I don't think so...

 

 

Not so fast there, or you might find a man-eating Lilac in your bed.

 

It is so funny to see what the different "communities" think. Here we see praise of the Nicholson perfromance and Prince soundtrack, and yet on the comic sites I frequent, those are two of the main complaints. Watching the film recently, I noticed that the Batman run starting with '89 got off to a wrong start. The movie is called "Batman", but it takes almost 20 minutes to even see Bruce Wayne's face. But in that time we have come to know Jack Napier really well. Right from the beginning the villains were most important. That was what Nolan mainly did, that people seem to overlook. He made the film about the man in the cowl.

 

But then again, I can't stand Burton.

The Bale film was great simply because we got a history of how Bruce Wayne actually turned into Batman. They also sold the fear of bats that Wayne had much better than how they tried to do so in Batman Forever.

 

Plain and simple, they started Batman from the start, had him truly becoming Batman, and thats what makes me so in love with that film.

 

Plus, how good is Liam Neeson in pretty much anything?

It is so funny to see what the different "communities" think. Here we see praise of the Nicholson perfromance and Prince soundtrack, and yet on the comic sites I frequent, those are two of the main complaints. Watching the film recently, I noticed that the Batman run starting with '89 got off to a wrong start. The movie is called "Batman", but it takes almost 20 minutes to even see Bruce Wayne's face. But in that time we have come to know Jack Napier really well. Right from the beginning the villains were most important. That was what Nolan mainly did, that people seem to overlook. He made the film about the man in the cowl.

 

But then again, I can't stand Burton.

Just in general with all the comic book movies it seems you'll get completely different reactions from people who actually read the comics and people who didn't. X3 is a good example of that as I know a lot of people say it really didn't follow the comics all that much but I loved that movie.

Just in general with all the comic book movies it seems you'll get completely different reactions from people who actually read the comics and people who didn't. X3 is a good example of that as I know a lot of people say it really didn't follow the comics all that much but I loved that movie.

 

 

I absolutely loathe X-Men 3. Im sorry, it was nothing but smash-bang-boom. They just dropped the entire storyline and made up some crap and sold it to everyone

I absolutely loathe X-Men 3. Im sorry, it was nothing but smash-bang-boom. They just dropped the entire storyline and made up some crap and sold it to everyone

Well SOOOOOORRRRRY. Ha, I know a lot of people hated it, but I really enjoyed it, SO THERE.

Well SOOOOOORRRRRY. Ha, I know a lot of people hated it, but I really enjoyed it, SO THERE.

 

And Im the comic book junkie

And Im the comic book junkie

 

I'm actually a little suprised there wasn't more uproar about X3 (or certain aspects of X1 and X2) than there was. Since seeing it originally, I have come to learn who the original X-Men were, and it kind of surprises me that Beast, Angel and Iceman have been reduced to such minor roles. I know that X fans consider the original run to be much lesser than the Claremont era, but still, talk about re-writing origins!

I'm actually a little suprised there wasn't more uproar about X3 (or certain aspects of X1 and X2) than there was. Since seeing it originally, I have come to learn who the original X-Men were, and it kind of surprises me that Beast, Angel and Iceman have been reduced to such minor roles. I know that X fans consider the original run to be much lesser than the Claremont era, but still, talk about re-writing origins!

I'm just mad that they didn't find a way to get Gambit in the movies. I'm not a comic book guy at all but honestly...who doesn't love Gambit?

 

EDIT: Maybe one of you comic book guys will know, but wasn't there a reason given on why Gambit wasn't in any of the movies?

Edited June 5, 200718 yr by Rowand44

I was a very minor comic guy my whole life, then I finally got fed up with the "geeks" complaining about the movies and the liberties that were taken, that I decided to do my home work. In about 2+ months I have bought these:

 

 

Each one is 550-650 pages of classic comic glory (in B&W though). The DVD case on the top left is the Spider-Man DVD-Rom collecting all Amazing Spider-Man (debut in Amazing Fantasy and all annuals included) books up to June of 2006.

 

So my Comic Geek Training is still going on and I can't answer too many questions past 1970 or about DC...and non-Marvel. I'm learning though.

 

Yeah...I'm a little pathetic.

I'm just mad that they didn't find a way to get Gambit in the movies. I'm not a comic book guy at all but honestly...who doesn't love Gambit?

 

I think it's best to let Mr. David Campbell answer the question of WHY GAMBIT SUCKS.

 

I think it's best to let Mr. David Campbell answer the question of WHY GAMBIT SUCKS.

 

 

I second that notion. Dave Campbell is the next best Campbell. Bruce is obviously number one

Bale forced the voice too much, in my opinion...

Speaking of comic movies, am I the only one who would love to see a "Preacher" film? I know I am dreaming at the possibility of it coming out but it would be so awesome.

I think it's best to let Mr. David Campbell answer the question of WHY GAMBIT SUCKS.

 

You know something...YOU SUCK.

 

 

 

 

 

You know something...YOU SUCK.

 

That I do, which is why I was left out of the X-Men movies like Gambit was.

That I do, which is why I was left out of the X-Men movies like Gambit was.

Well then, I got nothing. So, um...touche.

Edited June 5, 200718 yr by Rowand44