ivanlietv's Recent Comments
One Comicscape About Many Things - Apr 25, 2007 - 09:10pm
I enjoyed Ang Lee's "Hulk", save for the scene in which the jade giant does battle with a giant mutated poodle. I also like Tim Burton's Batman and Batman Begins equally. They both have their unique strengths and while people can argue that the first Batman film was more of a Burton showcase, his visual style and tone suited the Batman world excellently in my view. As for Galactus, I guess I have to be the one to blaspheme and call out the brilliance of Jack Kirby as irrelevant to Galactus's representation in the Fantastic Four sequel. Look, Kirby's design of the character is magnificent in the context of a comic book. However, in a film, it would be downright laughable. The FF film franchise has so far aimed at being taken seriously in terms of story and character behavior. If that's what you're going for, you cannot possibly get away with a purple-helmeted man suffering from what seems to be an astronomical pituitary disorder. Something that goofy may work in comics where the nature of the medium is more conducive to fantastical depictions, but it won't fly in a motion picture trying to portray some seriousness in its world. If (God forbid) this movie did incarnate the Kirby Galactus, it would only be to indulge comic fans while the larger audience is ignored and given something to poke fun of. Commercial movies are about reaching mass audiences, and like it or not, some changes need to be made. What is most important is retaining the spirit of the character, not replicating every minute detail of his trappings. I'm sorry, but invoking The King's greatness is not a valid argument against a storm cloud, a swarm of space insects or a moon-sized orb floating around Earth. Great comic art does not automatically translate to great cinema.
I enjoyed Ang Lee's "Hulk", save for the scene in which the jade giant does battle with a giant mutated poodle. I also like Tim Burton's Batman and Batman Begins equally. They both have their unique strengths and while people can argue that the first Batman film was more of a Burton showcase, his visual style and tone suited the Batman world excellently in my view. As for Galactus, I guess I have to be the one to blaspheme and call out the brilliance of Jack Kirby as irrelevant to Galactus's representation in the Fantastic Four sequel. Look, Kirby's design of the character is magnificent in the context of a comic book. However, in a film, it would be downright laughable. The FF film franchise has so far aimed at being taken seriously in terms of story and character behavior. If that's what you're going for, you cannot possibly get away with a purple-helmeted man suffering from what seems to be an astronomical pituitary disorder. Something that goofy may work in comics where the nature of the medium is more conducive to fantastical depictions, but it won't fly in a motion picture trying to portray some seriousness in its world. If (God forbid) this movie did incarnate the Kirby Galactus, it would only be to indulge comic fans while the larger audience is ignored and given something to poke fun of. Commercial movies are about reaching mass audiences, and like it or not, some changes need to be made. What is most important is retaining the spirit of the character, not replicating every minute detail of his trappings. I'm sorry, but invoking The King's greatness is not a valid argument against a storm cloud, a swarm of space insects or a moon-sized orb floating around Earth. Great comic art does not automatically translate to great cinema.
Throwing Gas on the Flames: Your Letters - Apr 05, 2007 - 03:21pm
I'm amused at the years-long dissatisfaction of readers with Marvel's absurd status quo, in which villains were never put down for good while heroes operated outside the law and public scrutiny...just to sell books. Then these questions are finally addressed via Civil War only to have the same people complaining about the "absurd" scenario constructed by the SRA and Tony Stark's actions...just to sell books. This clearly demonstrates the impossibility of pleasing everyone. Even if critics are correct about Civil War being flawed in its approach to resolving things (which I find debatable), the direction of the story was the most interesting reading that could've been produced and also conducive to high sales. Everybody wins.
I'm amused at the years-long dissatisfaction of readers with Marvel's absurd status quo, in which villains were never put down for good while heroes operated outside the law and public scrutiny...just to sell books. Then these questions are finally addressed via Civil War only to have the same people complaining about the "absurd" scenario constructed by the SRA and Tony Stark's actions...just to sell books. This clearly demonstrates the impossibility of pleasing everyone. Even if critics are correct about Civil War being flawed in its approach to resolving things (which I find debatable), the direction of the story was the most interesting reading that could've been produced and also conducive to high sales. Everybody wins.
Means and Ends - Mar 29, 2007 - 03:00pm
I agree that Punisher is not a superhero, but neither is Batman under those same contextual parameters. The latter is at least heroic despite not being superhuman. Comics publishers (Marvel, in this specific discussion) opting for a more ambiguous and complex approach to morality in their characters is not a matter of some readers grown out of escapist idealism "demanding the medium that no longer satisfied them must change to match their own selfish tastes." Storylines like Civil War are what sell now because in the eyes of many committed readers, that kind of content actually matters to them at their age. We can't discount the industry's inability to gain any substantial degree of new, younger readership on a cyclical basis after the moral panic over comics in the 50s. Had it not been for that nearly medium-destroying fiasco and some other important factors, comic books might've been able to periodically attract fresh crops of kids who are the type of audience that warrant a "gee whiz" style of comics storytelling. As we all know, this is not the case. For however much comics have recovered or grown in any aspect since the media/political calamities of the early Cold War, we are still stuck with the same readers from twenty or forty years ago comprising the majority of regular customers. In such a marketplace, no publisher interested in its continued existence and profit can justify coughing up the same simplistic stories as their dominant flavor of product. Most of us are in our twenties, fifties and ages in between; something more sophisticated and thought-provoking is required. Marvel has responded. It's the nature of the commercial beast. Those complaining over this "darker shift" in their cherished universes and characters, however vocal they are about it, encompass the minority. As for the main focus surrounding debate over Civil War, I will concur that the attention is centered on how the Superhuman Registration Act was created, enforced, and the measures Iron Man took in pursuit of what that law represented. However, that was the whole premise of CW and Tony Stark's actions: How far will you go to achieve what you believe is best? It's a loaded question that makes for fascinating reading. Question and decry Iron Man all you want, but when you consider the dilemma of untrained and unaccountable vigilantism in the abstract (independent of moral error inherent in human actions taken to address the problem); you have to concede the rational sense of a solution like the SRA.
I agree that Punisher is not a superhero, but neither is Batman under those same contextual parameters. The latter is at least heroic despite not being superhuman. Comics publishers (Marvel, in this specific discussion) opting for a more ambiguous and complex approach to morality in their characters is not a matter of some readers grown out of escapist idealism "demanding the medium that no longer satisfied them must change to match their own selfish tastes." Storylines like Civil War are what sell now because in the eyes of many committed readers, that kind of content actually matters to them at their age. We can't discount the industry's inability to gain any substantial degree of new, younger readership on a cyclical basis after the moral panic over comics in the 50s. Had it not been for that nearly medium-destroying fiasco and some other important factors, comic books might've been able to periodically attract fresh crops of kids who are the type of audience that warrant a "gee whiz" style of comics storytelling. As we all know, this is not the case. For however much comics have recovered or grown in any aspect since the media/political calamities of the early Cold War, we are still stuck with the same readers from twenty or forty years ago comprising the majority of regular customers. In such a marketplace, no publisher interested in its continued existence and profit can justify coughing up the same simplistic stories as their dominant flavor of product. Most of us are in our twenties, fifties and ages in between; something more sophisticated and thought-provoking is required. Marvel has responded. It's the nature of the commercial beast. Those complaining over this "darker shift" in their cherished universes and characters, however vocal they are about it, encompass the minority. As for the main focus surrounding debate over Civil War, I will concur that the attention is centered on how the Superhuman Registration Act was created, enforced, and the measures Iron Man took in pursuit of what that law represented. However, that was the whole premise of CW and Tony Stark's actions: How far will you go to achieve what you believe is best? It's a loaded question that makes for fascinating reading. Question and decry Iron Man all you want, but when you consider the dilemma of untrained and unaccountable vigilantism in the abstract (independent of moral error inherent in human actions taken to address the problem); you have to concede the rational sense of a solution like the SRA.
Thank You for Not Smoking - Nov 01, 2006 - 09:05pm
I, for one, enjoy the new format. As for JQ's stance behind editorial prohibition of tobacco use over at Marvel, he's wrong. The only real effect this generates is creative limitation on the stories and human elements.
I, for one, enjoy the new format. As for JQ's stance behind editorial prohibition of tobacco use over at Marvel, he's wrong. The only real effect this generates is creative limitation on the stories and human elements.
Comicscape - June 21, 2006 - Jun 21, 2006 - 06:07pm
chemikillgod: I like the name. Anyway, I want to clarify that as The Architect later revealed in the The Matrix Reloaded (which I liked, incidentally), the real reason why the human test subjects refused the first Matrix programs was because they weren't given a choice in the matter. He points out that his redesign of the Matrix to reflect the self-induced imperfection of our world failed just as miserably as the perfect first version. It was this imposition of the program on humans rather than the "unrealistic perfection" of it that doomed the first Matrix to failure. Agent Smith believed otherwise. My unnecessary tangent aside, I understand what you're saying. I agree with the idea (as I perceive it) that you can't have epic, company-wide events that wrap everything up in a convenient little bow without leaving room for consequences and flaws.
chemikillgod: I like the name. Anyway, I want to clarify that as The Architect later revealed in the The Matrix Reloaded (which I liked, incidentally), the real reason why the human test subjects refused the first Matrix programs was because they weren't given a choice in the matter. He points out that his redesign of the Matrix to reflect the self-induced imperfection of our world failed just as miserably as the perfect first version. It was this imposition of the program on humans rather than the "unrealistic perfection" of it that doomed the first Matrix to failure. Agent Smith believed otherwise. My unnecessary tangent aside, I understand what you're saying. I agree with the idea (as I perceive it) that you can't have epic, company-wide events that wrap everything up in a convenient little bow without leaving room for consequences and flaws.
Mania is the premiere online destination for fans of science fiction, fantasy, horror, and anime entertainment. It is the largest community offering profiles, video, science fiction movies, sci fi TV, art, sci fi comics, photos, cheats, blogs, science fiction books, forums and feedback. Mania offers insider entertainment industry info and original content for science fiction, fantasy, and horror entertainment genres including: video games, comics, gadgets, movies, television, toys, music, books, DVDs and more. © Mania Entertainment, LLC. 2001 - 2008
I loved Peter's "pimp strut." It made me laugh hard precisely because it was so exaggerated and cheesy. As far as him being a dick, the symbiote does have a function there. Peter would've never had those fits of anger and violent aggression if he weren't under its influence. The inclusion of the Venom storyline (which would've been great on its own) does bring the film down for me. I could accept the fact that Raimi intended to stick with the Spider-Man villains he liked from the 60s, but he just had to insert arguably the most popular villain in the Spider-Man mythos at the behest of Avi Arad and the fans. It's a shame. I will say that Topher Grace made a believer out of me. When I first heard he'd been cast to play Venom I decried the decision. However, he actually managed to elevate Eddie Brock beyond his character in the comics. This is a rare feat. Reviewers have been ripping on Mary Jane left and right and I have to disagree. I intend to go more into this on my blog, but I'll make a few points here: - Any misunderstanding which involves the boyfriend KISSING ANOTHER WOMAN is hardly "idiotic." In fact, I'd be hard-pressed to call it a "misunderstanding." - It isn't wrong that MJ would be jealous of the public adoration Peter receives as Spider-Man. Everyone has insecurities and fears, and most of us don't always handle them gracefully. This is especially true with women. When you add Mary Jane's painful relationship with her father and Peter's egoistic blindness to her emotional needs, it's even worse. She put a lot of effort and hope into her career. To have it deteriorate like it did was horrible for MJ and you can't just say, "Well, shit happens. Deal with it." It isn't that simple every time; her success was very important to her. - The scene in the restaurant is about what I would expect. It's pretty silly and unrealistic to claim that two adults in our world would surely work it out on the spot. That doesn't really happen in the heat of negative emotions like neglect, frustration and anger. That's enough for now. Overall, I was satisfied with Spider-Man 3 even though it suffered under its own weight.