CaptainFoamerang
-
Posts
1484 -
Joined
-
Quote:Oh I wasn't saying that the costumed folk that the story in the OP is about have formal training. I was saying that the grandmas and other feel-good vigilantes that make it on the news have just as little training.Originally Posted by Smersh
For any given person, unless they live a cursed life? Chances of running across something like that more than once are pretty slim. (Unless, of course, you work in a profession that brings you into contact with that sort of thing more often, like police work or what have you. I'll focus on people who work in offices.) If you go out actively looking for crime, you're much more likely to find it. And if you're wearing armor and carrying weapons, even non-lethal ones, I really have to look askance at that. Going looking for trouble is very different than trouble happening across your path.
And to claim that Phoenix Jones has 'formal training' is pretty darned disingenuous.
I'm not saying you should let crime go. I'm saying that, if you want to go looking for crime to give yourself an excuse to be a hero, bust heads or whatever, maybe you should consider trying to join your local police force and get some real training and the ability to call in for backup.
I'm also saying it's more than a little inconsistent to laud those crime-stoppers who make it for good fluff pieces on the evening news while saying we should discourage people from actively getting involved in stopping crimes where they find them.
I do agree that it's best to get involved in a more formal manner such as looking into becoming a cop or volunteering for programs to better a community, since I'm not in a position where I would be willing to have my family wonder if I'm coming home that night over and over again. And I'm commenting more on our culture's views of what constitutes acceptable levels of vigilantism than what's being said on these boards, so I hope no one's taking offense. -
Quote:But the thing is you never know if it's the right place and the right time. You can never be sure that the criminal doesn't have a gun or a psychotic history of cannibalism. We can't look at the person in the costume and write them off as a troublemaker just because they're consistent about their approach to crime-stopping while excusing similar acts of vigilantism when it's an old woman.Originally Posted by Starjammer
No, it's not unfair. If some guy sticks a gun in my face and demands that I hand over my wallet, then whatever comes of it is his fault. I can decide whether to defuse the situation by handing over the wallet or escalate it by fighting back; that choice is my responsibility. But if the difference between me actually getting shot or not is because some third guy decides to play hero, then he gets a whopping share of responsibility as well.
What the old lady in the video did was brave and commendable but it was also insane. And doing something like that in London is a far cry from doing it in the U.S., where the likelihood of the criminal being armed and violent is much higher.
And as has already been mentioned, there's a difference between being in the right/wrong place at the right/wrong time and going looking for trouble. -
Quote:So it's okay to do the right thing and intervene when you see a crime happening even though you don't have formal training but only, er, so long as you do it occasionally? Every other time you should just let it go?Originally Posted by Smersh
One's a person who just did the right thing at the right time.
One's a person who's looking for trouble and came prepared for it. -
Quote:Yes there is, but would we be unfairly attributing a larger portion of that blame to the citizen who intervenes because they're wearing a costume?Originally Posted by Starjammer
I wouldn't disagree that it would ultimately be the mugger's fault. But there is such a thing as pouring gasoline on the fire, otherwise known as contributory negligence.
For example, when we look at something like this, we'll probably say, "That's awesome!" but if were a person in costume would we just call them a jackass and practically say that the crime-stopper was just as much to blame as the criminals? -
Quote:In that case I would still say it's the mugger's fault and they were likely to get violent upon meeting any resistance anyway.Originally Posted by Starjammer
There's plenty of safe, legal ways to help and protect people without endangering yourself or others, most especially the person you're trying to help. And if anybody wants to wear a costume while doing so, fine by me.
But this guy is attacking "career" criminals. Even if he doesn't get killed in the act, eventually one is going to come looking for revenge.
His own safety aside, how should he feel if a mugging victim or an innocent bystander gets shot while he's trying to show off? -
They're going to renew Supernatural again? Don't get me wrong, I love the show, but c'mon folks, you already had them fight the devil and you're giving them another season to scratch out a happy ending for the Winchesters. Go out with dignity and don't risk a big quality drop.
-
I thought Fringe was cancelled a long time ago.
-
linkage
Thoughts?
I don't know if they'll go with the older Lex Luthor route or have him play Pa Kent. I think either of those is better than Jor-El, though.
What about Perry White? Hmm . . .
*EDIT*
Forgot the question mark at the end of the title. >.< -
Quote:Er name one sci-fi movie with Will Smith for which you can solely assign the blame for its creative or commercial failure on him and not, say, the screenwriter or director.Originally Posted by The_Dude73
Oh yeah it is
-
It's great that we're actually getting a discussion out of this and that was pretty much what I was hoping for with the original post, but I just wanted to touch on something real quick before I let the rest of the forum take this topic and run with it some more.
It doesn't seem like the argument of racial diversity vs established origins is going to get us anywhere in this particular case. I mean, you're going to have people saying that race in general isn't that big of a deal because for the most part it plays little into the character's background. Then you're going to have others come back by saying that race is just as defining as any other trait of the character and therefore must be preserved. Then the other side can just as easily say that there are going to be aspects of a character that's been around longer than most of us have been alive that are unsavory or simply leave a bad taste it one's mouth, and if we can salvage or rectify those elements then we should. Finally, we get back to the other guys saying that if it's okay to change that then nothing is sacred and if everything's on the table then why use that character in the first place.
I think we should be looking at it in a much more focused manner. If we get too distracted by any racial issues affecting our society we'll be talking about it forever. The reason I brought up Lois Lane in the first place is because the greatest compliment I can pay a woman is to say they're like Lois Lane. You know the type. They're willful and they stand up for what they believe in and they won't stand for injustice. That's what I think of when Lois Lane comes to mind; I think of a woman with strength and brilliance who takes those things and puts them to work in the name of something good. I think of a woman who represents some of the very best aspects of humankind and couldn't help but attract the love of a man who could literally have any female in the universe. That, not her physical appearance, is what I believe is iconic about Lois Lane.
And I believe finding an actress who can effectively pull that off and make it so no one even questions why Superman would love Lois Lane should be the focus.
So I guess to rephrase the original question: when you think of Lois Lane, what kind of affect would her being black have on what comes to mind? -
Quote:There's that word again.Originally Posted by Forbin_Project
Be as cynical as you want. I'm not the one suggesting another persons intellectual property should be changed because of my personal prejudices.
-
Quote:Well I'm not saying that it would necessarily change Clark/Superman's perception of Lois, but what about the other supporting characters? What about his parents? What about Pete? What about Jimmy and Perry?Originally Posted by Smersh
As to the OP - it entirely depends upon the setting for the movie. In a 'historical' Superman where he lands in Kansas in the 1930s, Lois' being black would be a big deal. If it was set in a more modern era (Clark lands in Kansas in 1980 and is working in Metropolis in the present day) I like to think that it would be a non-issue. Superman is supposed to be a true believer in America, and I don't think Lois' appearance would affect his relationship in any way.
Not to mention that Superman is a multinational figure in the DCU, so how would it affect his reception at all, what with Lois being known as "Superman's girlfriend?" -
I was hoping we'd get a few more posts into this without someone posting that. >.>
And if there's any superhero movie where the love interest actually adds to it, I think it's Superman. I believe Superman's relationship with Lois says a lot about who he is and his connection to humanity. It's no mistake that pretty much all the stories where Lois gets killed or Superman is otherwise without her that he becomes a ****** or villain. -
There've been times in the casting process for superhero films that folks have brought up the possibility of the hero being cast as a different nationality, but what about race? And what if were the love interest? Not just any love interest, but the love interest of the most iconic superhero in the world?
Besides the fact that I think Rachel McAdams should get cast as Lois Lane in Man of Steel, are we being too restrictive by only looking at white actresses? As I watch the fourth season of Friday Night Lights and get a regular dose of Jurnee Smollett, I can't help but think about the black actresses over the years that have had that certain fire that Lois Lane needs.
How would this affect the relationship between Lois and Clark/Superman, considering their courtship spanned decades? And should it have an effect at all?
Just something that popped into my head . . . -
Quote:The problem with that is if the only thing they're going to be able to really change is using shiny CGI everywhere, it could be hard to turn a profit, especially if a lot of folks already have fond memories of the original and vote with their wallets by skipping this.Originally Posted by sleestack
I'm just guessing here, but I think the point is to make money. Large amounts of money.
-
Quote:Yeah but does a cosmetic upgrade to his HUD and rewording of his central programming really necessitate a whole new movie? I mean, what's the point if they already hit the themes and emotional tones they were shooting for?Originally Posted by Nericus
An update to the LCD interface and targeting graphics would be standard. Also a faster CPU for processing data would be good. Remember when he bashes the door to the drug lab where Boddicker was cutting that deal and after he gives his warning "Come quietly or there will be....trouble!" Everyone is firing on him for about a minute or two before he starts moving into the lab and ripping them apart. C'mon Robo, we know you had them all target locked, GO GET EM!
Also his Prime Directives:
1. Serve the Public Trust
2. Protect the Innocent
3. Uphold the Law
....hm. Is it me or is one and three pretty much the same? Isn't upholding the law serving the public?
Then there is Directive 4 where he can't take action against OCP personnel.....so if Dick Jones has a gun pointed at some innocent citizen of the city instead of the CEO, wouldn't Directives 1, 2 and 3 be able to override Directive 4? Then again in Prime Directives, Robo was sabotaged and reprogrammed with a new Directive 4 to kill John Cable and he was suffering massive systemic damage from the directives conflict.
It just seems like his Directives are more hindrance then anything. -
Quote:Ugh, what's the point if there's absolutely no chance that this thing is ever going to get to Earth?Originally Posted by Agonus
Humor aside, more'n likely not. Unless Alonzo changes the previous "rule" that cosmic Marvel was essentially it's own pocket setting that barely affected what happened on Earth.
I hope it's not going to go down as another Kree/Skrull War where everyone talks about it's this huge things that happened yet it had like zero effect on the planet. -
Quote:Definitely. It was be tragic if they messed with the suit. And they already incorporated some fairly advanced software concepts with Robocop's tech, so, really, there isn't much room for improvement at all.Originally Posted by Agonus
I'm far from an expert on such matters, but I think it holds up partially because they used an actual suit. The stiff, slow movements helped with the "yeah, that's an experimental cyborg" illusion of the whole thing.
Ye gods, unless they get like... Del Toro's people, a Robocop remade these days will be another cgi monstrosity, probably bouncing around like Yoda/'Zilla too.
-
Bela Legosi ***** my childhood love of Dracula.
-
Quote:It does seem kind of ironic that they would raise money for this when the city is hurting economically and financial strife played heavily into the films.Originally Posted by Nericus
Just what is not needed. Nothing against Robocop and I'm sure it will be a great looking statue......but still.....
>.> -
Quote:Reading fail.Originally Posted by Skullseye
Quote:Originally Posted by Kelenar
If you folks haven't seen, some fans also took that quote of Fillion's about how he'd buy the franchise if he won the lottery... and decided to see if they could raise enough money to buy it for him. -
Quote:They'd probably find a way to spend $13M on doing CGI instead of stop motion for that evil version of Robocop.Originally Posted by Starflier
The benefits of not having to pay 15 million to some big name actor to headline the cast.
-
Quote:And it's pretty crazy to think of what they did with just $13M back then, since, again, it does hold up pretty well.Originally Posted by Starflier
According to IMDB, it made $53+ million off a $13 million budget. Not too shabby.
-
Quote:If it's that simple then the cast and crew could pool their money and become executive producers or something.Originally Posted by Kelenar
If you folks haven't seen, some fans also took that quote of Fillion's about how he'd buy the franchise if he won the lottery... and decided to see if they could raise enough money to buy it for him.
-
Quote:Did the original even do well at the box office?Originally Posted by Starflier
The biggest issue will be the violence. Commercial success pretty much demands a non-R rating and the original was violent as all hell. Not sucking may also be a challenge.
I was in diapers at the time. >.>