Varna
New Member
So instead of expressing our distaste for their drivel, you expect us to lap it up and enjoy it? I won't lower my standards simply because the market has decided to.
Hollywood has urinated on my childhood once again
- Thread starter Frunket
- Start date
So instead of expressing our distaste for their drivel, you expect us to lap it up and enjoy it? I won't lower my standards simply because the market has decided to.
I hope you don't lower your standards either, whatever they may be. You and I both know that's not what I expect anyone of you to do. You and I both know that is not what I said, or what I implied, but nice try. (Although having "standards" for movies is complicated. I'm interested to hear what these "standards" are. If you have "standards" for movies, yet you saw this, wouldn't that be lowering your "standards?" Or would your "standards" for movies be "low" to begin with if you saw this?) You don't have to like something. But to say that a movie has to be exactly like the "source material" is ignorant, since there has never been a movie, to my knowledge, that has followed its "source material" verbatim. Some do a better job of others. Dragonball Evolution managed to work in basic storylines of DRAGONBALL (not Z), character names, and made it available to a wider audience who may have not known anything about the story. It was bad. Tony Stark didn't invent a new element to stop "Paladium poisoning" in the comics, yet I still enjoyed Iron Man 2.
I expect anyone with reason to not see it at all if they think it looks awful, other than to confirm its awfulness. I'm not saying it's wrong to hate this movie. I'm saying that if you don't like it, you don't like it, no need to rage about it. Especially on the internet since it seems everyone didn't like this movie. Just assume that everyone is in agreement with you. Otherwise you face agreeing yet logical and insight-giving responses like mine.
PokemanFan4Life
New Member
I saw it in a theater when it came out, and I want to say I was disappointed, but I wasn't, as I expected the movie to be bad. I wasn't really disappointed, but even with my low(practically non-existent) expectations, I wasn't pleasantly surprised either.
This movie was just plain awful, it somehow got the perfect combination of being close enough to the source material, which you'd have to be familiar with the original to understand(because the movie didn't explain much), making it very unfriendly to potential newcomers. At the same time, it was far enough from the source material to completely alienate all the fans of the original.
In the DBE's defense though, Emmy Rossum and Chow Yun-Fat were solid as Bulma(some Blue hair dye would've been nice) and Master Roshi respectively.
I agree that a live action DB/DBZ/DBGT movie has the potential to "gets you huge", like Lord Slug. Unfortunately, doing a DB movie in which the 8yo or so hero is all of a sudden a 17yo or so High School student doesn't work all that well.
Just me two sense.
---------- Post added 05/16/2010 at 10:42 PM ----------
Actually, Tony Stark didn't "invent a new element" in Iron Man 2. So the fact that it didn't happen in the comics is irrelavant. I assume however that you're actually referring to how he actually ***********Spoiler************** became the first to actually create/produce the element, using the blueprint left by his father(who would've been the one to "invent" it. **********End of Spoiler***********. If that's the case, You'd be correct that it wasn't in the comics(at least as far as I know).
I agree with you that no movie(especially live-action) stays completely perfectly true to the source material. I do expect though, that if a movie is going to completely stray from the source material, the writers/directors try to make it a solid stand alone film. Look at "The Dark Knight", it wasn't completely true to its source material, and it was easily one of the best films in decades.
This movie was just plain awful, it somehow got the perfect combination of being close enough to the source material, which you'd have to be familiar with the original to understand(because the movie didn't explain much), making it very unfriendly to potential newcomers. At the same time, it was far enough from the source material to completely alienate all the fans of the original.
In the DBE's defense though, Emmy Rossum and Chow Yun-Fat were solid as Bulma(some Blue hair dye would've been nice) and Master Roshi respectively.
I agree that a live action DB/DBZ/DBGT movie has the potential to "gets you huge", like Lord Slug. Unfortunately, doing a DB movie in which the 8yo or so hero is all of a sudden a 17yo or so High School student doesn't work all that well.
Just me two sense.
---------- Post added 05/16/2010 at 10:42 PM ----------
Actually, Tony Stark didn't "invent a new element" in Iron Man 2. So the fact that it didn't happen in the comics is irrelavant. I assume however that you're actually referring to how he actually ***********Spoiler************** became the first to actually create/produce the element, using the blueprint left by his father(who would've been the one to "invent" it. **********End of Spoiler***********. If that's the case, You'd be correct that it wasn't in the comics(at least as far as I know).
I agree with you that no movie(especially live-action) stays completely perfectly true to the source material. I do expect though, that if a movie is going to completely stray from the source material, the writers/directors try to make it a solid stand alone film. Look at "The Dark Knight", it wasn't completely true to its source material, and it was easily one of the best films in decades.
"Congratulations, sir, you've just invented a new element"-JARVIS
"Would have been the one" implies and means he didn't invent it, but I get what you are saying.
I'm glad you agree, however I would not recommend you expecting writers and directors to make anything based off of a source a "solid stand alone film." It's good that you are positive, but 100% of major Hollywood companies (the companies that can afford to make big-named and well known titles for movies such as Dragonball and Iron Man) care more about how much money a movie will make than how good it really is. Companies care more that you saw the movie than what you thought about it.
And I'd agree on TDK if it was only put in the super hero/action film category. Best film in recent years is a little unfair because movies have been awful and unoriginal in recent years. And, not that it matters because what's done is done, but I think the film would not have done as well if Mr. Ledger was still alive. Would it have done well? Yes. As well as it did? Maybe, most likely not. But again, we'll never know.
Jeremy Badeaux
New Member
Jorsh, I think you are arguing simply for the sake of arguing.
Nobody has been raging about how terrible the movie was.
You seem to think that somebody who points out that the character names and the fact that dragonballs existed are the only things faithful to the canon is the same as the whackjob who screams because the sorting hat sings a different song in the movie than it did in the book.
The latter is somebody just looking for something to whine about, but the former is somebody with a valid point about the movie perverting the entire subject matter.
If Iron Man 2 was a good movie, regardless of whatever little thing failed to perfectly mimic a comic book, then it was still a good movie.
Also, maybe your Iron Man 2 comparison would hold water if the movie had done more things wrong than right.
DBE was a terrible movie that was almost unwatchable to begin with, but when you factor in how it wasn't faithful to canon at all, you can't be shocked that nobody likes it.
Nobody has been raging about how terrible the movie was.
You seem to think that somebody who points out that the character names and the fact that dragonballs existed are the only things faithful to the canon is the same as the whackjob who screams because the sorting hat sings a different song in the movie than it did in the book.
The latter is somebody just looking for something to whine about, but the former is somebody with a valid point about the movie perverting the entire subject matter.
If Iron Man 2 was a good movie, regardless of whatever little thing failed to perfectly mimic a comic book, then it was still a good movie.
Also, maybe your Iron Man 2 comparison would hold water if the movie had done more things wrong than right.
DBE was a terrible movie that was almost unwatchable to begin with, but when you factor in how it wasn't faithful to canon at all, you can't be shocked that nobody likes it.
