|
Post by Brandon on Jul 14, 2006 18:00:45 GMT -5
The coolest was when the Jetsons had a crossover episode with the Flintstones. Now if they'd only do that with the Simpsons and Futurama...
|
|
|
Post by Brandon on Jul 13, 2006 18:03:29 GMT -5
I would vote for the Ventures ;D but I have to give props to the Jetsons. I loved this cartoon as a kid and the visual realization here of the atomica aesthete is beyond awesome. They have rocket cars that become suitcases, machines that cut and fix your hair, houses that perch hundreds of feet (if not more) in the air, and a robot maid. That's the life for me!
|
|
|
Post by Brandon on Jul 7, 2006 0:27:33 GMT -5
Shouldn't the topic of this thread be, "Arrrr, where be the rum?!"
I'm excited to see the next PotC. I liked the first one quite a bit and I'm a Depp fan from way back on Jump Street. Oh crap, did I just admit that? Anyway, looks like a lot of fun, plus, y'know, Keira Knightley.
|
|
|
Post by Brandon on Jul 4, 2006 23:27:03 GMT -5
No, no. Guy Gardener. It's a totally different guy. Interesting ideas, Drew. But I think if you wanted to do the story on this site it would fall into an Elseworlds category.
|
|
|
Post by Brandon on Sept 9, 2006 7:38:17 GMT -5
Not sure if you've seen this or not, Scott, but this gallery is collecting pretty much every Transformers pic to turn up yet and stays pretty up-to-date... www.flickr.com/groups/transformersmovie/pool/I like the Optimus design but Megatron looks super bonkers.
|
|
|
Post by Brandon on Jul 6, 2006 13:50:54 GMT -5
Just hope that it's not a 'Transformers In Name Only' I would say.
|
|
|
Post by Brandon on Jul 4, 2006 23:30:11 GMT -5
So they are totally changing the concept? It's Masters of the Universe all over again!
|
|
|
Post by Brandon on Jul 4, 2006 17:12:53 GMT -5
I just for the life of me can't see how this concept will translate to live action without seeming a little like Power Rangers.
I love giant robots and the Transformers is a fun concept, but will it make any sense to see them fly into the air and turn into cars and dinosaurs without it just seeming really silly?
|
|
|
Post by Brandon on Jul 1, 2006 12:56:51 GMT -5
I'm sorry I try to look for the best in people. Even Rob Liefield had an energy to his drawings and has gotten much, much better in recent years. I don't think anyone doubts your sincerity here. And I haven't ever really seen Bryan Hitch show up on any swipe files so the guys might really be just that good. And of course it is a fine line on what is photo-referencing and what is pretty much a swipe. From Alex Ross's use of models to Gene Colan polaroiding Jack Palance off of TV for Tomb Dracula reference to Kirby's use of photo in some of his FF backgrounds, it's a little subjective. But if I'm putting down 3 bucks per book, I'd rather see someone's actual craft and not tracing. Repeated and exact matches in Land's artwork only says to me that his lightbox is getting a workout. And I'd much rather see his actual artwork. In Liefeld's case it's pretty inexcusable other than the fact that he was very young when he broke into the industry, but he not only worked off of photos but other artist's work, from character poses to entire page layouts. I almost hate to say it, but again, I'd rather just see his artwork.
|
|
|
Post by Brandon on Jul 1, 2006 1:11:33 GMT -5
I have no the guy has skills, as he was really starting to hit his stride at DC, then the Crossgen stuff was interesting but I honestly haven't done anything other than glance at it. I do know that what he's done at Marvel just seems really uninspired, made all the more diappointing by the direct overworking of photos.
Using photos as reference is one thing, even working over them depending on what you are doing and how forthcoming you are with that info (heck, I've slapped filtered photos on half my pics here as backgrounds), but the guy has talent and he's a pro, as in he gets paid well to make the effort, so it just seems like lazy and hackworthy work on his part.
And why is Marvel trying to make the art in their books look like Heavy Metal from 20 years ago? Pfeh.
|
|
|
Post by Brandon on Jun 30, 2006 18:31:23 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Brandon on Jun 30, 2006 17:42:08 GMT -5
Thanks Ramon, that's even better than the example I saw. Ha.
|
|
|
Post by Brandon on Jun 30, 2006 17:12:22 GMT -5
There have been a number of examples shown in swipe files (like the pic of Reed that is a dead match for a Topher Grace photo). He might be photoreferencing very closely but it looks a little too close if you know what I mean. You can generally tell when someone is tracing. I agree, I really enjoyed Land's style when he was on Nightwing and was more his own, but the Marvel work I've seen, the pseudo-photorealistic stuff, looks uninspired, dry and overwhelmed by the coloring.
|
|
|
Post by Brandon on Jun 30, 2006 16:53:48 GMT -5
Wow. Okay.
|
|
|
Post by Brandon on Jun 30, 2006 7:51:11 GMT -5
In all honesty, I don't understand why Micheal Turner gets such a hard way to go from fans. I think his work is okay for being a post-Image artist but there is a real and noticeable animosity toward this guy on fan boards. A Newsarama announcement can't go by that he's connected to without a number of disgruntled fans chiming in on how much they dislike him. Why? I mean it's not like he's tracing magazine pictures like Greg Land or giving heroes man-breasts like Liefeld.
|
|
|
Post by Brandon on Jun 30, 2006 7:45:48 GMT -5
I would have to say Bruce Timm gets my top vote. I think the visual and conceptual work on the various Batman animated incarnations was genius and really dig his art style, especially his b&w inkwork. Dick Sprang is also high up there for me. Pure, iconic, brilliant work. I would also have to agree with Jim Aparo. That was my Batman artist as a kid. If anyone wants art samples for these artists look here: The Many Faces of Batman
|
|
|
Post by Brandon on Jul 11, 2006 16:57:06 GMT -5
I think there is a good chance in this set of movies we could see more villains. But to be fair, most of the superhero movies there is a running villain through the franchise: Magneto in X-Men, the Osbournes in Spider-man, etc.
|
|
|
Post by Brandon on Jul 10, 2006 16:21:26 GMT -5
I think you're right about the baby, KSM. I said in the chat room last week that it won't take long for DC to follow suit. They did it when Lois and Clark married on television, they'll do it here as well. I'd bet money on it. Y'know, Clark has just spent a whole year without powers so it's probably coming soon. I hope they use the Byrne thing and don't give him powers 'till his teens. Here's a question? Do you tell your son that you're Superman? That would make for some interesting, "my father can beat up your father arguments" And would the child have any health problems because of the mixed ancestry? Would his life span be shortened? Y'know if you use the Byrne idea of Kryptonians using birthing matrixs (maxtri (?) ) it would be the first time in millenia that a kryptonian would actually be "born".. oh man now my heads going to hurt all day! I think the birthing matrices are on the outs for the Kryptonian side of things, but I don't follow those books carefully so I could be wrong. The more I think of it, if Superman is going to be married (something that hasn't really gone anywhere storywise), then they should take the next step and make it a family (something I'm seeing more and more story potential from as I think about it). My hesitation is that some writers wouldn't be able to pull off the subtle and smart story points this would need and eventually we'd see the kid get it. *cough*Connor*cough* Wow, I just took the non-existing character and negatively ran him into the ground 15 years down the road in one sentence. But more often than not that's where the superhero kid angle goes (see Aquaman). I want a brighter, more inspirational Superman and I do think being a father could really bring this back out.
|
|
|
Post by Brandon on Jul 10, 2006 6:44:21 GMT -5
The really messed up part is that they are making out on her grave.
|
|
|
Post by Brandon on Jul 8, 2006 19:49:22 GMT -5
After first viewing the movie I wasn't too keen on the idea of Superman's son. But now I'm starting to think that it could be a pretty cool concept if handled well, so I'm up for it. If any character in comics could be a good dad, it'd be Superman. It would take an inventive dynamic, but I could see it happening. I could even see the child growing up to be a Superboy of sorts. It would be the most logical incarnation to that character idea, plus a lot of fun in the right hands. Sort of a reverse approach to the Superboy idea in respect to how the book worked in it's original run. For naysayers involving his aging, etc., think about this: How long did it take for Dick Grayson (who for all intents and purposes was Batman's "son") to grow up? How long do you think it will take for Tim Drake? In all probability Drake will never age past being a teen because that would push Batman's age along too far. Any of the current Titans for that matter unless it involves wacky time travel as it did with Bart. The child could grow to a certain age and then stop, pretty much like all comic characters have, unless again it involves time travel. Face it, Superman will never reach 40. And here's the catch, the birth of a Superbaby would sell a LOT of comics, so how long do you really think it will take?
|
|
|
Post by Brandon on Jul 6, 2006 0:27:32 GMT -5
I saw the movie tonight so I'll share my thoughts. The Good: The movie looked spectacular. The sets were beautiful: Lex's ship, the Daily Planet, Fortress of Solitude, etc. The effects were done very well and never distracting. The action scenes were breath-taking: the plane sequence, the quake in Metropolis, etc. Great casting. I really liked Jimmy and Perry. Brandon carried the role well as both personas even if he really didn't have a lot of dialogue or much time as Clark. Kevin Spacey was strong and entertaining but something was a little off in the character presentation. I liked Kate Bosworth better than I expected but the character suffered from the awkward family plotline. All the rights elements were here for the film and the love of the property showed through on screen. All the homage shots in the film were great, most noticeable being the lifting the car pose from Action number one. The Bad: The movie was just too long. Too many shots/scenes lingered and even dragged. A good half-hour less of movie would have really helped the film. And it did echo the original film a little too much. Some of the characterizations were just odd. When did our hero become a Super Stalker? He watches Lois at home, snags her off rooftops and flies by her house (I know where you live!), and even breaks into the kid's room at night. A little too creepy. And Lois was an emotional wreck. She struggles with smoking, has no idea if she should stay with her partner or not, and can't even properly stand up to Perry about following a story? And the character was physically abused too, being tossed around airplane cabins, slammed into furniture, wacked with doors, she literally had the crap beaten out of her in this movie. Then there was the kid. He was cute, yes, but where are they possibly going with this storyline? The entire Superman-secretly-woos-Lois apart from her family was weird and caused a lot of angst and drama where it could have been accomplished with something simpler and in turn freed up a lot more time for the character to go around and be awe-inspiring and do generally super things. Will we see the kid in a film or two wearing a little Jr. supersuit and high-fiving Superman when they stop their first meteor together. *shudder* Or even worse, will the child be sacrificed to inject even more angst into the story? Also, did I need to see the Man of Steel get his ass kicked by Kumar? And why were there so many dog eating jokes? I really enjoyed this movie and thought it was the best Superman movie so far and pretty far ahead of most of the superhero films to date, but I believe Batman Begins worked better and Spider-man was exactly what this film should have been. Raimi obviously used the Super-films as a model and managed to balance action with story and drama with humor more effectively than Singer did here. If I look to the X-men as Singer's track record, the first one was off and had very visible weak spots with the follow-up movie being much stronger, so I really hope the next Superman will be a slam dunk. But for now, this one was more than satisfying and a welcome return to a much-loved story.
|
|
|
Post by Brandon on Jul 22, 2006 21:28:29 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Brandon on Jul 4, 2006 17:28:56 GMT -5
That would be an interesting twist. Mysterio naming Spider-man and generally following him about and pushing his buttons. Bruce Campbell is the man so anything excuse to put him in the movie is okay by me.
I actually like the Hobgoblin usage. I think repeating the GG persona would be a plot redundancy and not as fun. It would be the perfect excuse to work in the much cooler Hobgoblin concept and it really wouldn't matter to the casual fan what the hows and whys of the character's history are. I just really don't want to see the Goblin armor version again. Whatever Harry's role is in the movie I think the more interesting plot line will be the darkening of Peter with the symbiote and what eventually develops there. Can't wait to see this one.
|
|
|
Post by Brandon on Jul 1, 2006 1:29:58 GMT -5
I can see a lot of reasons why they would do it either way. The fact is, if they decided to go Hobgoblin in the film they would and the comics would follow suit, just like the organic web-shooters.
|
|
|
Post by Brandon on Jun 28, 2006 18:30:53 GMT -5
Looks cool. Yeah, no real sign of Lizard there. Sandman looks good and if you have Eddie and the Symbiote then you know Venom's gonna be there in some way or other. And if Harry suits up I just hope he looks more like the Hobgoblin and doesn't just put on the Goblin armor. That's a lot of villains there, but Raimi knows what he's doing so it should work.
|
|
|
Post by Brandon on Dec 22, 2006 11:27:59 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Brandon on Nov 27, 2006 19:18:35 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Brandon on Nov 9, 2006 22:49:45 GMT -5
Awesome work by Bill S.
|
|
|
Post by Brandon on Aug 24, 2006 18:22:04 GMT -5
Yeah... Baron Underbheit! He's a Dr. Doom knock-off, they even all went to college together like all Marvel super science guys did.
|
|
|
Post by Brandon on Aug 24, 2006 9:29:54 GMT -5
Last week's "Victor. Echo. November" was pretty good, but the newest "Love Bheits" made me do that snort laugh thing. Which normally I never do. So it was funny.
|
|