No! No! Baaaaaaad Marvel Comics!

[Felon]

No, its just retarded.
I really couldn't care less what you said in previous posts

This seems to sum up your position pretty well. You're going to continue to split hairs on any counter-arguement and come up with these false syllogisms is order to avoid any flexibility your position. You're too invested in how "horrible" this silly little power-switch plot device is to do otherwise.

Really, just what is the point of this thread continuing?

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Danny, I gotta wonder what era of Marvel Comics had this immaculate consistency and commitment to internal logic that you seem to be expecting from the movie.

None. Both Marvel & DC have done all kinds of things with characters' histories, powers, and so forth every few years- sometimes they'd even differ between to concurrently produced titles.

And when that happened, I'd gripe about it with my fellow readers if it were a bad change, and praise the writers if it were good.

For example, Superman had a 40 year history of power creep up until John Byrne took over (right about the time of the first modern Superman movie)- the more powerful the character got, the worse the storylines got. With Superman becoming a virtual god among mortals, the writers had to jump through flaming hoops to justify Supes' being in danger of being defeated...more magic, more previously unknown vulnerabilities, and more power creep in his adversaries. Byrne's team radically toned down the character's power. No longer was he able to move planets at will, or fly through the core of stars without feeling pain. This was a good thing.

OTOH, while the writers of the C. Reeves movies did generally follow Byrne's lead, they still had him using gadgets never before seen (middling OK, if goofy), and still had him turn back time to save Lois (bad, very bad).

And, for the record, I'd do the same thing for any kind of entertainment. When M.A.S.H. or Star Trek Next Generation would introduce a new concept (Hawkeye & Trapper's horse, gone without a trace before Col. Potter ever showed; Crusher & LaForge's on-the-fly kludges that saved the ship this week, never to be used again, regardless of usefulness) and subsequently drop it as if it had never existed, I'd gripe about that too.

Remember when Trills couldn't use teleporters...and then they could? Yep- I complained.

Again- I'm not going to let some writers tell me something is good if it clearly isn't. If I think they (or someone else, for that matter) can do the job better, I'll let them know, if by no other way than by spending my $$$ on something else. If writing is unacceptably bad, regardless of the genre, I won't accept it.

You think you can just say "well, if their powers switched this one time, the surfer would be doing it all the time". That's pretty much a load of nonsense.

No, it isn't nonsense- its a logical response to witnessing the results of the power switch. If the power-switching were something reproduceable, he'd do it every time as a purposeful- probably opening- tactic. It's simply too useful not to do.

The power switch is the exact sort of quirky happenstance that occurred in silver age comics.

And in other eras as well. That doesn't make it good writing any more than Brainiac's pink hot pants was an example of good art.

 

[Bront]

Not quite.

It is an example of a power transfer due to:



and only after that, being imbued with the power cosmic by Big G, and the power's subsequent fade do we get:


It wasn't the power cosmic as used by a Herald- its the slow fade of the power cosmic from a triply-tweeked (initial accident, Reed's switcher, and G's bestowal of the power) being going out of control in an oddball fashion.

That's not use, that's an accident, and its an accident due to an inexperienced wielder losing control of his fading power.

Hardly in the same class as a similar event resulting from dealing with an experienced user of the power.

That's like comparing the results of me driving a Formula 1 racecar for the first time, never having driven a manual transmission, while drunk as compared to a 15 year veteran of the sport. My having some kind of an accident is virtually assured. His having a comperable accident is extremely unlikely.

All I was saying is that the evidence of it potentialy happening is there.

I think you're taking this way to seriously.

 

[Cthulhudrew]

But I can draw reasonable conclusions from what I know of the character & from what I've seen of the changes...and I did.

And I was right.

Not sure what exactly you were right about, having seen the movie. Did the powers switch? Yes. Was it intentional? No. Did it severely impact the story and create plotholes you could drive a train truck through? Not really. The only real problem with it, as I saw it, came when Johnny was somehow able to absorb all the powers at the end, when before he was swapping them. Unexplained, kind of silly, but didn't really ruin the movie or anything.

To look at another relatively recent example, perhaps you recall the outcry about the production of the LoTR movies... There was already going to be a lot of the original left on the cutting room floor (assuming it was even scripted & filmed in the first place) and the torture scene smacked of someone taking undue liberties with the core mythology.

See, here's what I don't get. You originally were complaining that the power switching was just completely out of the nature of the Surfer's comic origins. To which I, and many others, suggested- why not wait and see exactly what the rationale is before bagging on it.

Then you suggested that the Surfer not taking advantage of the power switch and wiping everyone out was, in your terms, a plot hole, because logically- the Surfer should use that advantage to eliminate the competition.

When I suggested that's not in his nature, that he's not a cold-blooded murderer, you then argued this position:

And while he's busy being an accessory, he isn't taking the chance to euthanize those he can, leaving them instead to face the horror of being devoured alive by a being they can scarecely comprehend.

Now, I'll leave the question of whether euthanization is any more or less murder than actual murder to other, more philosophical threads, as the answer really isn't germane here.

What is, is this- the Surfer murdering or euthanizing people isn't in his character as depicted in the comics. Never has been. The only times he's had to take a life, he's regretted it. He even asked Galactus to give him back his moral conscience- taking on years and years of guilt over leading the purple guy to planets to eat- for the sole reason that he felt he needed to bear that responsibility fully.

So, on the one hand, you're complaining that the Surfer's powers are depicted inconsistently with his comic depiction, yet you're suggesting that his character should be changed from his comic persona?

If anything, I'd think the latter choice- making the Surfer a murderer- would elicit far more ire from you (or any fan of the character) than taking some liberties with his powers- which have always been basically "do whatever the writer needs" sort of abilities anyway.

I just don't see any consistency in your arguments here. Particularly when you haven't seen this movie, nor the first one (by your own admission).

 

[Felon]

No, it isn't nonsense- its a logical response to witnessing the results of the power switch. If the power-switching were something reproduceable, he'd do it every time as a purposeful- probably opening- tactic. It's simply too useful not to do.

Again, you should familiarize yourself with the concept of false syllogisms. Your response has many logical shortcomings. For example, your assumption that the effect is reproducable ad infinitum, or that the surfer's only logical options are to do what you surmise he should do. There are countles x-factors you don't know about, and since all you're going by is the clip, you don't how or if they're accounted for.

And in other eras as well. That doesn't make it good writing any more than Brainiac's pink hot pants was an example of good art.

And emphasizing surprises and spectacle over logical consistency doesn't make it bad writing, at least not from any objective sense. You are, of course, entitled to not like what you please, but trying to declare spontaneous power-switching or pink hot pants as "utter garbage" as a matter of unequivocal fact is quite illogical.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Again, you should familiarize yourself with the concept of false syllogisms.

Quite familiar with them, actually.

Your response has many logical shortcomings. For example, your assumption that the effect is reproducable ad infinitum,

No, that's why I said

If the power-switching were something reproduceable, he'd do it every time as a purposeful- probably opening- tactic.

Note the "if" and "probably" qualifiers.

Its effective, efficient, and disoriented- an almost perfect alpha strike. The only problem with it is that it requires close contact.

The strategic potential for the power is so strong that its almost a guaranteed opening tactic. If, and only if, it failed to confuse the target would SS need to do much of anything afterwards beyond a simple zap.

Heck- he doesn't even have to kill them- just disable them so they can't stop him from feeding them and their world to Big G.

or that the surfer's only logical options are to do what you surmise he should do. There are countles x-factors you don't know about, and since all you're going by is the clip, you don't how or if they're accounted for.

Sure, but I can surmise, just like any other human being does (as I illustrated a post ago).

And emphasizing surprises and spectacle over logical consistency doesn't make it bad writing, at least not from any objective sense.

It most certainly does! That is writing 101.

Logical gaps thrust the reader/observer out of his coccoon of willing disbelief. The more of them the reader/observer encounters in a given work, the less immersive and thus the less enjoyable the experience.

You are, of course, entitled to not like what you please, but trying to declare spontaneous power-switching or pink hot pants as "utter garbage" as a matter of unequivocal fact is quite illogical.

No, its an expression of an opinion.

 

[Tarthalion]

Can we PLEASE put this to bed? It's both tiresome and foolish. It's like a schoolyard argument...

 

[fusangite]

This is one of their iconic characters & storylines...and they screw around with it? What's next? Is Galactus going to be a giant Pac-Man?

That would be awesome! I'd love to see them defend the earth from a giant pac-man, especially a heavily pixelated one.

When will Hollywood learn?

Learn what? That pleasing you is more important than pleasing crowds and making money? Never is my guess.

When you're working with an established classic of any genre, you don't need to mess with it.

You want to see Hollywood messing with an "established classic," go watch Cuckoo's Nest or some other thing where they changed the entire theme or structure. Can you explain how the theme of the Fantastic Four could be changed by this detail? If not, I'm not sure this even rises to messing with something.

So, were you one of those guys picketing Fellowship because Tom Bombadil was excised?

Apparently, I'll be ignoring this movie even more than the first one...JOIN ME!

Yeah -- it's really important that I not take this opportunity to oggle Jessica Alba because some detail whose thematic impact you can't even explain was changed. I'm writing to the studio now to propose earth be attacked by a giant Pac-Man in the third movie.

 

[Ralts Bloodthorne]

It's a modern movie.

You buy your ticket, hand your brain to the ticket taker, buy popcorn and soda, and hope you have a good time.

Most people haven't read 40+ years of FF, most people couldn't care less about boring ass Reed Richards are the Visible Woman and her powers. Even the Thing took a back seat to the Green Machine.

And they screwed up a Hulk movie and you're expecting them to stay true to the FF?
They had the Green Goblin die by the glider instead of falling into a chimney, and you're complaining about a 5 minute spot?
They had Harry be Goblin Extreme, all he needed was Mt Dew stickers on that lame board, and your complaining because the Silver Surfer did something new?
They've killed off every Batman villian, and you're worried about FF?

It's a Hollywood movie, expect them to mangle everything.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Apologies in advance- my "living in interesting times" has prevented me from responding...

You buy your ticket, hand your brain to the ticket taker, buy popcorn and soda, and hope you have a good time.

Sorry, I'm a bit pickier than that- I don't check my brain at any door.

And they screwed up a Hulk movie and you're expecting them to stay true to the FF?

I complained about that one too (not on this site).

They've killed off every Batman villian, and you're worried about FF?

Its not like I agreed with those decisions either. A couple of deaths I could understand- not many actors want recurring supporting roles in comic book movies- but wholesale decimation of his rogues gallery? Nah.

It's a Hollywood movie, expect them to mangle everything.

As long as Hollywood is rewarded (via big $$$ box office returns) for mangled storylines, that's all you can expect.

When people stop going to see crappy genre movies instead of supporting them ("...because its our favorite genre!") Hollywood will either stop making them crappily or stop making them.

Either solution is fine with me.

Learn what? That pleasing you is more important than pleasing crowds and making money? Never is my guess.

1) My opinion is neither more nor less important than any other potential ticket purchaser.

2) My guess is that if they actually took the time to do things right they'd rake in even more money because a film would have an even broader appeal. Film-making isn't a zero sum game- you can have your special effects tour de force married to a good script with tasty acting and dialogue- good writing only costs marginally more than bad writing, on average- but as long as bad writing gets rewarded, bad writing is all the studio needs to pay for.

And the thing is, movie studios have proven with movies like Spider Man 1, X-Men, a couple of the DC movies that they can do things right and have blockbusters.

Can we PLEASE put this to bed? It's both tiresome and foolish. It's like a schoolyard argument...

Discussing creative medium is seldom foolish, but if you wish to leave the playground, feel free.