No! No! Baaaaaaad Marvel Comics!

[John Crichton]

So you're saying you never rule out films or books just because of their genre?

You know- do you not read Westerns because they are Westerns? Romance novels because they are Romance novels?

Are there no sections of your local bookstore or library you simply avoid? History? Self-Help? Computer Programming?

None of that is what you are doing here. Actually, you aren't even making sense. Having genre preference is one thing, not liking something after reading the back cover/case blurb is another.

Have you never avoided a film because of a particular casting decision ("Michael Keaton as BATMAN?!?!?! WTF?")?

Nope. I don't follow actors.

And had it had a better script, it might have made even more.

>snip<

As of this point, I have even fewer reasons to see the next FF movie, if there is one.

You have no ground to stand on in regards to the writing of this particular film. You'd have to see it in order to form a proper opinion. The most you can say and retain any credibility is that you didn't like the "writing" in the trailer.

 

[Cthulhudrew]

I might have been able to stomach it if there had been a good reason for it, and the reactions of the characters involved been more believable.

Having stated yourself that you didn't see the first movie, and didn't plan on seeing the second one, how can you say that there wasn't a good reason for the changes or that the reactions of the characters involved weren't believable?

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

None of that is what you are doing here. Actually, you aren't even making sense. Having genre preference is one thing, not liking something after reading the back cover/case blurb is another.

No, rejecting something based on its genre or based on samples of its content are merely differences of scale.

I rejected one movie based on a sample of its content.

You're rejecting an entire style of movies (or books, or whatever medium for which you express a dislike based on a genre preference) based on a smattering of exemplars of the genre you reject.

You have no ground to stand on in regards to the writing of this particular film. You'd have to see it in order to form a proper opinion.

Again, you're saying I can't have an opinion of something without experiencing the whole thing.

I say that that is an intellectually false position.

Humans- all humans- make decisions and form opinions based on incomplete data on a daily basis. What book to get, what meal to order, what car to buy...

Don't believe me? Ask a professional.

Did you read Starship Troopers? Did you see the movie? Did you see the straight-to-DVD sequel? How much info did you need to decide not to read or see the creations in questions? For some, it was a must-see as soon as the first Bugs appeared on screen. For some others, that sentiment was extinguished when they realized that the power-armor suited marines of the books were being replaced by soldiers with equipment essentially indistinguishable from the equipment of today and avoided it. Still others saw the film in the theatres and were disgusted that a sci-fi classic that dealt with politics & war had been reduced to a space soap opera.

(I was in group 2, saw the movie later on TV, and became a member of group 3. The Bugs were good, though.)

When you go to your local book store, you completely bypass all kinds of books to get to your preferred genre. For all you know, one of the books you've passed may be better than the best book you've ever read in your favorite genre...but you'll never know because you don't read books of that kind.

When you get to your favorite genre's section, you don't closely examine every book in minute detail to decide what to buy. You pass over Author A because you read her debut novel and hated it...nevermind that she's changed her style and won a Hugo or 2 in the past 8 years. You pass over Series B because a buddy told you it was a lot like another book you already read and found mediocre...never realizing that Series B was the critically acclaimed original ripped off poorly by that the book you disliked. You pick up Book C in a series because you like that author...nevermind that the book was written while the guy was in heroin rehab and changes everything you liked about the other books in the series with a "twist ending!"

All of these decisions made without complete information.

I saw a clip that I felt was both key and bad and made my decision. Because of that, I missed out on things like a ripoff of The 5th Element (BBEG is essentially a planet-sized cloud), and further mucking with the Surfer's powers (bringing back the dead).

I stand by my decision.

Having stated yourself that you didn't see the first movie, and didn't plan on seeing the second one, how can you say that there wasn't a good reason for the changes or that the reactions of the characters involved weren't believable?

Reread my posts a little more carefully, please.

I did indeed say I didn't see the first movie. I had serious issues with casting of 2 of the main characters, and what I knew of it's script was pretty bad- it had been floating around Hollywood for at least 2 decades, going through numerous rewrites and producing some truly horrible screen tests. When the trailers started to run, I saw nothing to dissuade me of its quality. When the reviews started rolling in (professional AND those of my buds), I continued to have no reason to see it.

However, I explicitly said that I had intended to see this one, right up until the point I saw the power-switch clips.

In one of them, the reason for the switch was stated as being (I paraphrase the voiceover) "contact with the Silver Surfer." This conforms to the source material not one bit.

And, as I stated earlier, the time that Johnny and Sue were confused and the extent to which they were confused in the clip alone was ample enough for them to be taken down by the Surfer (Johnny's being trampled by ordinary citizens, Sue was floating like a glowing baloon in a midway target-shooting game), which the clip also made evident didn't happen.

That simply wasn't believable in my book.

 

[Cthulhudrew]

And, as I stated earlier, the time that Johnny and Sue were confused and the extent to which they were confused in the clip alone was ample enough for them to be taken down by the Surfer (Johnny's being trampled by ordinary citizens, Sue was floating like a glowing baloon in a midway target-shooting game), which the clip also made evident didn't happen.

Yes, the old- "why didn't the Surfer euthanize them" question you raised earlier. Yet when I pointed out that the Surfer doesn't go about killing/euthanizing/whatever you'd like to call it in the comic source material, and that to have him do so on-screen would be just as much alteration of canon as some of the things you are complaining about, you had no response to offer.

 

[John Crichton]

No, rejecting something based on its genre or based on samples of its content are merely differences of scale.

I rejected one movie based on a sample of its content.

You're rejecting an entire style of movies (or books, or whatever medium for which you express a dislike based on a genre preference) based on a smattering of exemplars of the genre you reject.

Yes and the scale makes all the difference. It should also be noted that I don't express a dislike for any genres out there, I have preferences towards them and leave myself open to suggestions for other genres.

Again, you're saying I can't have an opinion of something without experiencing the whole thing.

I say that that is an intellectually false position.

Humans- all humans- make decisions and form opinions based on incomplete data on a daily basis. What book to get, what meal to order, what car to buy...

Don't believe me? Ask a professional.

> snipped some stuff about a bad movie <

I saw a clip that I felt was both key and bad and made my decision. Because of that, I missed out on things like a ripoff of The 5th Element (BBEG is essentially a planet-sized cloud), and further mucking with the Surfer's powers (bringing back the dead).

I stand by my decision.

You can see it as making this choice and stand by it all you want. The devil in the details of your presentation. You are presenting a position of staunch opposition and trying to present arguments about a film you have yet to see based off comic book canon, which is oxymoronic to start with.

It's not about the choice not to see based on a sampling, not the way you have presented yourself here. You are also so That Guy.

 

[Piratecat]

Stop.

Passive aggressive vitriol is still vitriol. Please don't be rude to people, and don't take the subject so personally that you're tempted to attack folks who disagree with you.

Thanks! As always, email me if you wish to discuss this.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Yes, the old- "why didn't the Surfer euthanize them" question you raised earlier <snip> you had no response to offer.

Sorry if I forgot to expand upon that- my bad. Allow me to rectify that omission.

Killing and/or euthanizing defeated opponents- while logical for someone who is setting the table for another to commit global genocide- may or may not be allowable within the Surfer's ethical considerations. We don't know if he has ever killed an opponent in combat on any of the worlds he lead Galactus to previous to his trip to Earth. Similarly, we don't know what he would do if he faced flying opposition (be they powerful beings like himself or the FF, or pilots of attack air/space craft) and defeated them in air/space. Did he rescue them or did he abandon them to their fate? We simply don't know.

But depending upon the answer, the confused, flaming, floating Sue Storm could have been zapped and left to fall to Earth...

Still, taking them down and immobilizing/imprisoning them would be well within his ethical considerations.

After all, his responsibilities as Herald of Galactus are essentially:

1) Find life-bearing planets for G to consume.

2) If neccessary, pacify the locals.

3) Repeat.

Taking down two powerful opponents while they are vulnerable would be part of the second set of duties. Finding a way to keep them from returning to battle once defeated would make his job- which we know he finds distasteful- go that much easier.

It could be something as simple as putting them into a coma (multiple methods exist- BFT to the head & causing concussion, oxygen deprivation, etc.) or as complex as manipulating matter at the molecular level to encase them in some kind of prison impervious to their abilities.

Instead, he semi-defeats his opponents and leaves them hale enough to return to the battlefield.

If Earth had been his first stop after Zenn-La, I could see that kind of mistake being made. But it wasn't- he's experienced at what he does for Galactus...yet he acts like a n00b.

 

[Ankh-Morpork Guard]

If Earth had been his first stop after Zenn-La, I could see that kind of mistake being made. But it wasn't- he's experienced at what he does for Galactus...yet he acts like a n00b.

And here's the crux of the problem...

You never saw the movie. How do you know that?

 

[Hypersmurf]

But depending upon the answer, the confused, flaming, floating Sue Storm could have been zapped and left to fall to Earth...

But the Surfer wasn't even there when Sue was confused, flaming, and floating.

The Surfer didn't have the ability to switch people's powers; he apparently had the ability to destabilise someone's molecules so that they would switch powers with someone they touched. So in order to 'use' this to cause a confused, flaming, and floating Sue in the middle of a fight, he'd first have to destabilise Jonny's molecules, and then arrange for Jonny to touch Sue.

How do you arrange for someone who can fly to touch someone who can create force fields, against their will, in the middle of a combat, so reliably that it becomes your standard tactic (at least, standard when facing a group of opponents who include someone who can fly and someone who can create force fields)?

-Hyp.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

If Earth had been his first stop after Zenn-La, I could see that kind of mistake being made. But it wasn't- he's experienced at what he does for Galactus...yet he acts like a n00b.

And here's the crux of the problem...

You never saw the movie. How do you know that?

More clips.

In one they note that there is a trail of planets that go poof, with the implication that Earth is next, including meaningful glances and ominous music. (If this scene was left out of the movie and just used for trailers/clips- as does occasionally happen- then its their fault for misleading me. It helped turn me from a potential viewer to a definite no-show.).

It isn't that I decided not to see the film on the strength of one clip. Like I said, the first trailer I saw made me want to see this film. However, the power-switch one disgusted me (clearly) and subsequent ones cemented my decision not to see the film.

But the Surfer wasn't even there when Sue was confused, flaming, and floating.

According to Marvel canon, his eyesight & attack capability would effectively be horizon to horizon in a planetary atmosphere, and even better outside of it- he has attacked planet-bound targets from orbit.

A distracted target not facing him (Sue was facing a window) wouldn't be much of a challenge.

If he wasn't even in the range of his own eyesight after initiating the power-switch, it introduces another plot hole in the form of him being a poor tactitian. (see below)

The Surfer didn't have the ability to switch people's powers; he apparently had the ability to destabilise someone's molecules so that they would switch powers with someone they touched. <snip> How do you arrange for someone who can fly to touch someone who can create force fields, against their will, in the middle of a combat, so reliably that it becomes your standard tactic?

Standard opening tactic.

It isn't that you arrange for someone who flies to touch someone who can create force fields...you just need any 2 foes with differing abilities.

Methodology: Choose initial target, destabilize their powers (disabling target if neccessary), then throw or otherwise cause contact with initial target with secondary target. Repeat if you can. Use resultant confusion to your advantage.

Even a simple risk/reward analysis makes it a stellar opening gambit. It won't work every time, but its potential payoff is great. And if your opponents don't figure it out, all the better- repeat it. The only times you really wouldn't want to use it is if you had some reason to believe that your opponents were somehow immune to it (intangibility, you're facing an Elder, etc.) or were aware of your destabilization ability (faced them before, hivemind, whatever), thus reducing its potential efficacy.

It is a well known military maxim that wounding/disabling an opponent can often be more effective than killing them. If you kill one opponent, you have eliminated one opponent. If you disable an opponent, it typically removes 2-4 others from the fight as they tend to their downed comrade- rendering first aid, removing him from the battlefield, or otherwise shielding him from further harm.

If (as discussed above) the Surfer didn't stick around to take advantage of the power switch he initiated, he's an idiot- either he gave up the chance to take out at least 2 opponents with relative ease or he had no idea that this destabilization ability would disrupt the combat effectiveness of the targets involved...in which case why do it?