Villain Culture
Posted
That I didn't make anything up.