Gatsby77

I disagree with the premise that most of the critics are just arguing against the whitewashing. Rather, what I've read are legitimate criticisms that the story's just not as interesting or compelling as the previous Marvel Netflix shows, let alone a lot of the other TV options available. And that Finn Jones just isn't a strong enough actor, particularly compared to the previous Marvel leads. My favorite television critics are from The AV Club (The Onion). Here's excerpts from the first 6-episode review. And - at 5 episodes in, I tend to agree: http://www.avclub.com/review/blandness-iron-fists-greatest-enemy-251943 Iron Fist "which spends a curious amount of time in a boardroom for a show about a guy who obtained his powers by sticking his fist into the heart of a dragon. But, please, tell us more about how important your real estate holdings are, Rand executives." "the drama, such as it is, plays out in a punishingly dull manner; the corporate intrigue is telegraphed instead of hinted at, and the hostile takeovers are literal." "If you’re actually familiar with and/or interested in this third-tier hero, then you’ve come for the high-flying action and heroic feats. And the scripts certainly call for them, but when the fights do unfold, they don’t pack much of a punch. They’re by-the-numbers brawls full of mostly interchangeable and unworthy adversaries." "A more charismatic lead might have been able to buoy the leaden characterization, but Jones’ presence here is so bland that it does little to perk up the often workmanlike proceedings. The Game Of Thrones alum doesn’t have a handle on the role; he summons the same hurt, confused look when dealing with Ward and Joy as well as the show’s heavy, Madame Gao." The episode-by-episode critiques (they're doing one per day, so three are up so far) tend to reflect the initial sentiments above (esp. criticism of the midling writing & Jones' acting, although in much greater detail. For episode 3, which the reviewer thought was the strongest of the first trio: At one point Danny declares to Colleen, “I haven’t broken any laws.” Umm, what about the time you purchased and used a fraudulent passport, physically assaulted the guards of Rand Enterprises, broke into Rand Enterprises, trespassed in Joy’s house, attempted to steal Ward’s car, and escaped your mandatory stay in a psych ward by literally destroying one of the building’s walls? Danny self-righteously telling Joy and Ward, “I have Hogarth now!” made me burst into laughter, which I don’t think was the desired response. I still think it's interesting and I'm going to finish the series, but I think it's important that we comics fans be honest that the show that it could have been leagues better with a few basic tweaks to the casting and writing. And it does us all a disservice to hide behind "critics are just annoyed Danny's not Asian and don't get that the character never was" when the _vast_ majority of the critiques go well beyond that and judge the show are far more legitimate grounds.

I just got back from seeing Logan for the second time (first time I've done that for any X-film since X2), and it holds up. But the real shocker of that headline is Beauty & the Beast hitting a $170 million weekend in March. a) Take that, BvS b) Day-um c) Guess Emma Watson shouldn't feel so bad now about getting replaced in La La Land.

What's her character's name? That scene rules and is probably her best role, but her name? It's been awhile.

Yeah - he gets a lifetime pass from me for having written The Usual Suspects and Way of the Gun. And he's now Tom Cruise's go-to guy, having written Valkyrie, Jack Reacher, Edge of Tomorrow, Mission Impossible 5 & 6, and The Mummy. You can say what you want about latter Cruise, but I enjoyed all of those listed that have been released so far.

This was my _favorite_ TV show when I was really young (like, ages 3-6). And Chris McQuarrie hasn't directed (or written) a bad movie yet!

Just finished episode 1. Liked it better than Jessica Jones so far, but it took me more than half the episode for me to get over his blatant stupidity in Pure laziness on behalf of the writers and _really_ took me out of the story. Meanwhile, Still, I'm curious to see where this goes & am starting episode 2 now.

The main problem I had with that article is it seemed the author was mostly pissed that it wasn't a straight adaptation of Old Man Logan. And that Logan himself couldn't be world-weary without having himself caused the Westchester disaster. As someone who never read Old Man Logan, I wasn't bothered by either of these things. The story worked on its own -- apparently better if you weren't expecting the source material. It's like misplaced nerd rage if the movie isn't an exact reproduction of the comic book storyline to the screen, even if the story itself as adapted to the screen works better. And it's one of the reasons I love Iron Man 3 - the Mandarin twist was _brilliant_, even if it caused a legion of comic nerds so much butt-hurt. I thought Iron Man 3 was absolutely brilliant - little kid Christmas and all, until the final scene, where (IIRC) Gwyneth Paltrow gets turned into an immortal Iron Woman. _That_ was stupid. But the Mandarin? Brilliant.

Yeah - but I'm not sure that each fight with the Reavers didn't advance the plot. As a road buddy movie, I was reminded of Thelma and Louise -- mostly because the character arcs were similar. In Logan, both Logan and Professor X started with little to live for, and then found that will, and redemption, through Laura & trying to get her across the border while being relentlessly pursued by the Reavers. In Thelma and Louise, a trapped housewife and bored waitress found redemption, and a life's purpose, through trying to get across the border while being relentlessly pursued by an FBI agent. Point is, you can argue that the action scenes in both films were repetitive and didn't each specifically advance the plot. But the key is in both films the cumulative effect of those scenes led to the protagonists' ultimate character changes. For instance,

Curious - what screenplay books would you recommend? I've read Straczynski's -- but it was published more than 15 years ago and focused primarily on his work for Murder, She Wrote and Babylon 5. And William Goldman's two books, although the second one (Which Lie Did I Tell?) was better, if only for the hilarious chapter on Ghost and the Darkness.

Also - kudos to James Mangold - who was credited not only as director, but primary screenwriter and producer on this. I've loved him going all the way back to Heavy & Girl, Interrupted, and have seen all of his films except Cop Land. Two questions: 1) Having not read the comics story, are we to believe this different enoough that it wasn't based on Old Man Logan after all? Notably, I saw Mark Millar wasn't credited as one of the three writers on this film, the way he was for Civil War. 2) To the extent a mutant extinction event was alluded to (the "Westchester" thing), it was Professor X, not Logan responsible. Right?

Wait, so you didn't like Manchester by the Sea for the same reason? I think the "defeated protagonist with no direction" worked in both films. Esp. in Manchester by the Sea. For me, the apex of that film was when his ex-wife runs into him in the street and has a meltdown, saying she wants him back. And he just looks at her, essentially shrugs, says "there's nothing there" and walks off. Affleck absolutely deserved his Oscar, because so much of his performance was wordless - encoded in his facial expressions alone. Also, the "aimless and relunctant hero thrown once again into action and redeemed by a woman" trope is basically every western ever -- or at least most of the Clint Eastwood spaghetti westerns. So I think it fits here, esp. with folks who say Logan's more a western than a superhero flick. BTW, I'm a _huge_ Wolverine fan. And I thought Logan was amazing, but not the *best* comic film ever. Probably top 5, somewhere among The Dark Knight, Winter Soldier, Men in Black, Spider-Man 2, Ghost in the Shell, and History of Violence.

This. There have been 4 Fantastic Four movies. At a certain point, you need to admit it's just not a property that a) translates well to the screen or b) with modern (as opposed to 1960s) audiences. The only reasons I'd like to see the property sold (or leased) to Marvel is it will be hard to watch Infinity War without The Silver Surfer. Even if they bring in Warlock, Surfer's role was pivotal (and awesome). I also like what could be done with Kang.

And yet, now we forever have to refer to Suicide Squad as Academy Award-winning Suicide Squad. Right up there with Academy Award winner Eminem and Academy Award winners Three 6 Mafia.

Russell Crowe would own in this role. Also - why would they be looking to re-cast Domino? Doesn't Vanessa become Domino (or at least Copycat), making Morena Baccarin the default choice?

You get that I *want* these movies to be good, right? But for us to go from the Nolan trilogy to the mess-sandwiches that were BvS and Suicide Squad was unconscionable. BvS is lucky that "Hillary's America" was released last year, otherwise it would have swept the Razzies.

You recall that we've already seen Batgirl on the big screen, right? I think I'd prefer Oracle (yeah - I know she was in Birds of Prey, but it'd be different seeing her on the big screen in a solid crime thriller).

Hah! It's good news. No need for spin, you rube.

Agreed. Given that Nolan was able to produce (really good) films between his Batman chapters, I don't understand this reasoning with Reeves. What other directors have been locked into (effective) NDAs while doing a film series? Maybe Peter Jackson with LOTR? Even that doesn't seem likely since I thought it was Jackson's passion project to begin with, thus his choice.

Is Starlog still around? I discovered it with the epic 10th Anniversary of Star Wars issue back in '87, and that issue is part of what inspired me to start collecting comics. It was also how my friends & I kept up with the latest gossip re. Star Trek: The Next Generation.

Nope - still hard to spin this as positive. Warner Bros. isn't my client, but you think they're happy with these headlines? Sure. It could be just a negotiation tactic on Reeves' part. But perception drives reality and it's still not good news. Most directors out there would give their eye teeth to direct a prestige big-budget tentpole like The Batman. That there's this much drama (and active push-back by multiple would-be directors) despite that = rebuttable presumption that it's a mess. This is beginning to sound like Gambit. You know, that film that was supposed to debut this fall (just like The Batman was supposed to come out in 2018)? Oh never mind - Channing Tatum's just *negotiating* his fee for that one -- ensure it doesn't conflict with Magic Mike III. Sure...

Sorry, Bosco. Hard to spin two directors dropping out within 3 weeks. But you go, man. Keep trying! This is beginning to look The Flash. But don't worry - it's got a long way to go before it becomes James Cameron's Spider-Man or Tim Burton's Superman Lives...

I'd be interested to know what Fabian Niceza was making in 1990-1991. At one point he was writing New Warriors, Alpha Flight and The Avengers, and then added New Mutants/X-Force to the roster.

I think they should get Denis Villeneuve. He's got a rock-solid reputation so far with Prisoners, Sicario, and Arrival, and I think he'll knock it out of the park with Blade Runner 2.

I was surprised by how "meh" this one was. The first Jack Reacher film was shockingly good. This one was absolutely unmemorable, but for maybe two scenes with the girl (not Cobie -- the actual teen girl).