Superheroes! page 32 civfanatics forums electricity physics problems


Click to expand…Arrow is the only one I don’t watch, and obviously we disagree here. I think the characters in The Flash, particularly, are very well done. I will acknowledge, if it wasn’t clear already, that I don’t think they are very ‘true to comics’ at all, but I’m okay with that.

@Buster’s Uncle Marvel went through a bankruptcy that took years itself and in the end got botched, and who actually ended up with the copyrights ended up as a court decision that dragged out for well over a decade after that. During that time the movie studios started thinking "hey, comics would make good movie material" and yes Superman was pretty good. There was talk at the time that Spiderman, being well known from comics as well as the cartoon series, had good potential as a movie, but no one was able to license the rights because there wasn’t any clear ownership. By the time everything was settled DC had already cycled Batman through all the way to the awful Batman and Robin in 1997 and the superhero movie genre was considered to be dead. It’s a fair bet that if Marvel hadn’t come out five years later with Spiderman and been so successful the second round for DC would never have happened. That should explain half of the mysterious paragraph.

The other half is that after the freakish "Marvel-mania" that the movies have produced the reality of licensing fees is this…the movies are worth so awfully much money that the possibility of TV causing either over saturation or being poorly done and tarnishing that value has to be accounted for. To make that risk worthwhile the price tag on the TV rights is obscene, and no one is even thinking about paying it. So the only Marvel on TV is "fringe character" stuff, even though lots of people would like to make a weekly series out of some of the big guns, like Iron Man or Spiderman. With the cost of effects and licensing they would have to have far and away the number one show on television before they could break even, much less make money. Same reason we see Arrow and Flash and Supergirl rather than Bats or Supe himself.

So Marvel Studios is aiming to put Black Widow on screens in 2020. I have to ask myself, better late than never? I guess so. With the caveat that I haven’t seen Infinity War yet, and the next Avengers film will be before any Black Widow solo story happens, I’m not sure what I want them to do with the character. Clearly, Natasha/Scarlett should have gotten a solo film in 2010 or 2011, before Avengers, but that’s water under the bridge now. A solo movie after The Winter Soldier could have also been great, since we got some peeks into her past in that film, and it might have been interesting to see Natasha on her own in the aftermath of the collapse of SHIELD.

I’ve seen it written somewhere that a Black Widow movie could take place in the final days of the Soviet Union. Johansson was 7 in the final days of the Soviet Union, but alright. Natasha is a product of a super-soldier program, after all, and could very well be aging very slowly. Natasha could be twice her apparent age. Still, I’m not psyched about a prequel. I dislike prequels and flashbacks anyway, and there are some characters whose backgrounds deserve to remain shrouded in mystery, perhaps with some clues dropped for astute (or obsessed) viewers to mull over. Heath Ledger’s Joker and Ron Glass’ Shepherd Book always leap to mind as characters who should not have their backstories fleshed out any more.

Without knowing what happens to her in the next two Avengers movies, I wouldn’t mind seeing Natasha in a version of the age-old story of the retired gunfighter/soldier/cop/spy forced to put her ‘particular set of skills’ to use one more time. Anyone remember Geena Davis in The Long Kiss Goodnight? Anyway… Just thinkin’ out loud on a dull Friday afternoon. Maybe I should go get a coffee.

I’ve always liked the theory that Heath Ledger’s Joker in Christopher Nolan’s DARK KNIGHT is a war veteran suffering PTSD. His referencing a “truckload of soldiers” getting blown up, his ease with military hardware, and his tactical ingenuity and precision planning all feel like an ex-Special Forces soldier returned stateside and dishing out payback. I love films that contain enough thought and shading to sustain post-screening theorizing like this.

He seems to be very good at the kind of mind-****ery that sustained, professional interrogation requires. His boast about how “I know the squealers” when he sees one. The way he adjusts his personality and methods depending on who he’s talking to, and knowing EXACTLY the reaction he’ll get: mocking Gamble’s manhood; invoking terror to Brian, the “false” Batman; teasing the policeman’s sense of loyalty to his fallen, fellow cops; digging into Gordon’s isolation; appealing to Harvey Dent’s hunger for “fairness.” He even conducts a “reverse interrogation” with Batman when he’s in the box at the police station — wanting to see how “far” Batman will go, trying to make him break his “one rule.” He constantly changes his backstory (and thus who he is). To Gamble and his henchmen, he’s an abused child (figuring that they were also the products of abuse and neglect). To Rachel, he’s a man mourning a tragic love — something she’s also wrestling with.

In the end, he ends up trying to mind-**** an entire city — and the city calls his bluff. Or is that what he wanted all along? He plummets to his seeming death, laughing like a child. And when he’s rescued by Batman, the one individual he couldn’t manipulate or break, he’s blissful and relieved (and, visually, turned on his head). Even the language he uses when saying goodbye to Batman — describing their relationship as an “irresistible force meeting an immovable object” — is the kind of thing an interrogator would say, ruefully, about a fruitless session.