MovieChat Forums > TheAdlerian > Replies
TheAdlerian's Replies
I found the following books to be unreadable, but there were lots so someone liked them!
I dislike how there was mostly no central character to follow and the books were about a lot of mundane things, at least to me.
Regarding the science, once you get psychic powers involved, things get crazy. But, in the beginning of the 20th century and in the 60s many people believed psychic powers were real and so it wasn't just magic included in stories but something many thought would happen.
Whatever the case, if we went back 10,000 years and tried to explain how a cellphone worked or what a toilet is, and how that works, I'm sure the people then would be shaking their heads like this is not how life works and can't happen. So, I'm cool with the spice and breeding programs, but it is stuff you must make clearer for people.
I saw the 1984 movie the night it opened. We were given a sheet of paper with many terms and their definitions from the film upon entrance! They assumed the movie would not be comprehensible, lol.
I did see a bit of the TV series but it was so dull to me I couldn't get through it. As I've said before, the original captured the intensity that these odd types of humans would likely have. The TV show seemed too "normal" which would be unlikely for the characters.
Wow, I forgot about that.
That makes the puddle thing a thousand times more stupid.
It was never established that water acted like that on him.
If so, he wouldn't be able to drink it or take a shower!
In the first film it appeared that he was okay in the rain, probably showered, lol, but just couldn't function submerged in water. I assumed that it's because he was ultra dense of something.
I've been bodybuilding for decades and can't float or swim well. That's a problem for many weightlifters. Certainly, it would make sense for a superhero who needs to breathe.
Whatever the case, if he can SHOWER he wouldn't have zero power from getting water on his face. Even a normal human would thrash, do a pushup, or squirm away from the small puddle. However, he appeared to be as weak as a baby, which just made zero sense.
I have no idea.
They were both monsters and there was a lot of focus on them.
Meanwhile, Bruce Willis looked disappointed a lot and had few lines so the focus wasn't on him and it should have been.
I watched it for free and I'm glad I did.
The movie had a lot of potential but was poorly done and stupid.
Worse yet, the film was depressing.
The film was very cheap looking.
I thought it like something a group of friends might film on their phone, except for a few special effects.
Largely, it was a tiny cast running around in parking lots and stuff.
Split was like that too, but it fit the abducted theme.
You can tell a low budget movie if people are mostly in a few rooms or outside a lot. Lots of Netflix movies like that nowadays.
I thought the same thing.
However, since there's a conspiracy afoot about superbeings so perhaps the prison was a set up and another injustice by these people.
Right, I never thought, due to the first film, that he had no strength in water, it just appeared that he sinks and can't swim. Whatever the case, he still moves in water and has at least limited strength.
But, when getting drown in puddle, he couldn't do a push up or even roll to the side?!
That's stupid.
Like I've said, according to that, he would die in the shower.
I don't understand how such stupid stuff ends up in films. For all the money being spent on them, you're think there would be a person who doesn't allow glaringly stupid things to happen.
If you're familiar with the concepts in the books, then it would be a very weird reality to live in.
People specially bred to be like machines, psychic powers, a spice that mutates people, and so on. These are humans 10k years from now and just imagine how strange we would be to humans 10k ago, only the spice and breeding thing would make everyone and every thing in life very bizarre.
It's not females coming up with this stuff, it's males.
It's actually a form of prejudice women are too stupid to object to. The message is that the highest a woman can be is to look and act like a man. There are no characters who approach problems in a uniquely female way, but rather ones who look, act, dress, etc like men.
Males writes who covertly hate women come up with this stuff.
They had better get to work introducing Darkseid, I know that much.
They are taking too long with what could be a great series.
I know what you're saying, although you're wrong.
I would like villains who have a good point.
I hated Joker in Dark Knight, because he wasn't crazy, but had a good point to make. That's not appropriate for Joker, but it's what many comic movies are missing.
A hero ought to stand for something related to ethics. A guy wouldn't go to all the trouble to be Batman, etc unless he had some REALLY strong beliefs. So, the bad guy must have them too, unless he's just some monster. A very dangerous villain with super powers would have to be strongly motivated to use them and harm mass numbers of people.
If he's just "miffed" then he would have to be insane to use his powers on that level, which doesn't make sense.
In the case of Shazam, you have to remember that Dr. Sivana didn't really have that many issues. Rather, the demons saw he had some and amplified them to turn him bad. The demons wanted to return to the world to spread chaos, so that's fairly complicated. But, they didn't explore the demon's psychology much in the film, and they should have.
I almost went to the movies in Denver where the mass murder happened during the Batman movie. I was THIS close to going as it was my favorite theater in the area, because it always had nice and polite moviegoers.
That murderer there has a semi-Joker thing going on with his hair dyed and whatnot.
I don't know if he had that in his mind but I don't see how he couldn't.
If he did, then he was inspired to mass murder in part by The Joker.
So, would be an excellent film to have a character like that.
The idea has a lot of potential but they were all poorly done.
I recently described the idea to someone who never saw the films like this: They're about superheroes who are maybe 50% better than a normal human.
I think that would make for good low level superhero story.
I have always looked at characters in the Superman range to be nearly horror movie stuff if you sit back and think about it. Imagine if Superman and his enemies were real. It would be terrifying to think that right now Superman is fighting some monster and he might kick it a 1,000 miles and it will land into your town.
Meanwhile, what if there were mutants, as in this film, that weren't Superman level, but about 50% stronger, faster, etc than normal people. How would that play out?
I think that's what these films were going for, but they needed better writers.
I though the film looked like something a person would shoot on their cellphone with a bunch of friends.
The ending was horrible as well.
The Bruce character in the first film had a weakness for water, like falling in it, sinking, can't swim, etc. That is far different than having your body out of the water and someone drowning you in a fucking puddle!
Did he have to take sponge baths because getting in a shower would kill him?
Suddenly, water was like Kryptonite that gives off radiation draining him of power in his whole body. But, that's nonsense since I assume he drinks water, baths in it, etc.
The director sucks. He seems like a person who believes he's smart but doesn't think things through. I mean anything would have been better than being drown in a puddle.
It's stupid to have Joker without Batman.
If they wanted to do that they should have written a film where Joker is a comic book character and this guy is an insane person who wants to be him.
That would be okay.
An additional fact about Joker...
He is based on a Victor Hugo novel called The Man Who Laughed.
That was about a child who was kidnapped and mutilated by gypsies to make money from begging. They damaged the nerves in his face so that he had a giant weird smile on at all times.
The story was about him growing up and having a very hard life but no matter what happened he had this huge smile. So, the theme of the story was about how much life sucks and how many people have to put up with it and try to have a smile on their face.
This is the Joker's motivation, only he creates misery to laugh at, instead of waiting for it to happen to him.
This is a moronic attitude and it has screwed up these characters badly.
There IS NOTHING REALISTIC ABOUT BATMAN.
He is a science fiction character.
Nolan's movies are good but also stupid in many ways.
Batman has a "Batmobile" that escapes police helicopters by turning its headlights out....what?
That's a prime example of why the "realism" thing in Batman is stupid. Batman could never exist in the real world because there's no way for such a person to avoid detection.
In the world of 1940 when he was invented, a super fast car and so on could avoid cops and disappear into the countryside. That is not possible in the 21st century.
However, a Batman who is a genius, Nolan's wasn't, who had technology maybe 200 years into the future could defeat all current technology. That's the only way Batman would be realistic.
The same goes for Joker. He is also a science fiction character.
Science fiction means: an exploration into how advancements/changes in science will affect people.
So, a guy who wants to be a superhero could be if we had the right technology.
If a crazy man fell into a vat of chemicals thoughtlessly made by scientists it would turn him into a super crazy person. That presents the opposite of the of the positive view about superheroes.
People who make these movies think they're being "smart" with the realism, which isn't real at all, and totally miss the point of these character.
Ledger was terrible as Joker.
He played the character more like a pervert and his voice and mannerisms was from a western that is slipping my mind. It was a 70s western with a perverted character. It was like the same exact character.
The Joker is insane having the characteristics of extreme mania. The opposite of logical Batman. Also, Joker is a "Joker" which is 1940s slang for a kind "douchebag" who finds miserable things, human folly, violence, etc to be funny. He would kill people and watch them die in pain because to him that's "slapstick" comedy.
So far, the closest to that kind of crazy what Nicholson's Joker but that's it. Ledger's joker reminded me of a pedo and he had a rational philosophy called Nihilism that life is pointless. Meanwhile, the Joker ought to be a horror movie level character that brings chaos to the story and is very difficult for Batman to figure out.
So far the character hasn't really been done well.