The First Full Length Trailer for Netflix's Jessica Jones Has Arrived

[maninahat]

You know, people keep criticizing DC for being grimdark, but then they lose their minds over this and Daredevil...

Anyway, I haven't finished Daredevil, but I'll probably check this out. It looks interesting, at least.

I liked Dare Devil (more so than most other Marvel shows/movies), so I'll definitely give this one a try.

I give them a pass for:

a) balancing it out by providing lots of bright, colourful, Avengers movies
b) doing grimdark well.

DC fuck it up by trying to make everything grimdark, hoping to catch that Dark Knight lightning in a bottle. It's why I am finding myself looking forward to Super Girl - it actually looks like fun.

 

[happyninja42]

You know, people keep criticizing DC for being grimdark, but then they lose their minds over this and Daredevil...

Anyway, I haven't finished Daredevil, but I'll probably check this out. It looks interesting, at least.

The difference is that DC likes to be dark... just to be dark. And shows no intent to vary from that. Marvel gives us good, well-written dark stuff like Daredevil (a story which could not be told in a not-grimdark way), as well as more lighthearted fare like Guardians to balance it out.

Not only that, but they seem to like to make material that isn't classically "grim dark" and turn it grim dark. The superman stuff specifically being an example of this. Personally, I don't have an issue with batman being grim dark, as it's fairly fitting. But superman? It's just not really fitting to the theme of superman to have him dark and broody. I don't think anyone has an issue if DC goes dark, as long as it's appropriate to the source material.

 

[Lightknight]

Some brute like the Juggernaut, Hulk, Ironman or Colossus being strong just doesn't phase me. But when it's a tiny person it might as well be a wickle baaaaby knocking people out of the park with their magic rattle.

You mean like that shot of baby Superman lifting the truck off Uncle Kent? And why is Colossus ok? He's not very buff at all. Certainly not buff enough to flip cars realistically. Hulk I can understand, as he is inhumanely proportioned, but Colossus is ok with you? He's just a dude who looks like he's been lifting weights for a bit. Why is that ok to be a superstrong person, when his musculature is nowhere near enough to actually pull off the physical act? Are you talking about comic book Colossus or movie Colossus?

His name... is Colossus. Can't be helped if the casting director fucked that up. The character even spends a stint as the Juggernaut (or with his powers).
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/b3/ec/cf/b3eccf08b28c8b2819c959761da58578.jpg

But yeah, baby superman is too ridiculous to me. But keep in mind, I also find horror movies with children as the evil to be stupid.

I can enjoy a small person as resilient, agile, proportionately strong, and so many things. But it just breaks the fourth wall for me to see them be "super-duper" strong.

In the movie they picked an actor with general muscles and put him in a vest to show off his muscles like they thought he was impressively muscular. So I see what they were shooting for but they missed by a mile.

For what it's worth, I first came across Colossus in the original X-Men comics when he was this giant person working in a field in Russia. In human form he's 6'6", In colossus form he's 7'5" which is an inch shorter than the Hulk (Red Hulk).

What's more is his body is organic steel. Of the ones I listed, his steel body lends even more credence to super strength in my mind.

I don't know, I mean, there is no way to realistically reflect the musculature that you would need to lift superhuman size loads. So unless you just don't want them to ever show humans being superhuman, how are they supposed to represent these impossible abilities in a way that would be satisfactory to you? I'm genuinely curious how the entertainment industry could satisfy your issues on this subject. Because none of it is at all possible, unless you just CGI every person ever, because you couldn't find actors that physically look anything like what they would have to look like, to actually pull it off.

They really just need to look strong. Their depiction of weak people throwing cars just isn't keeping me watching. It's like watching movies where a child beats up an adult in hand to hand combat. Just comes across as goofy and when played straight it's stupid. When played as a joke we have Home Alone which can be very good or very bad depending on the comedy writing.

 

[Lightknight]

I literally said in the very same post that I also have the same problem with small male heroes with super strength. For example, I cited Spiderman in instances where they revisit the fact that he also has super strength (then somehow go back to the dangers of falling from a skyscraper even though that would mean nothing to an individual with the sort of magic super strength he has since terminal velocity spread out around his entire body doesn't mean crap compared to faster-than-terminal-velocity spread out across the surface area of a fist). Every time I see it depicted in film it is entirely unbelievable. It is far worse when the person doesn't have super-powers, sure. I mean, if Rousey can't do it then no mousey girl or weak-ass man can. It's a shame they so regularly go with slender and beautiful for those super strong female leads. While I certainly enjoy slender and beautiful, it ruins those kinds of movies for me. At least Black Widow generally messes them up with her agility and precision, just like lightweight fighters have to in order to compensate for size disparity.

Sorry, Lightknight, I wasn't attempting to accuse you of anything, I was just saying I think I see where you are coming from. And yeah, it's bothered me with little men taking out bigger, or at least apparently more capable opponents, that are clearly taking dives or poorly staging the fight. But I usually turn off my brain after someone says 'superhero' or 'magic powers' or what not.

I try to, but it's occasionally harder to do depending on how good of a job a movie does with it.

For some reason, maybe it is my own issues and I was projecting a bit, I always have more of a problem buying such actions when it's a woman easily defeating a man or men, and no super powers are mentioned.

Women in real life are at a physical disadvantage where strength is concerned. We do have our Rousey's but in almost every if not every physical competition we have to separate men and women out (and we've never seen Rousey against a male UFC fighter). Weight lifting records and the like are split by gender because women are naturally 40-50% weaker than men in upper body strength and 20-30% weaker in lower body strength. Men are naturally larger and have an easier time gaining muscle and even the angle of the pelvis helps with weight distribution and speed.

So yeah, we are environmentally conditioned to see women as physically weaker on average for the same reason we are physically conditioned to expect a ball to fall to the ground when you let go of it. But we also see smaller men as weaker than larger men which is why so many classic action flicks have the small guy having to use agility and brains to get past the giant opponent. The women we see in TV that are cast in these roles are not the exceptions or the outliers. They are the petite.

 

[IOwnTheSpire]

You know, people keep criticizing DC for being grimdark, but then they lose their minds over this and Daredevil...

Anyway, I haven't finished Daredevil, but I'll probably check this out. It looks interesting, at least.

The difference is that DC likes to be dark... just to be dark. And shows no intent to vary from that. Marvel gives us good, well-written dark stuff like Daredevil (a story which could not be told in a not-grimdark way), as well as more lighthearted fare like Guardians to balance it out.

Not only that, but they seem to like to make material that isn't classically "grim dark" and turn it grim dark. The superman stuff specifically being an example of this. Personally, I don't have an issue with batman being grim dark, as it's fairly fitting. But superman? It's just not really fitting to the theme of superman to have him dark and broody. I don't think anyone has an issue if DC goes dark, as long as it's appropriate to the source material.

I assume you're talking about Man of Steel, but you're forgetting something: Man of Steel WASN'T grimdark. It wasn't even regular dark. Serious doesn't equal dark. Shows like Daredevil are dark because they deal with moral dilemmas and show the ugly side of the world. Man of Steel simply showed a guy trying to figure out his place in the world. That's not dark.

 

[Parasondox]

I am here for David Tennant. From what I have seen so far, he may over shadow the rest of the cast. Seriously Marvel, Why aren't Kingpin and Killgrave part of the main MCU. I don't care anymore about Loki and what other villains you have used but you need better villains for the big screen cause the Netflix stuff are great. Agents of Shield does not count. Screw Hydra!!!

 

[mrverbal]

You know, people keep criticizing DC for being grimdark, but then they lose their minds over this and Daredevil...

Anyway, I haven't finished Daredevil, but I'll probably check this out. It looks interesting, at least.

The difference is that DC likes to be dark... just to be dark. And shows no intent to vary from that. Marvel gives us good, well-written dark stuff like Daredevil (a story which could not be told in a not-grimdark way), as well as more lighthearted fare like Guardians to balance it out.

Not only that, but they seem to like to make material that isn't classically "grim dark" and turn it grim dark. The superman stuff specifically being an example of this. Personally, I don't have an issue with batman being grim dark, as it's fairly fitting. But superman? It's just not really fitting to the theme of superman to have him dark and broody. I don't think anyone has an issue if DC goes dark, as long as it's appropriate to the source material.

I assume you're talking about Man of Steel, but you're forgetting something: Man of Steel WASN'T grimdark. It wasn't even regular dark. Serious doesn't equal dark. Shows like Daredevil are dark because they deal with moral dilemmas and show the ugly side of the world. Man of Steel simply showed a guy trying to figure out his place in the world. That's not dark.

I mean the literally went out of their way to desturate every frame of the film because they wanted it darker and grimmer. Superman and zod smash a city to powder and everyone is angry all the time. It's pretty grim, and kinda dark. Also bad, but that is a seperate issue.

 

[IOwnTheSpire]

You know, people keep criticizing DC for being grimdark, but then they lose their minds over this and Daredevil...

Anyway, I haven't finished Daredevil, but I'll probably check this out. It looks interesting, at least.

The difference is that DC likes to be dark... just to be dark. And shows no intent to vary from that. Marvel gives us good, well-written dark stuff like Daredevil (a story which could not be told in a not-grimdark way), as well as more lighthearted fare like Guardians to balance it out.

Not only that, but they seem to like to make material that isn't classically "grim dark" and turn it grim dark. The superman stuff specifically being an example of this. Personally, I don't have an issue with batman being grim dark, as it's fairly fitting. But superman? It's just not really fitting to the theme of superman to have him dark and broody. I don't think anyone has an issue if DC goes dark, as long as it's appropriate to the source material.

I assume you're talking about Man of Steel, but you're forgetting something: Man of Steel WASN'T grimdark. It wasn't even regular dark. Serious doesn't equal dark. Shows like Daredevil are dark because they deal with moral dilemmas and show the ugly side of the world. Man of Steel simply showed a guy trying to figure out his place in the world. That's not dark.

I mean the literally went out of their way to desturate every frame of the film because they wanted it darker and grimmer. Superman and zod smash a city to powder and everyone is angry all the time. It's pretty grim, and kinda dark. Also bad, but that is a seperate issue.

A desaturated color palette doesn't make the film dark, we're talking dark in regards to content. Yes, buildings get destroyed, but buildings get destroyed in Marvel movies, yet those aren't called dark. And no, not everyone is angry all the time, I don't know where you're getting that idea, so yeah, the film ISN'T dark. I don't consider the film bad, I consider it excellent, but quality is personal opinion.

 

[IOwnTheSpire]

You know, people keep criticizing DC for being grimdark, but then they lose their minds over this and Daredevil...

Anyway, I haven't finished Daredevil, but I'll probably check this out. It looks interesting, at least.

The difference is that DC likes to be dark... just to be dark. And shows no intent to vary from that. Marvel gives us good, well-written dark stuff like Daredevil (a story which could not be told in a not-grimdark way), as well as more lighthearted fare like Guardians to balance it out.

Not only that, but they seem to like to make material that isn't classically "grim dark" and turn it grim dark. The superman stuff specifically being an example of this. Personally, I don't have an issue with batman being grim dark, as it's fairly fitting. But superman? It's just not really fitting to the theme of superman to have him dark and broody. I don't think anyone has an issue if DC goes dark, as long as it's appropriate to the source material.

I assume you're talking about Man of Steel, but you're forgetting something: Man of Steel WASN'T grimdark. It wasn't even regular dark. Serious doesn't equal dark. Shows like Daredevil are dark because they deal with moral dilemmas and show the ugly side of the world. Man of Steel simply showed a guy trying to figure out his place in the world. That's not dark.

I mean the literally went out of their way to desturate every frame of the film because they wanted it darker and grimmer. Superman and zod smash a city to powder and everyone is angry all the time. It's pretty grim, and kinda dark. Also bad, but that is a seperate issue.

A desaturated color palette doesn't make the film dark, we're talking dark in regards to content. Yes, buildings get destroyed, but buildings get destroyed in Marvel movies, yet those aren't called dark. And no, not everyone is angry all the time, I don't know where you're getting that idea, so yeah, the film ISN'T dark. I don't consider the film bad, I consider it excellent, but quality is personal opinion.

It does however, make it depressing as fuck. Superman's Kansas ain't Dorothy's. Superman is supposed to be a bright, larger than life character. Man of Steel takes the Superman mythos and dips it into the same dystopic post modernist grime that has infected innumerable other instances of fiction where it isn't warranted.

Dystopic post modernist grime? I don't think you know what dystopic means, because the world of Man of Steel is not the grim everything-is-bad place you think it is. You're acting like this is the first time the Superman mythos has gone in different directions than the usual bright and happy stuff; there have been different takes on Superman over the years, why should this one be any different. I don't see why a Superman story that explores the ramifications and struggles of being an alien with godlike powers is something people are so deadset against.