Posted by
Saliv
- Saturday, August 23, 2014
Greetings, Fanboys and Fangirls! This is Sam Lascio, discussing something that I'm sure must be on most sweaty nerds' minds lately: How does Superman get a new suit in the upcoming Man of Steel sequel, Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice?
Give or take the shape of the "S," the style of the shield, or the precise shade of blue and red in his costume, fewer costumes are as iconic as Superman's. When you see that costume, whether you're from America, the UK, China, or the Philippines, whether you're 7 or 70, you know exactly who it is. Superman is one of those heroes who transcends time, even more than Captain America. Superman isn't just an American hero; he's a global protector. So when the first images and trailers dropped for Man of Steel, opinions soared about Superman's "new and improved" costume. His iconic red underwear was missing, the "S" looked strange, he had a textured suit with strange markings on the forearms and sides.
 |
| The "ta-da!" moment in Man of Steel (2013) |
Even with these major alterations, however, most of us either loved it from the start, or it eventually grew on us. That aside, we got one major change from the early comics/previous films. Rather than the suit being developed on Earth (most adaptations have it as a creation of his adoptive mother, Martha Kent), it was created on the Kryptonian ship that would go on to become the iconic Fortress of Solitude. Is this new to most of us geeks? Not really. There are many Superman issues that show that his suit is made from Kryptonian fabric and is thus as indestructible as Superman himself (unless a really powerful villain curb stomps his ass). Unfortunately, this presents a bit of a brick wall when it comes to creativity. As for the new DCCU, new set photos were recently leaked online giving us a better look at Kal's new suit for Batman v Superman.
 |
| Man of Steel suit vs. Batman v Superman suit. |
At first glance, it's obvious the suit is different. First off, it's, well, brighter. A big complaint from Superman fans was that the Man of Steel suit was too dull and faded. It looked like Clark put it through the washing machine too many times with bleach. So I mean, yeah, on the surface, this should totally be a plus, right? It might be a little hard to tell from the pictures, but the BvS suit also sports a more rectangular belt buckle than the MoS suit, on which the buckle is more of an oval. Also, it's only a slight difference, but look at the collar. Notice anything? The "S" shield appears to sit lower on the chest than it does on the MoS suit. This presents a bit of a continuity issue.
From the end of MoS, it's obvious that Clark's battle with Zod didn't rip or tear his suit. If two Kryptonians cutting down Metropolis like a hot knife through butter couldn't so much as cause a pit stain, it's not like he could just take it to a seamstress to get it altered or dye the suit a new shade of blue and red. So what's the deal? I've got three possibilities as to what could account for these variations in the suit.
- It actually is a different suit. Just like we have multiple wardrobes in our closets, the Fortress of Solitude contained more than one suit from the House of El. Now, I guess one could argue "Why not just wear the suit he wore in Man of Steel anyway?" Well, do you wear the same clothes each and every day? Oh, you do? Well, uh, moving on then…
- The costume department for the film didn't care. Now, that's not to say they don't care about continuity. Remember though, some fans were really butt-hurt over the changes presented in Man of Steel. With that in mind, were they just supposed to ignore those complaints and say "No, if we change anything, it'll screw up continuity"? I'm sure some higher ups were listening to fan complaints and decided to make some tweaks to the design, such as the biggest complaint I heard: the colors. More fans were upset about the dull colors than they were about the missing tighty-whiteys (tighty-reddies?). A little reshaping of the belt buckle, lowering the shield down his chest a tad, they probably figured no one would care enough to complain and write an entire article devoted to it. Wait…shit…
- Money. money. money. So, you've decided to make a cinematic universe around the DC comics superheroes. You've also decided to give the public something they've been awaiting for decades: Batman fighting Superman. Let me say that again: Batman. Fighting. Superman. The two most iconic superheroes of all time FIGHTING! YES! HELL YES! You want to make as much money as possible, right? So what do you do? You want kids to buy your toys, right? You want them to wear your t-shirts, carry your backpacks, run around as these characters during Halloween, etc. What's the best way to do this? Change the costume ever so slightly so that little Jimmy and Susie can look at these toys and see that WHOA! They're like, so totally different than the old toys! Jimmy already has his action figures, t-shirts, and pillow cases from Man of Steel, and Susie still has her backpack, blankets, and pajamas from Man of Steel, so what's going to make them buy new shit? Change that shit. Boom, you just made a ton of money, my friend. Look at Iron Man 1-3 or Captain America 1 and 2. The Amazing Spider-Man, Thor, X-Men. The list goes on and on. I think the last notable superhero films that didn't change the costume from the previous film was The Dark Knight Rises or the Sam Raimi Spider-Man trilogy. New costumes means new merchandise means more money.
So there you have it, folks. Are they going to mention that Superman has a new look in Batman v Superman? Probably not. Would it be nice to get a small throw-away line about him having more than one suit? Definitely. If I were a betting man, however, I'd wager that we won't get an explanation, at least in the film. Batman though? Shit, it looks like he'll already have two different suits in the film anyway, not to mention the fact that he's loaded. Bruce Wayne could afford to make thousands of different costumes for any imaginable scenario. I'm sure we'll see his suit change throughout the course of the DCCU, along with the other heroes.
What do you think the reason is behind the change? Was it a continuity fail? Is it perhaps a totally different suit? Or, was it all about the money? Maybe you have a different idea? Let us know in the comments section! Thanks for reading, everyone! My name is Sam Lascio, and I am a Fanboy!
Posted by
Unknown
- Friday, August 22, 2014
There's no stopping Marvel! Yet again they reveal some exciting news for one of their properties. This time it pertains to their hit show Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. (henceforth AoS) and a new character added to the mix. The Absorbing Man, also known as Crusher Creel, will make an appearance in the season 2 premiere. Marvel had this to say:
"With his ability to absorb the properties of anything he touches, Creel will put Coulson and his team through their paces when their second season kicks off… but you'll have to wait until then to see how their battle turns out!"
Well, sounds thrilling to me. Although the show started off slow, AoS picked it up nicely toward the end of the first season and finished very strong. Coinciding with the events of Captain America: Winter Soldier, the last several episodes were tense, nail-biting affairs that had me watching and waiting for the next episode each week. They should be lauded for picking up the pace and making every second count.
Judging by the character's comic book roots, Absorbing Man should give the Agents all they can handle and more. This is good thing. Why the show didn't work at first is mostly because there were no stakes and not many reasons to cheer for them. Once they got it going, though, AoS blossomed and took off fast. Here's hoping they continue the trend in season 2.
Does this news sound exciting to you? Is Absorbing Man a good villain to fight the good guys on this show? Sound off below.
Posted by
Jeff Penner
- Wednesday, August 20, 2014
Want to know what happened the past few days in nerd culture? WEEK IN GEEK is your quick fix to catch up with the rest of the fanboys out there.
MOVIES
The Rock….of Eternity?
My take: Dwayne Johnson will be featured in a Shazam movie in some way, shape or form. He may be the hero or he could be his arch-nemesis, Black Adam. I don't have any problem with the casting, I think Johnson can be great. What I do have a problem with (as you'll know, if you read this column weekly) is DC Comics and Warner Bros. They are stacking the deck with something they don't have a handle on, whatsoever. When Iron Man came out with a fun and quirky personality to it, it very well could have still bombed. If that happened, they would have changed gears and tried again. Man of Steel needed a change in gears but it certainly didn't need to be cancelled as a film series.
Star Wars Blu Rays?
My take: Disney is possibly pulling our legs to get the hype even higher for the upcoming Episode VII release next year. As a fan, I regret not getting the 2006 DVD's that had these original films included and I would love to see a Blu-Ray release of them. However, as soon as the fact that Disney is considering releasing them next year, we hear that they own the originals but not the distribution rights. How is that possible? Legal mumbo jumbo! Just make this happen!
Edge of Tomorrow DVD Gets Title Changed.
My take: Why do does Warner Bros. want to change the title of a movie to it's tagline? Nobody knows but it sure has people talking about the film again…so…genius move? If you didn't see this movie in theatres and it's still available to you locally, please go see it. Warner Bros. did this same thing with The Iron Giant; they had no idea what they had and no idea how to market it properly. This movie is a clever and charming action sci-fi adventure that plays like a video game. Boom. Done. WB, I await my job offer.
Will Marvel Make an Inhumans Movie?
My take: If they thought Guardians of the Galaxy was risky, I think they're crazy. The moment I heard they were making it, I knew that someone, somewhere, at some meeting made a brilliant decision and it would be a hit. However, as big a fan I am of Marvel's cosmos stories, The Inhumans is one sector I could just never get behind. I don't mind them being included or a plot point but it would take some extremely clever storytelling to make me look forward to a movie about them and their history and their ongoing politics.
No More Origin Superhero Movies.
My take: Speaking of brilliant decisions, Marvel is steering away from the superhero origin movie. With the success of Guardians of the Galaxy, it's pretty clear moviegoers don't need to be pandered to anymore. They don't need to know how someone got powers in anything longer than a flashback or line of dialogue. Marvel doesn't have time for origins at this point. To keep up with the stories and the franchise, other heroes and characters introduced need to be ready to go if Thanos shows up tomorrow. Also, there are literally millions of copies of source material you can go to if you're curious. Find a local comic book store or hop on Comixology if you have a tablet.
TELEVISION
Cast of Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. Still Expanding.
My take: Knowing that the TV series is connected to the films makes this show a key player to keep an eye on. I never got into it, myself but am most certainly interested in Adrianne Palicki being cast as Mockingbird. The only real reason, if I must be honest, is I think she's distractingly gorgeous.
Star Wars Rebels to Premiere October 3rd.
My take: I've already committed myself to watching this show and giving Disney a full chance to save this franchise for me. I have been completely disillusioned since 1999 came along. The more footage I see, however, the more I fear this show may still need a kick in the butt. I think the voice actors are doing a great job, the music is also a great match. The animation, however, seems almost sloppy and clunky when compared to The Clone Wars. That style wasn't my favorite but it was stern and precise while this show looks like they gave gravity the day off and make way too much use of camera movements. However, all I've seen are clips and trailers and can't speak much more aside from speculation. Either way, I'm looking forward to what they've done to expand the universe.
COMIC BOOKS
Superior Foes of Spider-Man Ending?
My take: I just found this out today, not sure when it was announced but that is a bummer. I just got into this series recently and it's a blast. With all the dramatic stories out there, it's nice to have something that's fun and funny. It's too bad books like this don't seem to last too long in the Big Two's libraries.
Batman Books Getting Overhaul.
My take: With new editors on the Batman books, it's nice to see DC's *shudder* New 52 getting it's first, real makeover. Not every bat-book needs to star Batman and it's nice to see books like Grayson and Batgirl trying something new with plot and design.
DC's Multiversity Starts.
My take: A writer on my "most questionable" list, Grant Morrison, started the DC universe on it's new path this week. With comedy and breaking of the fourth wall, this isn't what many were expecting. Captain Carrot hopes to be DC's answer to Rocket Raccoon and I don't think they'll end up pulling that off. DC's multiverse is only entertaining for fans who've followed the books for more than 20 years, or those new who really, really enjoy doing research (as I once was). It's getting harder and harder to follow DC stories and to know which characters are the ones we're supposed to care about. Personally, I think they had their act together up until Infinite Crisis and things fell apart and imploded with Final Crisis.
Watch out for this segment each and every Wednesday. We'll see you next week!
Did we miss something? What are your thoughts on these topics?
Leave us a comment below!
Posted by
Unknown
- Tuesday, August 19, 2014
Peter O'Toole was an absolute beast of an actor. He had something special, a rare combination of looks and deep, affecting screen presence. Richard Burton said this of the late actor:
"He looked like a beautiful, emaciated secretary bird… his voice had a crack like a whip… most important of all you couldn't take your eyes off him… acting is usually regarded as a craft and I claim it to be nothing more except in the hands of the odd few men and women who, once or twice in a lifetime, elevate it into something odd and mystical and deeply disturbing. I believe Peter O'Toole to have this strange quality."
O'Toole had that "it" factor in spades and could act most others into oblivion. So strong was his presence that he often buried other actors during scenes and it must have been hard to share films with him. He never seemed overbearing or a jerk about anything, but rather simply a powerful force of nature, unbridled and unstoppable once unleashed. His body of works stands with the all time greats of the industry.
Why did Peter O'Toole never win an Oscar for Best Actor? He is considered by many to be the greatest actor never to have won and, his Honorary Oscar in 2003 notwithstanding, I agree. The biggest factor, believe it or not, was simply bad timing. It seems like every time he was nominated (a staggering 8 times), there was someone else that gave the performance of a lifetime or O'Toole was deemed "too young" and the Academy seldom gave out the statue to youngsters at that time.
O'Toole started strong like nobody's business. His first nomination came in 1962 for Lawrence of Arabia and O'Toole, just 30 years old, lost out to Gregory Peck in To Kill a Mockingbird and, damn, I can't argue too hard against that. Peck's Atticus Finch is an icon and Lawrence was celebrated more for the pageantry/scope of film making than the acting, unfortunately. Two years later, Peter lost to Rex Harrison in My Fair Lady. In the 60's, musicals ruled the decade so Harrison was a lock.
I've never seen Cliff Robertson in Charly, but O'Toole was denied again. The next four times it was impossible for anyone to beat the men that won. John Wayne was rewarded for his full body of work in True Grit (great movie, but not his best, in my opinion). Marlon Brando in The Godfather, Robert De Niro in Raging Bull, and Ben Kingsley in Gandhi. These were once in a lifetime roles and actors that would not be denied. When O'Toole was nominated for the last time in 2006 and lost to Forest Whitaker, he had already accepted his Honorary Oscar.
He initially balked at the idea, saying he was "still in the game" and could still win one on his own. After some admonishment from his children, he decided to take it for what it was: a celebration of his life's work and recognition of his contribution to the world of film. Yeah, it kinda irks me too. The fact they just gave it to him, but in my mind and many other fan's estimation, he earned it and then some.
Is there a better actor that has never won an Academy Award? Who is better than the late, great Peter O'Toole? Sound off below.
Posted by
Orion Petitclerc
Well, here's a big step for Marvel Studios. Perhaps finally feeling the fatigue experienced by many fans and movie goers, Devin Faraci of Badass Digest revealed Marvel's current plans with the Doctor Strange movie script, reporting that the studio is in the process of moving away from the current standard of setting up every new character's initial movie as an origin story. Instead, writer John Spaihts is working on a totally new script apart from the previous iteration that included Dr. Stephen Strange's transformation from surgeon to Sorcerer Supreme and Baron Mordo as the big bad.
This new, unofficial stance (so far, no one at Marvel Studios has confirmed the changed approach to making new superhero movies) reminds me—as well as many comic fans—of Scarlet Witch's famous quote that fixed the Marvel Universe from its dystopian House of M alternate reality in which mutants were the majority species over humanity: "No more mutants."
However, this isn't the first time a Marvel Studios movie will take place in media res. Before it became the independent powerhouse we all know after 2008's Iron Man, Marvel Studios co-produced Blade in 1998 with New Line Cinema—a film which took place mainly in media res, or when Blade was already well into his vampire hunting career. Granted, the movie had a prologue that explained how Blade became the Daywalker, but his origin didn't comprise of the entire length of the movie, unlike Tony Stark's in Iron Man or Steve Rogers' in Captain America: The First Avenger.
Now, this new approach to storytelling doesn't mean that Marvel Studios is going to do away with origin stories completely. How exactly is an audience supposed to accept that Stephen Strange is now the Sorcerer Supreme if he was a surgeon beforehand? I guarantee that somewhere in the movie there will be a brief explanation of the hows and whys of Dr. Strange's rebirth.
The "No more origin stories" approach will usher in a new era of superhero movies, though. After major hiccups like The Amazing Spider-Man (which I still thoroughly enjoy more than watching Tobey Maguire lop around and mope about his girl troubles), audiences may be relieved once other studios pick up on the probable success of the new style and finally deliver the meat of the action we usually have to wait one long introductory movie for. Imagine: if and when the current Spider-Man movie franchise finally collapses (hopefully after I get my Venom movie!), Sony—or Marvel Studios, if many fans' dreams come true—will reboot it for a third time and perhaps skip over the twice-baked Death of Uncle Ben story and skip to maybe a year after Peter Parker becomes Spider-Man—a long year of villain after villain, building upon his experience and mastery of his powers.
Obviously Ant Man's out of the picture for this new storytelling approach, but what other Marvel Studios films would you like to see receive the "No more origin stories" treatment? How do you think Doctor Strange will be handled? Tell us in the comments section below, and follow Fanboys Anonymous on every conceivable social platform for more geek news!
Posted by
Unknown
- Monday, August 18, 2014
This is a really strange one but it has come to my attention that Warner Bros. is attempting to play a little sleight of hand to get people on-board with buying the Blu-Ray or DVD of the upcoming release of the Tom Cruise sci-fi actioner, Edge of Tomorrow. It's almost like they are ashamed of the original title and want to feature the tagline more. The tagline for the film was:
Live.
Die.
Repeat.
The film, by all accounts, was a very well made film and I've been itching to see it. I wanted to catch it in the theaters but it was there and gone so fast that I never had a chance. Didn't get a chance to see it either? Never fear, because the Blu-ray and DVD are coming fast for release, plus a digital download, of course. Some sites are claiming Warner Bros. are kind of changing the title to the above tagline in order to mix it up or…to make people buy it more?
I don't get this, or at least I'm not convinced this is why the DVD cover looks like this. Sure, they seem to be pushing this tagline, but the title of the movie is Edge of Tomorrow, end of story. Look at the edge (heh) of the cover here and it still says the actual title. Plus, the movie was that big of a flop; it made $364 million worldwide, which isn't hugely bad on a $178 million budget.
Warner Bros. would need a bigger reason to go this route to try to distance themselves from the film and the name; it's not like it was hated. In fact, it got amazing reviews from both critics and movie goers, but, for whatever reason, it failed to make a ton of money at the box office. Then again, there's nothing wrong with the studio using the tagline more prominently—something that might reach a bigger audience since it covered the posters as well. Maybe they're trying to relaunch the marketing for the film?
So did anyone see the movie? Was it good, great, or forgettable? Will the different take on the title/tagline work to generate buzz for the Blu-ray/DVD release? Sound off below.
