Amph Here's Some Money, Go See A Swap Thing: DCU/Elseworlds Discussion

No, he didn't have the ten rings' power, and he turned into a villain simply because...Tony Stark didn't come into his meeting, that's quite stupid. He also got owned by Pepper, I mean.

It's not just me, many people didn't like it, Ra's Al-Ghul is still Ra's Al-Ghul, actually Liam Neeson's Ra's Al-Ghul is even better than the comic one in my eyes. He just used a decoy(and a quite strong decoy).

Also, in BB this twist was like, the first time a superhero movie used such plot? But during Iron Man 3 such twist was already used for a few times, and actually the movie told you Killian is the bad guy during its first 5 minutes.

 

I'm not saying he was true to the comics, I'm saying it was an adaptation. Anyways, this is the DC cinematic universe - if you've got gripes, the MCU thread is out there, though I don't think the topic du jour is IM3.

 

Yeah, I was about to say it.

Anyway, Lantern failed so we won't see it until like Justice League. Maybe they will use John Stewart or probably Alan Scott?

 

I would love John Stewart, and Mark Strong can still make an impact down the line as Sinestro if Warner still wants him.

 

Jason Mamoa in talks for unspecified character

http://www.manofsteelfanpage.com/2013/12/09/jason-mamoa-in-talks-for-batman-vs-superman/

 

Metallo, or Mongul?

 

Or Doomsday like what was rumored just yesterday?

 

I think there's a stronger argument for just soft-rebooting Hal Jordan as they did with the Hulk; don't bother with an origin story, just get him into a Justice League film and make him a semi-mysterious figure. Hell, it took Hollywood ten years and three actors before they got Bruce Banner "right".

Thinking back to when I watched Green Lantern recently, I'm still having problems putting a finger on exactly where it went wrong. To be honest I avoided the movie for a long time because the movie's trailer put me off in a big way, and in particular Blake Lively's "This. Test. Flight. Is. Im. PAW. Tant!" But as I've said before, unlike Green Hornet I did finish watching the film.

The most obvious problem I could see with it was the third act, which just seemed horribly slashed and burned in editing to try and bring it all to a quick conclusion. Tim Robbins probably comes in as second-most-obvious problem; he just seemed to be phoning his performance in, though that could be as much the director's fault as his. Maybe he just wasn't correctly cast.

The reason I'm having problems with dismissing it as an unmitigated artistic failure is because in parts, at least, it's actually pretty good. Mark Strong was a joy to watch; little more need be said about that. But without someone to play off against, he'd just be a footnote, and the person he played off best against was Ryan Reynolds. His scenes with Sinestro had a surprising amount of grit to them, more than I expected certainly. And Reynolds I think did convey a feeling of inadequacy on his character's part, and I thought how he played his own fears was actually not that bad at all. He wasn't, in short, a total disaster. And then there was Peter Saarsgard, who I thought gave the best performance of the lot.

 

Most of the box office failures wasn't the leading actor's fault, but usually they won't get another chance, and Lantern was one of the biggest failures on Superhero movie box office.

 

Did they, though? Where do you go with that character now that he can control the Hulk? The central conflict of his story is resolved.

 

The problem is that Jason Momoa can't really act. He has presence and is awesome at things (like Khal Drogo) where he's basically a non-talking badass mo'fo. Similarly to how Ray Park is awesome at Darth Maul and Snake Eyes and craaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaap as Toad.

MM will have to talk; Doomsday won't.

 

Still, they should give Brainiac a chance.

 

I think Momoa would be pretty good as Vandal Savage. Of course, this is with the caveat that Brian Blessed isn't so much big and brawny as just big, because Vandal Savage really should be Brian Blessed.

 

Control falters; control fails. Addicts slide back into their addictions. Welcome to being human, which is what the Hulk is, and where the story can go. Comic book characters' central conflicts, perforce, are never resolved, unless it be by death, reboot, or retirement. Even Alan Moore could not resist Night Owl and Silk Spectre continuing to be slightly lunatic superheroes after their central conflicts were resolved. Hell, The Dark Knight expressed it well: "Either you die a hero, or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain."

 

Planet Hulk? Seriously though Avengers proved that he can't control it all the time, so it's not completely resolved yet.

 

Well, I get the general concept. I just think the concept is more difficult to execute with the Hulk. For instance, it's very easy to see how gain and then loss of a new romantic partner could first help Wayne overcome his survivor's guilt and then go tumbling back down into it. Or how a terrorist attack might kick the X-men from a place of good human-mutant relations to one with a lot of fear and resentment again. In each one, the udnerlying issue is only patched, not truly resolved. But the Hulk's problem is a pretty objective issue of behavioral control. Especially given the insight they used to explain it (even though it didn't make sense*) I don't see how that would suddenly get undone.

Like what's going to happen?

"On further, examination, I realized I wasn't actually angry all the time after all" ?

 

The place the character is right now is in supposed control of when he becomes the Hulk, not to mention supposed control of what he does or who he smashes when he is the Hulk. All it would take to send the story in a different direction is to remove one of those foundations. You can even do so without the character realising that the control has been removed, since that then begs the questions of who and how that ability to control has been removed. But anyway -- DC thread.

 

So much this. Seriously.

 

That actually seems like it would a cool story. I'd watch that.

In any case though, I've been too much influenced by the JL/JLU animated vision of Savage as sort of a slight, erudite figure to see Khal Drogo playing him.

 

I don't get why so many Superman movies thought about Brainiac but abandoned him later, such as MoS2 he would be perfect. Among all the Superman villains I think he's top 5 or even top 3?

 

Slowpokeking, you're not allowed to discuss Brainiac.

 

I don't know how Brainiac would work, and I have to say I'd prefer seeing other villains.

Jabba-wocky - slight, as in slight of build? He's not as heroically muscular as Superman, but he's a big dude. Erudite, though, he certainly is. He's a pretty reliable threat in the comics and holds his own, so it'd be really cool to see him in the movies.

 

He has the technology to build powerful robots or machine to rival Superman's power, he might also have something to do with Zod's machines.

 

Yeah, it's totally possible, I just don't think it'd work too well. I don't want all the villains to come from Krypton, because then literally everything bad that happens on Earth is because Superman is there.