Comments -

All jorson28's Comments

Showing items 31 - 40 of 110
<<  <  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 >  >>  

Fernandez Leads EVIL DEAD (Article) - 2/3/2012 10:58:43 AM

Okay, no offense, but is Shiloh a man or a woman?

Crowe and Neeson Circle NOAH (Article) - 2/2/2012 1:44:24 PM

I guess there's no reason for Aronofsky to treat the Hebrew and/or Christian Bible (or the Quran) with respect and accuracy - especially if he believes that the story, itself, originated somewhere else long before the iblical telling (that's right, not all Judeo Christians or religious "nuts," as you call them, are stupid), though I obviously don't know if that's the case of not.  Anyhow, the story I'm familiar with is one about a man (and his sons) doing the will of God despite the jeerings of pretty much all of those around him because none believe God's warnings of a massive flood. Allegedly, or at least according to the Christian version, it had never even rained on the Earth before that time. That story would likely resonate with a non-hypocritical Christian of today.  However, his depiction as any respected healer, if that's how it's being approached, is NOT the Biblical story of Noah.  Of course, it doesn't necessarily NEED to be Biblical, but that's probably going to be the point of connection for most in the "general audience," especially in the U.S., and so if he and/or the studio has the gall to market it as any kind of telling of the BIBLICAL story of Noah, then accuracy is a valid concern - unless, of course, you're only doing it to spite those "religious nuts" that are otherwise most likely to take a pure and compelling interest. 

Lang Cast in MAN OF STEEL (Article) - 1/24/2012 1:26:53 PM

TO REEK: Warner Brothers didn't have the option of waiting.  They were already losing the rights to the use of certain characters in the Superman universe and had to GO INTO PRODUCTION on a Superman film by THIS YEAR, I think, or else lose the right to do it at all in their suit with the estates of Siegel and Shuster.  On that note, has anyone noted the ABSENCE of Jimmy Olsen?  I don't know if this is a creative decision (it may well be, judging Olsen to be too "juvenile" for this take), but if memory serves, he's one of the characters that became contentious in the lawsuit.  Anyway,  I think it's why they CHOSE (as opposed to LET, in my opinion) Christopher Nolan to be the executie producer.  Even though they needed to enter production quick, they also learned their lesson on SUPERMAN RETURNS and probably saw Nolan as the only logical choice to oversee the project and help make it something of higher quality.  Besides which, they'd already been through a lot of other candidates to potentially oversee the project. Otherwise, even though I've read the reports saying otherwise, I don't think Nolan would have actually CHOSEN to be involved in this movie, despite his alleged enthusiasm for Goyer's pitch, and the fact that we have little to no idea exactly what his input in this has been given he's been busy with THE DARK KNIGHT RISES seems to bear that out.

In any case, Reek, I get your concern, but the reasons for what they're doing are mainly legal ones.  I'm not a BIG Superman fan, but I'm enough of one to care about this movie and some things concern me.  For starters, Snyder seems a director of "style over substance," but a new Superman movie needs a better balance of both.  I don't mind the costume and aesthetic changes I've seen, but I question the choice to redo Zod and announcements like this make me wonder about the story because I can't imagine how any flashback with Lana Lang could serve an adult Superman story without there also being an adult Lana Lang in the film.  I'd even go so far as to predict that whatever they shoot with this young girl will probably wind up on the cutting room floor, only to be one of the deleted scenes included on the Blu-Ray.  After-all, Goyer's script was said to have been rushed a bit and in need of some polish shortly before production began.  They may just be shooting a script that they know has problems they think they can just fix in post-production. 

EW's Dark Knight Rises Details (Article) - 1/12/2012 12:25:36 PM

I'm sure they do, violator, but I'd be very surprised if - as a villain SPECIFICALLY after Batman and presumably knowing who he really is - Bane breaks into every rich person's home EXCEPT Bruce Wayne's.   In any case, there are still the shots of snipers and others rapelling down a hole that LOOKS like the massive well leading to the Batcave, and since I don't think Nolan will be showing a real Lazarus Pit the way we know of it in the comics, I don't know what else it could be.

EW's Dark Knight Rises Details (Article) - 1/12/2012 10:33:41 AM

TO SAMSON: Yes, now that I look at it, I agree about the symbol on the chest.  This also seems to be a change they've made to the batsuit, itself.  It's still pretty much what it was in THE DARK NIGHT, but for some reason, they seem to have shrunk his chestplate or something.

EW's Dark Knight Rises Details (Article) - 1/12/2012 10:32:09 AM

I think the new "Batcave" is what everyone has been mistaking in the trailer as a "prison."  At the end of BATMAN BEGINS, which this movie seems to link with story-wise, Alfred did talk about "improvements" in the "Southeast corner" during the reconstruction of Wayne Manor.  We know there's a prison BREAKOUT and that Bane is not exactly the same Venom-pumped character he was from the comics - and we've heard nothing of a backstory with the prison Pena Duro, etc. - so given all that, plus the fact that if they're taking over Gotham then it makes no sense that they'd drag everyone out of the city to some remote prison block, then it stands to reason that Bane and his people break into Wayne Manor (as the trailer indicates that they do) and use Batman's own Batcave as a sort of jail.  This is further supported by the shots in the trailer of people rapelling with ropes down what looks very much like the well in BATMAN BEGINS, which leads down to the Batcave in that movie which, logically, would just be added-upon, etc. 

I think Bane is going to be someone with connections to the League of Shadows, possibly working with an undercover Talia Al Ghul - undercover as "Miranda Tate" in Wayne Enterprises, leaking updated information and getting close to Wayne, himself - that already knows Batman's true identity (obviously) and is just taking it upon himself to finish, albeit in his own way, what Ra's started in BATMAN BEGINS.  I think the time that will have elapsed will make Batman weak at the beginning, but that he'll get stronger as the movie progresses and, as the title suggests, eventually "rise" to the occasion and save the city.  I also think that by the time he puts the Batsuit back on (as it seems from the trailer that Batman has pretty much been MIA since THE DARK KNIGHT), people will know who he really is, probably know that he did not kill Dent's victims and, in part because of that, he'll finally have the mandate and opportunity he needs to come and fight back.  I'm not sure how Catwoman fits into all of this, though - and I wouldn't be surprised if people like Alfred's and Lucius Fox's roles are VERY small (at least one dies, I suspect, though I have no proof - that just seems like it should happen in such a conclusion) - but even though I hope I'm wrong and am, thus, pleasantly surprised in July, I have a feeling that I'm at least on the right track.  It's arrogant, yes, but... so what? LOL 

Contractor Boards TREK Sequel (Article) - 1/9/2012 3:28:55 PM

She'll play a Vulcan.  The family will be Vulcan.  I have no proof of this - I'm not an insider - but something just tells me that this family will be Vulcan and that they'll represent a new Vulcan "minority" threatened by one of what will probably be a LOT of resentful, predator-races that wouldn't have dared attack Vulcan before, but now see the race as a vulnerable pack of nomads almost entirely dependent upon the "mighty" Federation. 

Smallville: The Complete Series DVD Set (Article) - 12/27/2011 9:39:26 AM

Yeah, this show pretty much NEVER had "strong writing."  I think the reviewer is confusing strong writing with a strong CONCEPT - though, oddly enough, that seems to be acknowledged separately and the credit for that should really go to DC and Siegel and Shuster.  

I think this is a show that should have ended after four seasons - five, max - because after that, it had outlived its own concept and became merely a series of excuses for not evolving into what it basically was, anyway, albeit without the usual trappings: A SUPERMAN SERIES. Worse, it made the character of Kal-El/Clark Kent seem tepid, almost cowardly - "almost" becoming Superman so many times, but not going the distance because... well, he just couldn't leave his great cadre of "friends." If you're doing a show about how Clark Kent became Superman through telling the story of his adolescence BEFORE the costume, then once you get past that adolescence and, particularly, the death of Jonathan Kent (depending upon which continuity you follow), you lose credibility if you don't either change the title and format of the show to accommodate the changes or, better yet, end the show as it had been, wait a while, then bring part of the cast back for a brand new one and bill it as a "continuation" or a "spin-off."  That's what Smallville and its producers SHOULD have done and didn't, and probably why its creators left after season 7.  Arguably, the show got a little better in some ways after their departure, but I think it's only because the creators knew that their concept had outlived its application and they'd been trying too hard to hang onto it. 

Last, but not least, with regards to Hawkman, Dr. Fate and others... in "love" action???  LOL I can understand a typo here and there, but this should probably be changed.  Just saying...

Dark Knight Rises Poster Arrives (Article) - 12/11/2011 3:57:00 PM

I think I get what's going on here, storywise, including how Catwoman figures into this.  I read a description of the prologue that described Bane in the custody of CIA agents in an airplane.  It described it as an action sequene, of course, but the writer wondered how Catwoman would fit into all of this.

In the 1950's, a version of Catwoman's origin appeared making her a stewardess that suffered amnesia after a crash, turned to crime becoming Catwoman, but then having her memory restored with another acidental blow and, in the story, joining up with the Gotham PD to take down the people that had just hired her.  Judging from what I've seen of Hathaway and the description in the trailer, I think they're going the route of that particular comic, only with Selina Kyle being a CIA agent tracking Bane (already known to be described as a "terrorist" and possibly to draw out Batman, in the process, either to capture him, enlist his aid or, possibly, to capture him before making a deal for his freedom that involves going after Bane (though that stretches credulity since it stands to reason he'd already be after Bane). 

Either way, I think we've clearly got a terrorist plot in Gotham going on here, probably not too much unlike the Mutants and their activities in THE DARK KNIGHT RETURNS.  As far as the title goes, I don't really think it refers to Batman's death.  It might be that his identity is revealed at some point, but I'm not sure of that, either.  It does seem that way given all of the BTS footage we've seen of the camouflaged Batmobiles roaming the streets, but if it takes place 8 years later and Batman has yet to replace the original full-on-black Batmobile, then people may not remember it and either Wayne Industries finally has the military contract they tried to get years ago - OR - Bane and his crew have commandeered them.  I can kind of see Batman chasing some of those things in the Batcopter either way.  After all, he IS wanted for murder at the end of TDK.  Odds are he's allowed himself to stay a "wanted bat" for the sake of Dent's memory, etc. 

Mania Review: The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn, Part 1 (Article) - 11/18/2011 12:26:43 PM

If I'm missing something here, do tell, but when the cast doesn't even have much to say about a movie, any movie, let alone a franchise, there's something terribly wrong.  Personally, I think the filmmakers are in on the joke, and it must be just that - a joke, one perpetrated on the tween girls that make up what is possibly (and, probably, sadly) the least respected group of movie fans in existence.  It's as if the core audience for these films is defined by its lack of taste and utter inability to possess it at their respective points in life.  Why the remaining feminists of the world are not up-in-arms is beyond me, but that would beg the question about how much sense factors into feminism in the first place, so...

Anyway, I hold no ill-will towards the franchise.  Having never seen a single entry and with no intention of seeing this one, I simply don't care - that is, I don't care beyond hoping to God that this stuff doesn't influence future movies and televisions shows that could otherwise have merit.  I think SMALLVILLE was a show that got creatively derailed LONG before it ended by succumbing to the influence of things having little or nothing to do with its core premise and/or source material, in part because it had the unfortunate distinction of being a show designed to appeal to male comic book fans on a network (originally the WB) that became increasingly focused on appealing to an audience almost entirely comprised of young girls and, I think, the fanbase mentioned above - the one for the Twilight movies (Supernatural is an odd exception here, but maybe the CW's only redeeming attribute).  To follow up what is possibly the world's longest sentence (LOL), let me just say that anyone watching Smallville could always tell when the show's so-called "creative" team was just biding time and using the number and potential diversity of the characters to riff on popular culture and movies ranging from James Bond Movies and The Matrix to The Hangover and, though subtly, the Twilight series - among others.


Date Joined: January 9, 2007