Movies That are Going to Suck: Part Deux

Hell if I know.

And why does her costume have to be sexy anyway?

Lapin wrote:

Hell if I know.

And why does her costume have to be sexy anyway?

Because dominatrix undertones have been an intrinsic part of the character since her inception.

Eh. Can't she just be a badass thief?

Lapin wrote:

Eh. Can't she just be a badass thief?

No because then people like Mr. Comic Book will have a conniption.

HOLYSHIT HOW DARE YOU HAVE AN INTERPRETATION OF THE CHARACTER THAT AT ALL DEVIATES FROM THE SOURCE MATERIAL HOLY SHIT IT'S NOT LIKE A MOVIE IS A DIFFERENT MEDIUM!

Mr.Doobie wrote:

Lapin wrote:

Eh. Can't she just be a badass thief?

No because then people like Mr. Comic Book will have a conniption.

HOLYSHIT HOW DARE YOU HAVE AN INTERPRETATION OF THE CHARACTER THAT AT ALL DEVIATES FROM THE SOURCE MATERIAL HOLY SHIT IT'S NOT LIKE A MOVIE IS A DIFFERENT MEDIUM!

Yes, why would you possibly want to immitate the source material but leave out everything that makes the character who and what she is IN the source material? Completely ignoring those characteristics ALWAYS makes for a much better character and story, because hey, that's why you're making this in to a movie: not to make a reinterpretation of something, but to twist it until it's no longer recognizable. At least it's yours now!

Personally, I don't really care what they do with Catwoman. She can be a thief, or a socialite, or a secretary, or whatever, but she MUST have some sort of cat-fetish, because otherwise she's not Catwoman. If you're calling her Catwoman and not have her sport at least cat ear-like things on her mask, you might just as well have her cast as a man.

kleine_kat wrote:

I may be clinging to straws here but there's something at the top of her glasses which may pop up and look like cat ears...

I'm afraid your straw is broken... Here's a more side-on view:

Spoiler:

Plus points - At least she's not wearing heels. She tends to do that far too often and it looks ridiculous.

I am hoping, however, that this is a 'before she got the name' pic... Anyway, it's not as though she hasn't had awful costumes in the past. That Purple/green skirt that someone mentioned before... That was a throwback to her origional costume:

Spoiler:

Also: Quiet or papa spank.

Spoiler:

Here's a book cover featuring a few of her costumes:

Spoiler:

But, hell, let's not forget what happens when too much 'thought' goes into applying the cat motif:

Spoiler:

*shudders*

kleine_kat wrote:

Mr.Doobie wrote:

Lapin wrote:

Eh. Can't she just be a badass thief?

No because then people like Mr. Comic Book will have a conniption.

HOLYSHIT HOW DARE YOU HAVE AN INTERPRETATION OF THE CHARACTER THAT AT ALL DEVIATES FROM THE SOURCE MATERIAL HOLY SHIT IT'S NOT LIKE A MOVIE IS A DIFFERENT MEDIUM!

Yes, why would you possibly want to immitate the source material but leave out everything that makes the character who and what she is IN the source material?

The costume doesn't make the Catwoman. And 2) that's Nolan's decision how he interprets the character. Whether or not you feel it fairly portrays the character of the comic is up to you, but that does not necessarily decide whether the movie is going to be bad or good.

Example: I just saw the film adaptation of Stardust yesterday. The ending to that movie is completely different from the ending of the book, yet that still didn't make the movie terriblehorribleawfulbad, it was a fair movie. It just wasn't an accurate adaptation.

Quote :

Completely ignoring those characteristics ALWAYS makes for a much better character and story, because hey, that's why you're making this in to a movie: not to make a reinterpretation of something, but to twist it until it's no longer recognizable. At least it's yours now!

Again, I think both you and Mr. Comic Book are completely overreacting to what amounts to one shot of a fucking costume and completely ignoring certain characteristics could make for a better character and story, or what the director feels is a better character and story.

Even in the comic book industry itself you'll find, through the years, different writers with different interpretations, some good and some bad, but having an extreme interpretation does not necessarily make something bad. The Joker's yo-yo'd more or less between harmless prankster to unpredictable psychopath throughout his career, and Batman has stayed on a pretty similar linear scale himself.

Quote :

Personally, I don't really care what they do with Catwoman. She can be a thief, or a socialite, or a secretary, or whatever, but she MUST have some sort of cat-fetish, because otherwise she's not Catwoman. If you're calling her Catwoman and not have her sport at least cat ear-like things on her mask, you might just as well have her cast as a man.

Again, you two are getting pissy just because of one promotional shot, we have no idea where he character development will lead her.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

HOLY SHIT! BATMAN RETURNS GOT THE CATWOMAN COSTUME ALL WRONG! SHE'S NOT EVEN WEARING A COSTUME! JUST A BROWN DRESS! WHERE ARE THE CAT EARS!?!? THE WHIP!?!?!? COFFEE!?!?!?!? CAT'S DRINK MILK NOT COFFEE YOU DIPSHIT TIM BURTON GO TO HELL AND DIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

But that's beside the point. Nolan's interpretation may just find a different reason for her to be called Catwoman if the costume you posted is her costume the entire time. She may still have a cat fetish minus a cartoony cat-themed costume, or she may get the name Catwoman from the media as a cutsey spin-off of the fact that she's a cat burglar.

Mr.Doobie wrote:

Again, I think both you and Mr. Comic Book are completely overreacting to what amounts to one shot of a fucking costume and completely ignoring certain characteristics could make for a better character and story, or what the director feels is a better character and story.

Sweety, I'm not overreacting. I'm mildly displeased she doesn't seem to have any cat-symbols, but as I said in an earlier post, maybe they will be included later. Since you have no idea what the story or characterization will be like, could you kindly stop raving at Mr. Comic Book, whose views on Nolan I do not share, by the way, and me, simply because we, and a few other people on this board as well, are disappointed with our first view of Catwoman?

You're right, she may turn out great. Pun on Cat burglar, if well explained in the movie, might just work fine. As a matter of fact, I don't think this upcoming movie will suck at all. But I still maintain that CATwoman, just like BATman, should show some of the characteristics of her, you know, name. If you don't think that is at all important, that's fine. Some of us apparently do.

I remember hearing that the picture is that of Selina Kyle, before she becomes Catwoman. I could be mistaken.

WD40 wrote:

I'm afraid your straw is broken... Here's a more side-on view:

Spoiler:

I just repeatedly jizzed in my pants.

kleine_kat wrote:

Sweety

Way to start a post you want the recipient to take seriously.

kleine_kat wrote:

Sweety, I'm not overreacting. I'm mildly displeased she doesn't seem to have any cat-symbols

Displeased over one promotional shot. Still a bit of jumping the gun, imho.

Quote :

Since you have no idea what the story or characterization will be like, could you kindly stop raving at Mr. Comic Book

lolwut?

How about, since he has no idea what the story or characterization will be like, Mr. Comic Book relax his hate-on for Nolan, and not post about how upcoming movies are going to suck when his only evidence is one promotional shot of one character?

Y'know what? The Spiderman Remake is coming out. It's going to suck. I don't really have any reasons why. But look at this promotional photo...

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

He's not even wearing a mask. Spiderman always wears a mask. Hiding his secret identity to protect his loved ones is an intrinsic part of his character that's been with him since the very beginning.

This is obviously proof the movie will be bad. Also I personally disliked the director's previous work.

Mr.Doobie wrote:

@ Mr. Comic Book

So you're saying the upcoming Christopher Nolan Batman Movie is going to suck because the Catwoman costume doesn't look feline enough for your tastes?

I mean, it's probably not because Christopher Nolan has had a pretty good track record for making Batman movies so far so why doubt him based on a couple release photos, right?

Since you've been devoting numerous posts to trashing me based on my dislike for Nolan's Catwoman, let me make myself very clear by reposting from the "Disappointments" topic:

Quote :

The Christopher Nolan Batman movies. Not only did Nolan have the mistakes of Burton and Schumacher to learn from, but he also had decades of comics to work with, find the good stuff, avoid the bad stuff, and make the most of it. He even had the animated series -- which still stands as the definitive mass-media version of the character -- to use as a model. So what do we get? A bizarre, arrogant, incomprehensible mishmash of the Frank Miller/post-Miller comics, the worst excesses of Burton and Schumacher (to say nothing of plot points and action scenes recycled from both), and faux-crime flick "realism" slathered all over it. No likeable characters at all, no energy or life from the actors, no sense of any kind of fun...I'm just going to say it now. These are the worst movies I've ever seen in my life. I have never felt as infuriated and insulted by a movie as I have by these two.

and

Quote :

One of the problems I run into as a fan is that those who revere the Nolan (or if we're talking comics, Miller) version will accuse you of wanting "camp" if you feel this way [that comic books and comic book movies shouldn't sacrifice a sense of fun]. There's a bizarre notion that if Batman has emotions other than hate and arrogance and actually cares about people, if the story/movie/show is enjoyable and enthralling, if it embraces the inherent fantasy of the character and his world, and if it's something viewers of all ages and walks of life can connect to, then it's just warmed-over Adam West. The funny thing is, the animated series was all of those things and wasn't campy. It had its darker, more somber times, yes, but that show also let its hair down and got crazy. Some of its episodes were shameless comedies, there was always wiseass dialogue and situations (Batman perpetrating quite a few of them), and breaking the fourth wall was far from uncommon. It was, at its core, a rousing adventure series set against a noir backdrop, much as the Golden and Bronze Age comic books it so reflected did. Take the material seriously? Sure. But it shouldn't preclude the film or series from being fun to watch. And that's one of the problems with Nolan's movies. They're not fun. They're dreary, bleak, and self-satisfied to no end. And their idea of "realism" actually hurts the films rather than helps. The overblown armors for Batman, the Joker being a scarred guy in crappy greasepaint, the Batmobile as rooftop-riding tank, Ra's Al Ghul being gutted of everything that makes him Ra's...they look and feel far more ridiculous and implausible than their comic book/cartoon counterparts. For a live-action movie, that's a fatal mistake.

I mean, I know not everything from a comic book, be it character designs or story details, can translate to film. Comics and movies have different story structures, visual needs, and pacing requirements, so some change is inevitable when transferring between mediums. But that doesn't mean you should throw the baby out with the bathwater or eliminate any sense of fun or fantasy from it. There has to be a balance somewhere of adapting the material in a way that works on film but retains the spirit, the energy, and the exuberance of the best the material has to offer. And it always bugs me that nobody even wants to try finding that balance. And, as you say, it's a problem with a lot of comic book films in general these days.

THAT is why I hate the Nolanverse, and will not "relax my hate-on" for it. I find the movies to be naked in their contempt of what makes the mythos worthwhile, to say nothing of being embarrassed by their cartoon roots. If your idea of bringing a comic book property to film is shear away its iconography, to leech the fantasy right out of it, and graft a "realism" on it that actually makes the characters even more implausible than their comic book incarnations, why the hell are you even making these movies? If you're that embarrassed by the fantasy of a mythology "(and even even comic book historians like Les Daniels will tell you point-blank that Batman has been pure fantasy from day one) and don't want to be bothered with it, why not leave it to someone who'd embrace the mythology as a whole and run with it? No, I do nto and will not consider the Nolan films as a "good track record." I think he's got a shitty track record with Batman because he's gone out of his way to gut the character of any likeable qualities and to rob the mythos of any sense of fantasy, whimsy, or just plain fun. He's to this franchise what Michael Bay is to the Transformers: a guy who makes big money on this stuff while not getting it at all.

And no, I do not expect a carbon copy of the comics, so don't even try to pull that canard again. I don't expect the stories to be copied chapter and verse, and frankly there's some of them that were shit in comic form. I don't expect to ever see Batman wearing granny panties over tights in live-action, and honestly I wouldn't want to. I don't expect him to wear gray and blue, either, simply because I don't know if it would look good on film. And I sure as hell would not want to see Catwoman as a hooker, which was Frank Miller's ridiculous idea. What I DO expect and want are reasonable approximations of the characters I know. The animated series made plenty of changes to some of the characters, but the end results were still instantly identifiable as the characters I knew. Wizard, back in 2002, did an Ultimate DC pitch where they redesigned the core DC characters, and they included a Batman design that (a) retained more or less the classic look and (b) was updated in a way that could easily translate to live-action. Gary Frank recently did design work for a Batman: Earth One graphic novel where Batman was revamped with a costume that was both faithful to what had come before but modernized in a way that you could realize it on film. Nolan's treatment of the characters veers so far off course that they barely -- or, in Catwoman's case, don't at all -- resemble the characters at all. Take the ears and cape off Bale's Batman, and he's pretty much RoboCop. Take the face paint off Ledger's Joker, and he could be any random crime flick bad guy. What Nolan does keep from the comics isn't the good stuff, but their worst excesses, like Batman being pretty much an unlikeable asshole and adopting a nihilistic, self-righteous tone that's equal parts stupidity and treating the audience like idiots.

Oh, and using the promo image of Andrew Garfield as Spider-Man to try to shut me up? You shot your argument dead by doing that. There's a long, long history of Spider-Man imagery where he's not wearing the mask, stretching back to the '60s. Trying to equate a promo image that follows a long tradition of Spider-Man art to Nolan stripping Catwoman of her iconography altogether is the quickest way to invalidate your argument. I could criticize the Spider-Man redesign (too busy for my liking), but that's about it. I don't have to be rocket scientist to know he's got his mask off for this shot and will be wearing elsewhere in the movie. With Nolan, we've got a director who's shown a real disdain for anything that could possibly be considered "comic booky" (Ra's Al Ghul's immortality, a Batsuit that doesn't look like RoboCop with ears, a Joker who actually looks and acts like his comic book self, a Scarecrow who actually looks the part instead of just having a stupid bag over his head). So an unrecognizable Catwoman is nothing out of the norm for him.

(Oh, and trying to use an obvious picture of Michelle Pfieffer's Selina Kyle in civvies as a counterargument? Even less valid. Even an idiot could tell that's not a costume pic. And frankly, that version of Catwoman had problems well beyond Selina looking nerdy out of costume, so once again you fail to make a point. The Hathaway shots are clearly intended to be costume images, the Pfeiffer one is not.)

In short, get over yourself and shut up.

Mr. Comic Book wrote:

I don't expect to ever see Batman wearing granny panties over tights in live-action, and honestly I wouldn't want to.

I guess you'd better avoid watching the Batman show from the 60's, then.

POW!

KABLAM!

That show was groovy!

Lady Anne wrote:

Mr. Comic Book wrote:

I don't expect to ever see Batman wearing granny panties over tights in live-action, and honestly I wouldn't want to.

I guess you'd better avoid watching the Batman show from the 60's, then.

The Scientist wrote:

POW!

KABLAM!

That show was groovy!

I'll just leave this here.

Mr. Comic Book wrote:

Since you've been devoting numerous posts to trashing me based on my dislike for Nolan's Catwoman, let me make myself very clear by reposting from the "Disappointments" topic:

You insist on taking this personally. I wasn't trashing you because you dislike Nolan's Catwoman or even because you dislike Nolan, I was saying I don't think one promotional shot and two previous movies that garnered general critical approval warrants a spot in the "Movies that are going to suck" thread.

Quote :

THAT is why I hate the Nolanverse, and will not "relax my hate-on" for it. I find the movies to be naked in their contempt of what makes the mythos worthwhile, to say nothing of being embarrassed by their cartoon roots. If your idea of bringing a comic book property to film is shear away its iconography, to leech the fantasy right out of it, and graft a "realism" on it that actually makes the characters even more implausible than their comic book incarnations, why the hell are you even making these movies? If you're that embarrassed by the fantasy of a mythology "(and even even comic book historians like Les Daniels will tell you point-blank that Batman has been pure fantasy from day one) and don't want to be bothered with it, why not leave it to someone who'd embrace the mythology as a whole and run with it? No, I do nto and will not consider the Nolan films as a "good track record." I think he's got a shitty track record with Batman because he's gone out of his way to gut the character of any likeable qualities and to rob the mythos of any sense of fantasy, whimsy, or just plain fun. He's to this franchise what Michael Bay is to the Transformers: a guy who makes big money on this stuff while not getting it at all.

See, this would've been a better post than just "OMG CATWOMAN ONE PICTURE NERDRAGE!"

I would disagree with you on the point that because of the above, the Nolan movies are terrible, but that's a different discussion.

Quote :

And I sure as hell would not want to see Catwoman as a hooker, which was Frank Miller's ridiculous idea.

Waitwut?

Sorry, I don't follow modern comics, so whenever someone tells me some of the bullshit these modern authors are trying to get away with, it always surprises me.

Quote :

Trying to equate a promo image that follows a long tradition of Spider-Man art to Nolan stripping Catwoman of her iconography altogether is the quickest way to invalidate your argument.

My argument was admittedly exaggerated, but I was trying to demonstrate that you can't judge a costume by one picture, it needs to be judged within the context of the movie and it still isn't very good proof that a movie is going to suck.

Quote :

POW!

KABLAM!

That show was groovy!

I actually want to see that show. Do you know if they have DVD retrospectives or something?

Just because a costume kind of sucks doesn't mean the movie will suck.

All movie makers have their various interpretations of how Batman should be portrayed, just as all different writers did.What unfortunately remains consistent is how fucking self-righteous he is, but sadly the same could be said for many superheroes.

The bat-costume is how we identify him. Without the costume it wouldn't matter how close his character was to the comic books because it wouldn't be Batman.

WD40 wrote:

The Scientist wrote:

POW!

KABLAM!

That show was groovy!

I'll just leave this here.

Holy yellow bermuda shorts, Batman! Diggin' the surfin' going on. Groovy! And not silly at all.

Mr.Doobie wrote:

Mr. Comic Book wrote:

And I sure as hell would not want to see Catwoman as a hooker, which was Frank Miller's ridiculous idea.

Waitwut?

Sorry, I don't follow modern comics, so whenever someone tells me some of the bullshit these modern authors are trying to get away with, it always surprises me.

It was just awful Mr. Doobie. I don't even care about Catwoman, and I was mad.

Lapin wrote:

Mr.Doobie wrote:

Mr. Comic Book wrote:

And I sure as hell would not want to see Catwoman as a hooker, which was Frank Miller's ridiculous idea.

Waitwut?

Sorry, I don't follow modern comics, so whenever someone tells me some of the bullshit these modern authors are trying to get away with, it always surprises me.

It was just awful Mr. Doobie. I don't even care about Catwoman, and I was mad.

Still beats Black Canary as an overly violent barmaid in ASBAR.

That's why so many people think Miller has been parodying his own work.

Exodia's Right Leg wrote:

Still beats Black Canary as an overly violent barmaid in ASBAR.

That's why so many people think Miller has been parodying his own work.

God yes, that was bad. But that entire graphic novel just sucked so hard. That part where Robin is locked up in the Batcave and he just keeps repeating the same bit...ugh. That Batman did remind me of Christian Bale's Batman, though. Robin keeps thinking 'why's he talking like John Wayne? Why the hell is he grating his words out like that?'

I have that with Christian Bale. He sounds like he's selling phone sex.

Mr.Doobie wrote:

Quote :

And I sure as hell would not want to see Catwoman as a hooker, which was Frank Miller's ridiculous idea.

Waitwut?

Sorry, I don't follow modern comics, so whenever someone tells me some of the bullshit these modern authors are trying to get away with, it always surprises me.

It really shouldn't when it comes to Frank Miller.

Lady Anne wrote:

Mr. Comic Book wrote:

I don't expect to ever see Batman wearing granny panties over tights in live-action, and honestly I wouldn't want to.

I guess you'd better avoid watching the Batman show from the 60's, then.

Honestly, I love that show...well, the first two seasons. The third season was garbage. But even so, granny panties over tights is an outdated look. I can overlook it for Adam West because it was still the in-vogue look for superheroes at the time, but now? Even Superman, the guy who's synonymous with the trend, is giving it up. In a modern superhero movie, I would never expect to see Batman dress like that again.

For the record, THIS is what I wanted Hathaway's Catwoman to look like, more or less:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

It's got the cat-eared hood, it's got the claws, even the goggles have a cat's-eye look to them. But it looks like something she actually could wear if she existed. You could do this in live-action easily.

I agree, the costume is nice even if it isn't very cat-like.

By the way, I just watched The Smurfs movie, and now I ship Mystique/Smurfette.

Seriously though, I think the worst part of The Smurfs was the moral. Basically this guy cares "too much" about his job, going to work instead of the ultrasound. Don't worry, he learns the error of his ways.