|
Post by String on Sept 20, 2021 12:49:29 GMT -5
Yeah, lots to avoid during the Harras years of Avengers. Stories and art which makes the brain cry and the eyes bleed. Never did like the idiotic put the team in leather jackets over their costumes. Such a dumb look. Also never liked Lightsaber wielding Black Knight. But Council of Kang along with the introduction of Nebula I liked. I can't win 'em all I guess. Could. Not. Disagree. More. First off, it's bomber jackets and it is an iconic look, it's representative of the 90s. It gave a unifying look to the overall team which was different. Second, Harras really elevated Dane Whitman into his new role as team leader after Cap quit, doubts and all. I also thought that Harras did well in handling the repercussions on the team over the killing of the Supreme Intelligence. And while the Ebony Blade is his signature weapon, Dane using a lightsaber as a replacement is no worser than his riding a metallic flying sled that (kinda) resembles a horse instead of a winged stallion. In fact, for years, I've heard nothing but horror stories about Harras' time on the book and yet after finally reading it (and yes, parts of his run has been collected in the Epic Collection books), I've found nothing could be further from the truth. It has quality stories wrapped around a broader plot arc, good characterization that held plenty of drama with equally good art all wrapped up in the zany over-the-top trappings of the 90s. Loved it.
|
|
|
Post by String on Sept 17, 2021 13:25:25 GMT -5
Glen Larson's BUCK ROGERS IN THE 25TH CENTURY also seems like it should be on this list... I mean, they changed so much it's hardly recognizable as the same character or series at all. And yet... somehow... it works. Well, season 1, anyway. Season 2 was a total ABORTION. How the HELL do you screw up something that completely that was working already?
Two best things about that entire run of the show:
|
|
|
Post by String on Sept 17, 2021 13:19:47 GMT -5
I know that technically, The Lone Ranger started as a radio show, and it's popularity grew as a tv show, and its comics were more of a side-note, but I LOVED the Legend of the Lone Ranger movie from the 80's. I felt like it was a note-perfect translation of the character. I loved the music, the acting (Christopher Lloyd as Butch Cavendish? Jason Robards as Grant? YES.), the setting, the relationship between Reid and Tonto. It was great. I was crushed when it was a box-office BOMB. No sequels, no tv series... nothing. So far, you're two-for-two in reminding me of films from my youth. However, in this case, I have fonder memories of this one. Y'see, I've never watched that much of the Lone Ranger TV show with Moore even to this day. Sure, back in the day, my local TV stations ran the usual selection of TV Westerns, from Gunsmoke to Bonaza, Big Valley, Rawhide, Laramie. Both my parents loved westerns and some of my fondest memories as a kid of watching TV with my dad was when we'd watch Gunsmoke, Wild Wild West and the Cisco Kid together. Yet for some reason, the Lone Ranger was never part of the airing schedule. So when this film came out, it was really my first full exposure to the character and his mythos. While I don't remember much of what happened in it (other than his being part of a massacre of Texas Rangers), I do remember liking the film. It's stuck with me (and frankly I'd rather watch this one than the Depp film). I don't know if it's ever been released on DVD or such but luckily enough, now that you've reminded me, I've found it available on Amazon Prime's service. Also, I didn't know any of that background stuff from that EW article you provided, Prince Hal, thanks, very interesting (especially that his voice was dubbed over, wow).
|
|
|
Post by String on Sept 17, 2021 11:39:12 GMT -5
I know this is related to the limitations of the comic medium itself but I think panels showing a couple kissing overlayed with dialogue balloons to be really distracting. What is supposed to be a romantic tender moment is spoiled by the notion that someone is speaking while doing so.
A man can fly, yes, but talking while kissing, no!
|
|
|
Post by String on Sept 17, 2021 11:29:32 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by String on Sept 14, 2021 12:50:35 GMT -5
EdoBosnar
|
|
|
Post by String on Sept 13, 2021 12:49:29 GMT -5
A simple but hopefully fun question: which do you prefer, Batman or The Batman?
Another example, Wolverine or The Wolverine?
I like The Batman. If criminals are a superstitious, cowardly lot and Batman is a shadowy dark creature of the night, calling him THE Batman only adds to that mystique.
Feel free to add any other examples you may know.
|
|
|
Post by String on Sept 13, 2021 12:41:05 GMT -5
Interesting to find fans who didn't care for Christopher Reeve as Superman/Clark. I've of course encountered critics of he overall movie, and the portrayal of Kent, but never Reeve as Superman. Personally I've never been able to stand anyone else in the role, certainly not George Reeves or Dean Kane who don't look or feel anything like the character to me. I didn't like Henry Cavill either, though I love him as Geralt the Witcher. Reeves was so good that he's more definitive to me than any comic version. The first part of Superman (Clark in Smallville, the death of Pa Kent, his leaving and such), the scenery, dialogue, music, all combines, for me, into a perfect distillation of Americana, absolutely love this part of the film. Yet I would agree that I don't like Reeves' Clark. There is mild-mannered and then there is overdoing it. Looking at his behaviour, one could almost tell that he is putting an act for others. That being said, I liked Brandon Routh in the role. Even if he was picking up from Reeves' portrayal, I thought Routh did well in toning down Clark, making him a tad more believable. Of course, I also agree with the assessment that I like Routh's Superman, just not the particular film/story he was used in.
|
|
|
Post by String on Sept 13, 2021 12:32:31 GMT -5
I am disheartened that no one has mentioned Popeye (1981), yet. It was, in my opinion, the most faithful, to a fault, to its comics source material. It perfectly captured the weird whimsy and wordplay of the comic strip. The set of Sweethaven is incredible and still stands today, and it a tourist attraction in Malta. Besides that, I echo the sentiments about Superman (1978) and Captain America (2011) which both perfectly capture the title characters' nuanced personalities. I also LOVE the 1959 musical version of Lil' Abner, which is also a perfect translation. To see it performed live on stage is awesome, too. Wow, I had totally forgotten about Popeye, brings back memories of how much I hated it as a kid. I found it annoying (then again, I've never liked Popeye). Still, now that I remember it, it ranks up there for me alongside Hook as my least favorite Robin Williams films.
|
|
|
Post by String on Sept 8, 2021 14:19:25 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by String on Sept 8, 2021 14:14:11 GMT -5
At the risk of starting a rant, I'll ask, what is the standard practice in regards to the trope of 'reading' you your Miranda rights when you're arrested? I'll admit, Law & Order is one of my favorite shows to have on as background noise during the day and I hate to think Det. Lenny Briscoe has been misleading me after all these years (love Jerry Orbach ). Perhaps you had better brace yourself for a shock, but despite what television and cinema would have you believe, the police do not have to read one his Miranda rights when he is arrested. In order for the Miranda requirements to attach to an individual, two conditions must be in place. One, that he is in the custody of law enforcement; and---not "or", but and---law enforcement officers question that individual about the crime of which he is suspected. If a police officer arrests you, but does not intend to question you about it, then he does not have to read you your rights. Most misdemeanours fall into this situation, particularly ones that are committed in front of the officer. He doesn't have to question you about the crime because he has accumulated sufficient probable cause to arrest you without having to ask you a single thing. (And just to clarify: questions for purposes of identification, such as when the officer asks someone his name, address, date-of-birth, and so forth for the arrest sheet do not count as questions about the crime; ergo, Miranda is not required.) Most suspects of minor offences have been arrested, tried, and convicted without once having had their Miranda rights read to them, because there was no need to question them. By the same token, if a police officer suspects you of a crime but does not, by word or act, place you in custody, he can ask you all the questions he wants about the crime he suspects you committed without the requirement of Miranda warnings. Even if, during the interrogation, the officer decides he's going to arrest you, until he conveys by word or deed that you are in custody, he can ask you all the questions he wants to about your involvement in the crime and Miranda does not attach. Both conditions, custody and interrogation, must be present for Miranda warnings to be required. Now, suppose the police screw up and they take you into custody and interrogate you about the crime, but forget to read you Miranda, what happens? Well, no, the case isn't automatically tossed out and you're off the hook. Again, television and film likes to present it that way. But what failure to give a suspect his Miranda warnings when they are required does is render whatever he says in response to the interrogation as inadmissible. The police might very well have sufficient evidence without the suspect's statements to obtain a conviction. Whether a suspect who was not properly given his Miranda warnings gets his case tossed out depends on how critical his statements are to that case. And while I've been giving you the long-winded answer, I see our counsellor friend has posted with the short-form answer. Thank you both for the clarification. I would think TV shows, movies tweak this because it makes the action of arresting a suspect that much more dramatic but it does ingrain you with the sense that if the cops don't read it to you, then it doesn't count. This goes along with another over-used trope that I know is bull where the police have the chalk or tape outline of the murder victim's body position. For example, I recently watched a re-run of an X-Files episode where a hooker was murdered in a hotel room while in bed. Mulder walks into the room and there's a tape outline of her body's position on the bed itself! Unbelievable.
|
|
|
Post by String on Sept 8, 2021 13:45:38 GMT -5
This reminds me of an anecdote that Peter David once related in his But I Digress column back in CBG. To paraphrase, he had encountered two young boys who were big fans of Rami's Spider-Man films and were waiting for new adventures to be released. When PAD pointed out that they could check out the latest comic issues of Spider-Man for new adventures, he discovered they were only interested in new films, that's it.
It's a different generation now with more options to consume new content; films, mini-series, animation and such. Comics being the original source material seems to have gone by the wayside.
As for the OP, nowadays, the only person I give any sort of in-depth comic background in response to any questions is my son. He's in his mid 20s now and while his mother and I shared joint custody of him during his childhood, he was exposed to my comic habits and collection. But I never forced anything onto him concerning comics, only tried to encourage him towards any books that he felt drawn towards reading (Bone was big favorite of his as a kid).
He has a base knowledge of the comics but if he has any questions after watching something, I'll take the time to fill in the blanks for him which he does appreciate. For example, he had quite a few questions about the Loki finale which I was able to answer. Yeah, it's kinda letting out my inner geek but it makes for some nice bonding moments regardless.
Other than him, nope! I don't even bother, I just leave any answers to whether I liked the movie or not, that's it.
|
|
|
Post by String on Sept 8, 2021 13:25:29 GMT -5
Loved the corner boxes of Avengers & X-Men with their rotating headshots of members. Other than the cover itself, it was a quick and easy way to see who was on the team(s) roster every issue.
|
|
|
Post by String on Sept 7, 2021 22:27:40 GMT -5
Today, the Snyder Cut of the film was released on blu-ray/DVD/4k HD.
I went to my local Wal-Mart with the intention of buying it; of finally watching this oh-so-grandiose epic that every fanboy has (apparently) been clamoring for and had loved the very minute it was finally released online.
I saw it there on the rack, nice front cover for it, tad dark for my taste but still highly dramatic and imposing. And yet......standing there looking at Superman, Old Man Batman with Wonder Woman front & center on the cover (no surprise), I just couldn't bring myself to buy it. I just don't like the film nor any of Snyder's DC films.
|
|
|
Post by String on Sept 7, 2021 21:32:13 GMT -5
I've lurked on this forum for over a year. I kept getting those "You've visited X number of times---why don't you register and join the conversation?" prompts. But I never did, mainly because I'm a generation or two behind you folks and didn't figure I had much to offer. However, this is something to which I can speak with authority. Most people get their legal training from watching television and, therefore, have come to believe a great deal of completely wrong things about the law are true. Some examples of what people "know" are true (but aren't): that you have to be read the Miranda rights when you are arrested; that if you are involved in a traffic accident (with no injuries) and your cars are driveable, you still have to leave them right where they are; that a shoplifter has to actually leave the store with the concealed merchandise before he can be arrested; that you are entitled to one telephone call if you are arrested. That a person has to be missing for 24/48/whatever hours before he can be reported is another one of those television-inspired law-enforcement myths. The Crime Control Act of 1990, among its many provisions, requires that law-enforcement agencies have no waiting period before taking a report of a missing person. So if you call the police and report that your spouse has been missing for only fifteen minutes, they are required to make a case report. What counts, though, is what happens afterward. No, the cops aren't going to mobilise search parties and start patrolling the city streets looking for the absent spouse---in most instances. I don't disagree with a lot of what you're saying. Just for context, I'm a defense attorney who used to be a prosecutor. I've dealt with a lot of this kind of stuff over the year. Yeah...Miranda is another one of my buggaboos. In this case it was a report of a missing child that was met with "we can't do anything for 72 hours." Absolute lunacy that should not begin to ever be in any media at this point in time. At the risk of starting a rant, I'll ask, what is the standard practice in regards to the trope of 'reading' you your Miranda rights when you're arrested? I'll admit, Law & Order is one of my favorite shows to have on as background noise during the day and I hate to think Det. Lenny Briscoe has been misleading me after all these years (love Jerry Orbach ).
|
|