Renny The Spaceman

One Joker to go...

The seem less like a joke option each year. Like really can Count Binface or the Bean man or any of these other candidates being any more of a cartoon character than Jacob Rees Mogg The thing is if they did a battle bag today it'd probably would just be based off the Three Jokers

It really shouldn't be, the whole advertisement was Brexit was about funding the NHS and now our main two parties want to privatise it! Like on an objective level that's a failure. I love the phrase battlebags, it's very fun to say. Reminds me how instead of "pop the kettle on" some people say "boil the jug" Pretty sick wave, all LEGO lines need collectable items spread across the wave though, the native aliens should have to collect all the parts to make a big phone so they can call a certain Dummy to send Blacktron packing

Come on man, white dog, red cape is the same basic look, the stylisation of both make them look scraggly being less refined and elegant looking than the classic. We know that it works in the context of TDK and you could absolutely make it work in the context of Krypto being a stray Superman adopts who's the only refugee from his world other than him he's ever met, maybe Gunn doesn't take that angle but you can't know without seeing the movie, that fits very well with the press release that came with the image and the themes Gunn usually plays with. Not a plot detail, like Krypto's breed isn't but it informs characterisation, in media blue eyes are usually used to show ethereal beauty, celebrities, Prince Charmings, Elves and most relevant a lot of Superheroes. Peter's not ugly in the comics but he's a normal guy compared to the traditional hero look of the time which is blue eyes and blond hair, which isnwhy Spiderverse chooses to make their perfect Peter have blond hair and blue eyes. In the first Spider-Man Raimi changes that and instead creates a moment where MJ realises Peter has blue eyes right after Peter "saves" her for the first time to show that despite being a dorky shut in he has classic heroic traits. Or maybe the curtains were just blue Yeah, the squad is very much leaning into the absurdity of the characters and world under Ostrander, there's heart, there's the same themes about mental health and people considered disposable by society but also there's a running gag where someone is secretly throwing pies in the faces of the cast without being caught. I do not think there is a more Gunn moment in comics than Dr Light's death in the Apokilipse arc and that's including all the brand synergy Peacemaker and Guardians comics made with the express purpose of aping his style. He was a perfect choice for an adaptation of the original tone of the Squad. I agree though, regardless of their quality, Guardians and Creature Commandos from what it seems are very similar to that. Maybe he'll just retrofit Superman to fit his style, I sure hope not. We can't know until the film comes out but I think the fact he turned down doing a Superman film so many times and only did when he lost his father and had an angle with him gives me hope that regardless of if it's good it'll be something new. Yeah, this is a weird thing people focus on, nearly every director does this because any creatives will find certain people work with them well and thus they'll keep hiring them I do wonder if he's going to keep putting Michael Rookery as generic henchmen to reinforce his running gag of killing him off in every film he does Yeah, I think the internet has flattened a lot of how we talk about movies. All of these filmmaking traits don't have A right way to do them, there a certainly wrong ways but if we take pacing for example look at Lord of the Rings, people who prefer the theatrical versions mainly say it's because it strengthens the pacing, making these films go quicker from beat to beat strengthens it's pace for some but for others the extended versions are better paced as it more accurately reflects the scale of the events of the movie

I feel like you don't know what the word objectively means, the tone of the original Squad run as written by Ostrander is much better conveyed by the Gunn film than either of those animated ones. If you like the more modern new 52 versions of them I'm glad you have those but they are very different to the original themes and tone of the book. Which reinforces my point of there's not a definitive way of writing the Suicide Squad, there are wrong ways to write a comic adaptation but you not liking one doesn't mean it's not a respecting the source material. As for Krypton there's a reason I didn't use the examples you did. There is character in Wolverines height and Spider-Man's eye colour but there are wether they're good or bad filmmaking reasons why they change that for their original film versions. I know there are reasons he's a Labrador in the comics, there are reasons the Joker doesn't look as he does in the Dark knight in them too. New idea's can be conveyed by changing it that that are relevant to the core of the character. Maybe they won't do that then you can talk about how all the ways it was a detrimental change. It's still not disrespectful. Not getting it? Very well might be, that's a totally fair thing to say about every example you and me have said. But I never said you couldn't manage, have whatever opinions you want on Gunn but I'd appreciate if you're going to continue this conversation that you'd stop randomly assigning me beliefs you think Gunn fans because I only feel strongly about two of his film's, I mean I think he's a fine filmmaker but that's it. Just because I disagree with you doesn't mean I hold every opinion that you see riders of the "Gunn train" do

When did I say he was a saviour, when did I say anything was comic accurate? I have said I don't feel anything strongly about this film so far (I don't actually give a shit about most superhero movies), I just hate the dumb moralising people do about whether or not something "respects" the source material especially as it is never consistent. Giving the Joker greasy, long hair and a smile carved into his face looks very different from the comics as does making Wolverine tall or giving spider-man blue eyes but no-one ever says they're "disrespecting" anything. Say why it works better for you all you want, criticise it as much as you want but it's not disrespecting anything by making a dog a different breed, if someone thinks it's a bad filmmaking choice they should just say that

Right, that's fair enough but we're talking about comic book movies here and they've always been weird. With the exception of direct to dvd stuff they almost never adapt actual books, just varyingly vague stories and a random grab bag of characters. The Dark Knight, every Spider-Man film bar the first two (even then it's tenuous), everything Gunn's done, Infinity War, Logan, and that's just scraping the surface are all piecemealing parts of different stories together. It's not comparable to adaptations of regular books because you'd never get a Lord of the Rings Adaptation where half way through the story Frodo meets Thorin and they do an abridged version of the Hobbit before hopping back to LotR. Comic book movies only really ever adapt characters and individual famous moments I am indignant and outraged you'd say that, do you even remember the silver age? Endangering those he cares about by being a moron is something Superman has done longer than either of us were alive. But aside from that... It was never something new, what if superheroes were "realistic" and killed had been done numerous times before even man of steel. I will fully concede Snyder is a better argument for "not respecting the source material" though because he straight up said he thought comics were lame until he saw ones where characters killed, says constantly how his stuff is realistic and other interpretations are dream world because their heroes don't "lie to the government" and shit. He's like a parody of a character made to reinforce your argument. He's very much an edge case though I think he's kinda funny though so I can't be mad at his films. If at any point Gunn, like Snyder, gives an interview about how unlike comics his movies are for adults I will say he doesn't "respect the source material"

Which Superman though? The original "Champion of the oppressed" or Byrne's friend of Ronald Regan, is Clark the fake identity, is Superman, are both fake and him back in Smallville is the real him? Is it important he loses his dad, or important he's able to talk through tough times with him. All of these are popular interpretations and various writers view it differently I think with comics "Understanding" a character is more convoluted than when adapting a single book as Superman has had so many different writing teams who have their own fans who consider that the "right" way of doing him. I don't know what to think of the movie so far but I think that Right but I think that is kind of making my point for me, the idea of people on the internet deciding that new bad thing is the worst thing ever is just the equally common cousin of recency bias, we must consider then that "respect" is just a buzzword here and when they eventually do a Star Wars sequels sequel there will be people talking about how at least there was SOME respect for the originals there too. Most obvious example other than the prequels (which yes, had worse backlash than the sequels, while there is absolutely a lot of insane hate sent to the creatives of the new ones I don't think it compares to the amount of vitriol Lucas, Ahmed Best and Jake Lloyd got) is the Crystal Skull, that got insane backlash and now because they made a new shitter one this film that had no understanding or respect for the originals now does have "some". This isn't to say no criticism is valid, of course it is, I think almost all these modern Legacy Sequels we get nowadays are far more corporate and shit than the ones we got 2 decades ago but I think this moralising of shit art is weird and usually not even right. Tolkien famously hated whenever adaptations would remove the downtime from his stories and among other moments the Jackson films cut out 17 years between Bilbo's leaving and Frodo's. He thought Helm's Deep could be cut right out of an adaptation. But he never says anything about female Dwarves having beards, he says they're mistaken for males but that's it. Despite this I heard no end of people claiming that the female Dwarves not having beards being disrespectful to Tolkien. Now to be clear I don't think that any of those changes are disrespectful, in fact I don't give a shit about any of these changes (The only one that really annoys me about the Jackson LotR trilogy is how Bilbo is straight up a different characte to the book) I don't think any lore changes really can be disrespectful unless they're changed to something actively against the original themes of work or is distasteful to the creator's past (I know it was just a marketing gimmick but even so claiming captain america was always a nazi is disrespectful to his Jewish creators who had to live through that time) But my point with the Tolkien thing is that people rarely actually care about the original,they care about what adaptation they like most and work backwards to justify why it's disrespectful to do any other take on it. Not a single one of the live action Spiderman movies is even remotely like the Ditko version of the character but people super attached to one specific one will argues the others are disrespectful all the time. I don't think Burton or Nolan has some "respect" for Batman, they plainly didn't really like the character and made a totally different version that worked with their interests. People loved that first Joker film and Todd Philips has a very obvious contempt for superhero shit. You even get stuff like Starship Troopers or The Flintstones comic made entirely out of hatred for the source material which are widely beloved. And I don't think Snyder films flopped because they were different, I think the punters probably think Batman with a gun would be the coolest thing ever if in a movie they liked, I think, as you say, Nolan's joker is a stark change, probably as much as comic Superman to Snyderman. The issue is that he's simply isn't as good a filmmaker as Nolan so when he made changes they weren't done well enough to be accepted. Respect isn't quantifiable, obviously, but I don't think many popular adaptations give a shit at what they adapt, they just are good movies and people work backwards to justify how they are respectful. Which is made notably harder as they get older and all future adaptations are inspired more by the older adaptations than the original source material. Sometimes it even goes so far around that now in the comics Peter acts like his relationship with Norman was ever like in the Raimi movies when it very much wasn't. We're saying nothing when we talk about "respect" in the context of hyperspace rules and if someone wears the trunks or not it means nothing other than trying to cloak our opinions on media in some sorta value system that simply doesn't work. Talking about respect makes sense when talking about things like if the people who made the characters and stories these films adapt are properly credited or compensated but that's never as important to online debate than if Spider-mans eyes should move or not

Does he even prefer their comics? I've never heard him say anything about a character he's not adapted. Also surely if he was biased against someone it'd be the company that fired from over old tweets dug up by people mad at his political views? Probably wanted a breed that looked ruffer and thus more like a stray. Probably a good filmmaking decision. Man, it's a just a different breed of dog. I think the idea of "respect" for the source material is honestly such a meaningless phrase at this point. Tolkien would probably hate the Jackson LotR films, but their good films so it's not a big deal, fandoms just constantly throw around the phrase "respect" to give their opinions some weird moral stance when most of the time of something is shit it's not because they didn't "respect" the fans or creators but because they're desperately trying to pander to fans while not getting anything they adapt because despite what studios want us to believe producers aren't creatives and letting them drive films leads us to Black Adams, Ant-man 3s and Rise of Skywalkers. Even if Gunn makes the worst film ever it won't be because he didn't respect Superman, it will be because whatever creative failings he has

Wait until you see Azog the Defiler

Kitchen gun man is the scariest guy I've ever seen

I always liked how so often clones are given a cool action hero esq name (Rex, Hevy, Hunter, Fox, Thorn and so on) but nearly everyone in the 212th has a weird name (Oddball, Boil, Waxer, Wooley, Cries) bar Cody who has the name of just a random guy. Yet in any battle scene Cody and the 212th are doing all sorts of insane megablox involving fighting droids hand to hand, jumping on crab droids, getting in a boxing match with a droid, dogpiling general Grievous, spin kicking droids and so on.

Same, I'm not much of a Star Wars fan anymore but I'll always have a soft spot for the 212th so I need that Oddball figure

I just swore a bunch, not suggesting anyone else do this, obviously, but it turns out if you just don't put spaces it doesn't auto censor you. This was the first place here to talk about it too. Ofc it's terrible the Dummy now has new Blacktron forces to deal with but the sets will probably be pretty cool. Do we know what it'll be? Like is it a gwp, an icons set or (definitely not) a small wave of sets?

<big wall of megablucks>

Yeah, it's a mix of the lack of preproduction time and the abnormally high resolution and framerate they shot it at, makes all the imperfections way more clear and means they couldn't use miniatures, puppets and suits and shooting in 3D meaning no perspective tricks could be used to play with scale. You can tell what parts of the films were shot for the original plan of two movies and which weren't so clearly. One of the funniest juxtapositions in the film is the Barrel scene. It opens with the actors on real sets as they get in the barrels and it looks good, then they go into the water and it's still a set and looks good, then they leave the cave they're in and it looks like ratshit with the bloom cranked to eleven and everything looking artificial as hell, you get a terrible action scene with CG Legolas hopping on Dwarves that all looks that shit then when it ends the next time we cut back to the Dwarves and Bilbo it looks like a real movie again and they get out the barrels in a real river, it's honestly night and day. It says a lot about how much basic filmmaking craft has slipped in these blockbuster franchise films that I was pleasantly surprised that the characters actually interacted with their environments here This is LEGO, so no. So many midrange sets now only ever come with 2 figures so 3 in a 20 quid one is probably pushing it

He did! I don't know how they did it but Orlando Bloom looks artificial every time he shows up in those Hobbit films. It's a mix of the weird lighting in those films, the fakeness of the environments and his poor deaging that just gives me uncanny valley vibes Dark flash is a very serious character, do not make a joke of him

This isn't a joke, the Flash is a masterpiece of cinema and I won't have it besmirched. Dark Flash is the greatest villain in film history and to suggest he be replaced with the guy who jerks off Barry at superspeed is an insult to DC and the concept of art as a whole.

Absolutely the funniest part of the trilogy, he names everyone in that scene but him, they never even interact. Idk, maybe Bilbo mentioned to him how Legolas was a bit of a megablock who always looked CG back in the day You mean Dark Flash? Anyways I can't post pictures right now but I believe I've found new, admittedly less convincing evidence of a second Dummy printing

I would have but I irrationally hate Legolas so I didn't want to say his part Hopefully it's a The Flash batcave instead

There's an Always Sunny quote for every situation Funny, when the Hangover guy is no longer able to ripoff other films with Batman pasted on top he doesn't turnout a crowd-pleaser. Honestly I just find this funny, maybe if we're lucky WB might do the classic corporate thing and blame the character instead of the actual film and we MIGHT get 12% less Joker in DC media What if we get a set with a real man fighting jonkler. Like you get a real human man in the box

Damn, sorry @CloneCommando99, we kinda just have to wait this one out then. Unless Turtle consider stopping possessing you for a scooby snack? He does inspire hope, but so has any hero, it's not fundamental to him like his will is so he'd be green then if that's all the options

Oh, right. Should have guessed from the name. Kinda out of our control then, how are we meant to help CC? Kinda seems like he'll just be going slightly more insane than the rest of us until the new year is up. Assuming these all happen that is Probably not gonna be a green lantern actually so we might be ducked. I guess vaguely on that topic, what lantern core do we think the Demolition Dummy would be in? It's not gonna be rage or fear as he's only ever shown either of those traits once in extenuating circumstances. Love and hope (and someone could make the argument for greed in his own unique way with his love of disassembly) are certainly not completely removed from him but aren't defining traits. And if I remember correctly black and white are life and death? Which he isn't traditionally alive and cannot die so I doubt either work. The only one I see is green (neat because that's my favourite colour) because the one thing most consistent about his character is how determined and unshakeable he is in any task he chooses to do, which is an extension of willpower. There might be more cores I don't know about or more to the ones I dismissed though, I am only casually aware of the Lanterns so if anyone more knowledgeable than me has another argument I'm all ears

What are you on about? Did you forget how 2023 was the summer of Indy? Now all our favourite characters from Dial of Destiny have become just as iconic as the OG characters. We all love the likes of: -Somehow not Mads Michelson's worst role that year -Fleabag -Antonio Banderas -Whoever that one kid who was. He there for the entire movie but literally no-one I speak to ever remembers he was even in the film I mish we got a Charles Stanforth figure

I genuinely have no idea what's going on now