|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Sep 25, 2009 6:41 am
I've only seen clips, but the total lack of plot in the trailers isn't heartening and the animation looks stiff. I expect so much more from DC animation.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Sep 25, 2009 3:45 pm
Ms. Selina Kyle I've only seen clips, but the total lack of plot in the trailers isn't heartening and the animation looks stiff. I expect so much more from DC animation. The art isn't much either way, though Power Girl's eyes looked all kinds of wrong. I guess they figured no one would be looking at them...? Allison Mack being her VA didn't help either.
The story had lots of little things wrong with it, continuity errors, story omissions, outright plot changes, etc. The Devil was definitely in the details for this one.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 29, 2009 9:41 pm
I suspect as I watch this that they seem too far apart at times. There's a couple of odd choices they made with anatomy, the most irritating one is the Highly Chiseled look. There's no simplification anywhere except in terms of angles and that doesn't appeal at all (Superman why the spiky do?). The lack of any true darks on the characters is annoying but not horrible (except on Superman's vibrational color scheme, OW MY EYES). The shapes of the mens heads, however, is unpleasent. They look like they were all birthed from the same sharp-jawed womb. They could have cut their way out of the uterus with their chins.
I can't say I mind the story changes. The original wasn't exactly fine literature. I'm actually more disappointed they didn't simply scrap and go with an original story entirely, or at least one that culled far less from specific source material.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 29, 2009 9:55 pm
The animation feels really stiff too. There's something about the way the limbs are jointed that's not working in the inbetweens. Like these animators aren't entirely well versed in the concepts of squash and stretch. And I know they're trying to mimic Japanese anime style suddenness and stillness with the movements, to make everything quick and fast paced and the characters seem strong, but it's coming off jerky.
There's something incredibly incongruous about watching such lifeless movement speak with some of the best voice acting money can buy.
In contrast, whoever did these backgrounds should get a whole set of gold stars. And a cookie.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 30, 2009 1:41 pm
Uh...I liked it. It wasn't as good as Green Lantern or Wonder Woman but I still enjoyed watching it. Hell of a lot better than Doomsday or Brainiac Attacks. I think it helps to think of it as a stand alone Elseworlds...
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 03, 2009 3:49 am
I borrowed a co-workers copy of Dragon Ball: Evolution because while I enjoyed the movie, the theatre experience doesn't offer gag reels, interviews, or deleted scenes. I can say with 100% certainty that the deleted scenes should never have been deleted. They were actually helpful to the story, and added details that were lacking in the original presentation.
Thanks FOX, thanks a lot.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 03, 2009 1:42 pm
I resently watched the Green Lantern film, and enjoyed it. Right now I'm watch The Host.
going back to Green Lantern, they say Ryan Reynolds will play Hal in a live action film. I'm not to sure about that. Granted Hal can be a smart a** like Ryan, but Ryan tends to just give me that creepy-d-bag-Smart-a**, like in Waiting.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 03, 2009 9:43 pm
Oh Waiting. How can a film be so far fetched and totally unrealistic yet somehow capture the essence of working in the food service industry so well?
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 05, 2009 8:22 pm
I'm glad I'm not the only one who has issues with Supernatural.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 06, 2009 2:27 am
I was pleasantly surprised by how good Waiting was. I finally saw it this year, and am happy to say it was my Harold and Kumar Go To White Castle of 2009.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 06, 2009 2:40 pm
Newscaster Billy Batson I'm glad I'm not the only one who has issues with Supernatural. rolleyes Never mind the fact that they save men too, including each other. And never mind that there are female hunters.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 06, 2009 2:57 pm
In fact, criticizing the show for having "nameless" females who have no impact on plot is ridiculous. Any fan of the show could rattle off the names of Mary, Ellen, Meg, Ruby, Bella, Jo, or Jess. All have impact on the plot to some degree or another. The show is supposed to be a road show for two brothers. Injecting a woman into the show for every episode for the sake of having a constant female presence defeats the point of the show and should be an insult to women.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 06, 2009 8:03 pm
Chris Powell Newscaster Billy Batson I'm glad I'm not the only one who has issues with Supernatural. rolleyes Never mind the fact that they save men too, including each other. And never mind that there are female hunters. Just like comics don't contain sexism because the men wear spandex too, and there are lady superheroes.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 06, 2009 8:35 pm
I've only seen the first season of Supernatural , and it hurt my v****a. Practically every episode really did kill a women - and every female actress playing a character under the age of 30 was not above a size 0 to boot. Must every female character be smoking hot and flirtatious who must be saved/or is a monster and must be killed?
Again; I've only seen the first season, but throughout the entire season the only thing women were good for was being killed, saved, or being a monster to kill. The entire show is made up of the male gaze, to the point where I found it to be ridiculous. Women are not apart of the (first season) story, they just pitifully make up the engine that makes the story go. Thus; the deaths of the women are not important in of themselves, they are only important in how they affect Sam and Dean. This wouldn't be a issue if it wasn't constantly young, pretty, women dying in exceptionally brutal, oversexualized ways to further plot. And what is the plot? Men suffering. Together. The suffering/bonding/family of the all male Winchester's is the story, and that's how suffering is gendered within the show. Men suffering is depicted as a quest, as a tool for growing individuals furthering themselves as human beings; while suffering women are depicted as objects of pity, desire, or disdain.
For the seasons I have not seen; I know the Supernatural fandom well, and I know that most of the (few) reoccurring female characters get killed off, turn evil, or just disappear. But no, I won't speak for the later seasons as I have not seen them - but I sure as hell am not going to watch them.
As for injecting women into the show just for the sake of having a constant female presence to be violated is a insult to women, you're right. And yet they keep doing it.
I know many people that love Supernatural, and it is a exceptionally popular show among women. I know why it is popular, I understand why it is popular. I'm not trying to just s**t on the show for the sake of bashing it, but I genuinely feel irritated with the series and am glad a video like "Women's Work" exists period.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|