SuperOz

If so, then that further emphasises my point.


S.

Trying to hop back on track here....

Visually, I think only a few of the truly signature characters need a lot of revamping; as others have said, a number of the characters have achieved a level of iconic status by being distinctive and unique. Ghost Widow, Back Alley Brawler, and Statesman definitely qualify here.

Ghost Widow simply qualifies because she represents her name perfectly: when you see her, she looks like a ghost, she has a spider-themed costume piece, and she has an otherworldly quality about her.

Back Alley Brawler looks the part: tank top, jeans, sunglasses, big tough looking guy with these metal gauntlet things.

And Statesman: He's the iconic superhero image, cape and all. The faceplate is what distinguishes him, though I wouldn't mind seeing it being something of a half-helmet, a little like the 'proper' version you see Captain America wearing in the current movie. Not just magically adhering to his face. Maybe a little retexturing wouldn't go astray on the costume, maybe a faint rendering of blue scales ala Captain America? I guess I mean to say to modernize the textures of his costume rather than redesign it.

Some others:

Lord Recluse: Without a doubt, second in line for being pure visual iconicness. I think the only thing that doesn't seem to make any sense visually is his fur/hair collar, which I've not understood in context to the rest of the costume.

Captain Mako: Could the costume become skin and therefore more representative of an actual mutated shark person? Even a faint texturing to give him a slightly more 'leathery' skin would enhance him tremendously, very much like the texturing he has on this very forum page.

Synapse: There's only so many 'lightning' styles you can go with for speedsters but Synapse does very well, but he's obviously at his best visually when moving.

But who doesn't come off very well visually for mine?

Sister Psyche: Her costume's always been a bit muddled for me. The shoulder hoop-cuff-whatever they are seem out of place, and it seems like at times the top is at odds with the pants. Sure, she can still continue to be revealing, but maybe just in some new way that conveys who and what she is.

Manticore: Almost visually iconic. His headpiece sells him, but the rest of the costume doesn't feel fleshed out. If I didn't know who he was, I'd be thinking he was some sort of Scrapper rather than an Archer. There's nothing there to give me some sense of the character.

Positron: Although the tech glow was way ahead of its time on his armor, the armor itself has dated badly thanks to movies like Iron Man and many, many video games that have stylish power armor characters. If those parts (particularly the helmet and shoulders) could be given a 'future retro' look (by which I reference media such as Tron: Legacy and of course Iron Man) where the look is sleek and semi-functional, Positron would stand out, especially being the sole armored hero of the Phalanx.

Citadel and Luminary: For pretty much the same reasons. Luminary's armor has been made reflective, but she's not distinctive from a player character in that regard. Same with Citadel. Again, the smooth retro tech look would work here.

It's really hard to fault the Praetorian signature characters here aside from where they look visually very similar to their Primal counterparts (Anti-Matter, for one) but Siege and Nightstar are genuine standouts.

I think any time you can look at a character and just by a simple few visual cues identify them almost immediately, you've done your job making them iconic and truly memorable. If that can be done here as you're looking to do, then I'd be personally very happy.


S.

I dunno...there is a bit of unnecessary Dev-bashing going on here for mine. This is clearly art from an issue that's in Beta, and yet with that in mind, there's an uproar for what is probably an early version of that very concept.

I don't mind people commenting on stuff, but there's Beta phases in place for this very reason. Undoubtedly the testers are commenting and have commented on these changes, and whilst it's fine to be vocal about things, it's not fine to brand the developers and artists and all the people who clearly work their collective butts off as being out of touch with the playerbase.

If that were the case, I think there would be vastly more things to be upset about, such as the move to the hybrid model, the loss of Galaxy City and the Market, rather than the overwhelmingly positive response to the new powersets that have been long requested and an incredibly open and transparent discussion about just what said hybrid model will mean for everyone.

The short version: cut them slack. Everyone, and I include myself as well as every single person who frequents this board, make mistakes. Sometimes they're deliberate, and sometimes they're well-intentioned. I agree with Positron personally; the CoT are nine years old and they could use a makeover. However, I don't pretend to know that what we've seen is their finished form and moreover, whether it's something players can have. I do know however that we cannot have the costumes the current CoT have because it's been well-documented that the robed look essentially has no legs. What you see is what you get in the CoT model. It can't physically be given to us.

Do I think it entirely reflects the Thorns? I think yes and no. The visual thorn part is fine, it just lacks the mystical side of things that obviously robes and hoods would lend to. I already suggested the Magic Booster with its great range of cloaks, hoods and parts is tailor-made for this and it'd support any suggestion that this new stuff becomes available to players down the road.

But seriously...more constructive discussion and less bashing, please. I've come to expect a certain maturity when it comes to our forum discussions and it'd be nice to see that continue.



S.

This was courtesy of an SGmate on our private forums, but I think it illustrates the point; it's very clear they desaturated the colors, for what reason I have no idea, but here's a clear comparison. Btw, I do have to amend my statement from before....there is something on the upper thigh and the wrists have some sort of scalloped cuff.



S.

Couple of things; that promotional shot is desaturated with regards to color; there's another photo that is purportedly the unmodified shot and the blues and reds are much richer, as they should be.

The scale effect is there for contrast; a simple suit ala Christopher Reeve's would have no depth or texture for the light to play off of and you can see in this picture that there is in this costume. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but it works for their purpose.

Is his hair a bit big? Yes, but this could be just a promo shot before he gets his hair a bit shorter for the actual role. There's no indication I can see that it has tights or not, either. There's also nothing on his leg, it's just the play of light and shadow.

I'd also point out these are more vivid colors than Superman Returns, which had a very muted palette.


S.

Given how the coat looks, I suspect that this was the crew blocking out the scene and rehearsing. Note the rest of the people in these pictures, looking unconcerned and talking. If this was actual filming, they'd be reacting in some way or another to the character, but that's clearly crew closest to him.

Early days.


S.

The devs have said before it'd require a rework of the basic model of the figures, which in turn would require a rework of every single costume part that uses both hands and feet. The VEAT models got made to accomodate them, and you've seen how well (or not) those have turned out.

You can't 'just replace' these things. Every change has an impact on other systems. If they can change this, they will, but you'll note in the more recent hand/feet pieces they've done a lot to add definition to them. I mean seriously...what do you want? Finger waggling?


S.

Well, a gal's gotta have a career post-sparkle. We shall see.


S.

This is a show I'm into a bit, to be honest. It liberally grabs everyone and everything in its continuity and isn't afraid to have celebrity voices, like James Masters as Mister Fantastic and George Takei as Galactus!

It's definitely aimed at kids and apparently has its own spinoff web-based MMO, but don't be fooled. There's some adult humor and fourth wall breaking that goes on continually, the best being a running gag about something happening between Iron Man and She-Hulk...and oh! MARK HAMILL as the Red Skull in a beautiful bit of over the top acting.

It's barely half an hour long and something you can watch with your kids.


S.

Anything was better than the 1990's movie. When the lead actor is visibly wearing padding to fill out his shirts, wearing rubber ears on the mask, and the shield's the star of the show, and Christopher Lee was in the second 1979 movie...

1979.



S.

I got mine as I'm already on Facebook for friends and family purposes.

And guys, you do not have to sign up as yourself. If you wanted to, you could sign up as Arcanaville or Steelclaw or Samuraiko with a hotmail address (they count as valid) and you're set. I know more than a few folks who have CoH character FB pages just for fun.

And if you're on as yourself, you can change your privacy settings if you're concerned about security. MMO's, video games, all sorts of things are using Facebook for exclusive promotions and giveaways. It's just the way of things in the era of social media.


S.

Well, I own both the movies to date and I always find it a shame that they can't keep a consistent lead actor for the role. If Edward Norton hadn't been reportedly so very difficult on Incredible, I would've been very pleased to see his Banner go to the big screen again.

But there's plusses and minuses on both films. On Hulk, the plusses are the visual style and the obvious thought given to the character of not only Banner but those around him. Betty is elevated to a scientist character, General Ross is a military man but not a brute, and Talbot is an ambitious guy whose greed exceeds his reach.

The Hulk himself is superb. Capable of real emotion and excellent physicality (my personal highlight will always remain the leaping through the desert scene, it's just perfect Hulk for me) and he fights dirty with the Hulk dogs. Eric Bana plays his sense of repressed rage brilliantly and Nick Nolte in rare form as his foil is just wonderfully unhinged.

On the minus side of things, we have the Hulk Dogs (really unnecessary) and just a real lack of resolution. Having the Hulk's rage manifest in Absorbing Man/Banner was anti-climactic. The comic book panel style of storytelling was a distinct visual choice to make and it works sometimes, it doesn't work others. The major problem here was reinterpreting the character's roots and trying to make it a properly adult movie, which is fine, but even Christopher Nolan realised you needed a Batman Begins before you could do a Dark Knight.

Overall, Hulk is a flawed and ambitious movie, but when it gets it right, it gets it perfectly.

Incredible Hulk sort of goes the other way. The casting is a huge plus; Ed Norton is the Banner I think many people have in their minds' eye. Vastly intelligent, tortured by his power, wanting to get rid of it rather than harness it. No massive repressed childhood trauma, just a guy who can get really angry, and the gamma affecting his amygalda in his brain is a simple and effective explanation. Liv Tyler is a great and passionate Betty, and John Hurt's desperate General Ross is effective. Tim Roth almost steals the show as Blonsky/Abomination. He throws himself into that role and it shows, all the way.

The minuses are primarily to do with the Hulk. He seems limited, really. The tenacity, the signature powers (especially the Hand Clap, which is a favorite of mine) and the 'angrier getting stronger' theme are there, but I think the CGI Hulk suffers a bit from Norton's insistence to do all the motion capture himself and inject 'character' moments into the performance. It threatens to break the immersion of the Hulk being something a bit seperate from Banner for mine. But you can level this at Ang Lee, who also did the motion capture instead of Eric Bana, which I thought was a mistake.

The CGI here is lacking, really. He's bursting with veins and is all very 70's Hulk (take a look at how he was drawn back then and you'll see what I mean) but you don't have to overdo it, especially considering how he'll appear in The Avengers against the cleaner lines of Iron Man, Cap, Thor, Hawkeye and Black Widow. Take the original 2003 Hulk and give him a little more definition, and I think you'll have something very good. If ILM gets to come back and render Hulk, then we'll see something good.

Incredible lacks depth as a story, unfortunately. But then by and large I've felt all the Marvel Studios movies to date do as well, with the exception of Thor which was deftly and subtly handled by Kenneth Branagh. We race through the origin story in the credits of Incredible, rely on lots of nods to the tv series, and then it gets capped off by Norton and the studio unable to come to terms for any further work together.

That's what really hurts both movies in the end; Robert Downey Jr. gets to flesh out and have fun as Tony Stark; Chris Hemsworth gets a chance to be charming and heroic as Thor; and Chris Evans has proven he's got the charisma to stand out as Captain America. Even Scarlet Johansen gets to show she has layers to Black Widow. What Hulk doesn't get is an actor who gets to explore the evolution of the Banner/Hulk dynamic, and Mark Ruffalo is really just there to wait until he Hulks Out.

Maybe Joss Whedon can give him some moments, I am hoping so. But someone needs to come to the Hulk property as an actor and have the passion that Norton did but not the ego.



S.

That Doctor is excellent....shame we don't see more of the later outfit, the burgundy coat and boots. I really liked that look.


S.

Tenth Doctor definitely a female...but a wonderful video. If anyone knows how to mime to a track, it's cosplayers.


S.

I don't care that this was done for kids; it was written by a Who writer, features videos from the Doctor, and you get to run around and do cool stuff.


S.

Do so if you can...the network that ran it out here is called SBS and they may have it on their website still. It was way more foul-mouthed and funny than this 'hey, I have an imaginary dog friend' show, though this American version isn't too bad. But I do warn you that it is very much an Australian show, so you may not get some of the cultural inferences.

The best I can do for you guys on short notice (The SBS site isn't showing the videos anymore, which is a shame) is an Amazon link where the eps are like 2 bucks a shot. And as there were only eight episodes in the two Australian seasons, you may find it worthwhile.

http://www.videosurf.com/wilfred-200728


S.

It used to be an Australian show actually, where Wilfred wasn't the only dog that was a person in a dog suit....which meant you had a fun little subculture of dog life going on, and every human in the cast could talk to him too.

This one is as Elijah Wood put it, 'just like Harvey (the movie) except you can see him.'


S.

To put things in contrast, fantasy and SF shows don't generally get the nod from the Emmys. It's something long-running with them and they tend to give the vote to more 'traditional' and mainstream shows, which is a true shame.

I certainly hope GoT gets more than just costume design and such (simply because that's where fantasy and SF stand out from the pack, being visually unique), but I wouldn't be surprised for a moment to find out any of the GoT actors don't get noticed.

Rome and Deadwood I think also got passed over for acting awards, and those are superior productions to mainstream tv in a lot of ways.


S.

I really enjoyed both the stream and the chat (I enjoy the banter I have with Beastyle and a few of the other folks there; and I think I'm becoming the unofficial filter for all things Australian as well), but I see the opportunity to talk to the Devs rather like people who work on a tv show or movie production; everyone has a unique talent to bring to the table, and the various influences and inspirations are very interesting.

Protean was obviously quite passionate about what he'd done, and I can see the Katrina influence in the style of First Ward; as a writer and someone who makes small films himself in-game, I found his answers incredibly interesting and they told me much more about what was coming up in the story than a lot of the images we were shown.

If I had half a chance, I'd love to do more lengthy discussions with them, rather like the podcast Off The Cape does.


S.

Come get some.


S.

Not really browsing.


S.

Just to let people know I still haven't watched any episodes, and I have the entire first season there waiting to be watched.

I really think I'm just burnt out on fantasy, pseudo-fantasy and political intrigue stories these days. I stopped watching Dexter after the third season because I started wondering why it was I was empathising with a serial killer ('but he's a good serial killer!'). Dexter's a power fantasy in the end, getting away with murder. Everyone's had at least one dark fantasy like that, Dexter just embodies it.

I think Game of Thrones to me is an extension of that; we'd all like to be clever, devious people who come up with clever ways to get rid of our rivals. I admit freely that's just my impression without reading the books or watching the show. It's never gotten my interest enough to watch one episode yet.

That might change, but I feel burnt out on a lot of tv shows because they feel all same-y or don't last long enough to get your interest. I had a friend joke to me that Game of Thrones will just go the way of Rome by getting two seasons and then cancelled because it's too expensive to make or the initial interest dies off. Rome I really got into, but I'd always had an abiding interest in the Roman culture.

I also admit, there was something disincentivising for me in hearing from a friend 'well, what happens is that Martin makes these compelling and interesting characters, and you'll get attached to them...and then they'll die. He'll just kill them.'

I'm not sure what the appeal is in that? Would I want to see characters I like get killed off abruptly? Again, without reading/seeing it, it feels like 'shock storytelling'. Like the story isn't interesting enough in itself, so a sudden shocking death will keep you interested. But again, this is what happens in so much of the tv I can't bring myself to watch anymore. Stargate:Universe was a show I couldn't even watch one episode was because the concept was all 'hey, we're all screwed up in some way and some of us are gonna die, just like in Battlestar Galactica'.

I'm a grownup, I know things don't always end cheerfully or with a happily ever after. I experienced a sudden brutal death in my real life when my mother died after a horrifically short six-month battle with myloid leukemia. And maybe that's the crux for me; stuff like that isn't interesting, it sure isn't entertaining and you'd do anything not to be a part of it. I feel it's hard for me to take interest in how brutally unexpected life can be when it's the last thing you'd want to do. And it feels a bit masochistic, too. But hey, that's just me.

I dunno, maybe someone can engender some interest in the show for me.



S.