While I understand and kind of agree with your position, I do think physique is a useful tool in cinema. While its true that acting chops go further, and from a logical perspective super heroes don't have to be buff, it helps when they look the part.Happyninja42 said:mecegirl said:In the case of Wonder Woman though she's been training since childhood. That's just a part of Amazonian culture. So its not a simple matter of her having muscles because she has super strength. It would be a reflection of her training. She'd have muscles for the same reason that Batman has muscles.(In some versions the Amazons don't have super strength and Wonder Woman only gains super powered abilities once putting on her costume because it's been blessed by the gods.) And it makes more since for her to have muscles than Superman. But an actor playing Superman or Batman wouldn't be considered without having a certain amount of bulk. So why is it so weird for it to be a consideration for the actor for Wonder Woman?Happyninja42 said:I've never understood the need to have a character have physical muscles to justify them doing the feats of strength they do. NONE of the superheroes with super strength, can pull off what they do just because they've got guns. You could be as ripped as Arnold at the peak of his physical ability, and you still can't lift up a semi truck and hurl it 30 yards. So NONE of the heroes actually are as "realistically" muscled as they should be, to pull off what they do. They are all tapping into powers beyond the mere physicality of their body. So who cares if they look like a Mr. Universe weight lifter, or Steve Urkle? It's all completely fictional and unrealistic.
Maybe, MAAAYBE heroes like the Hulk could pull off some of the things they do, given they are inhumanely proportioned, and are like 10 feet tall, and have muscles thicker than most human torsos. But even then, I would doubt some of the stuff they pull off.
Because I think it's equally unrealistic for the actors playing Batman or Superman. Because again, I don't care how much training they do, the fact that they can pull off the feats of strength they are famous for, has zero to do with their actual muscles. It's all superpowers. I personally wouldn't care if they got a Clark Kent who actually looks like a regular dude, if he can act the part well. To say "ok man, all of the depictions of Superman have him in the Rob Leifeld level of insane, steroid filled muscle mass, so you have to sell that look. So go train for 9 months and gain 50 pounds of pure muscle or else you don't get the part." Yeah that's a shitty work ethic in my opinion. Actors and actresses shouldn't be forced to gain, or lose weight for a role. If the viewing public is so fucking nitpicky, that they will throw a hissy fit because the actor doesn't exactly fit their ideal (an ideal that can vary from artist to artist in the comics) of the character, then it's the fault of the fan, not the actor.
If the actor CHOOSES to do that, for example Gal Gadot decided she wanted to bulk up a bit for the role, then fine, that's her choice, and I'm certainly fine with it. I would also have been fine with Henry Cavil, or Ben Afleck saying "nope, I'm not going to do that drastic of a body change, as the long term effects of it are harmful if I don't maintain it", I would be fine with that too. But to demand it of them, and if they don't, the fan base brings out their torches and pitch forks? Yeah, fuck those people.
Yeah.. you keep ignoring the part where Wonder Woman doesn't just rely on her super strength. You see all of this?Happyninja42 said:Because I think it's equally unrealistic for the actors playing Batman or Superman. Because again, I don't care how much training they do, the fact that they can pull off the feats of strength they are famous for, has zero to do with their actual muscles. It's all superpowers. I personally wouldn't care if they got a Clark Kent who actually looks like a regular dude, if he can act the part well. To say "ok man, all of the depictions of Superman have him in the Rob Leifeld level of insane, steroid filled muscle mass, so you have to sell that look. So go train for 9 months and gain 50 pounds of pure muscle or else you don't get the part." Yeah that's a shitty work ethic in my opinion. Actors and actresses shouldn't be forced to gain, or lose weight for a role. If the viewing public is so fucking nitpicky, that they will throw a hissy fit because the actor doesn't exactly fit their ideal (an ideal that can vary from artist to artist in the comics) of the character, then it's the fault of the fan, not the actor.mecegirl said:In the case of Wonder Woman though she's been training since childhood. That's just a part of Amazonian culture. So its not a simple matter of her having muscles because she has super strength. It would be a reflection of her training. She'd have muscles for the same reason that Batman has muscles.(In some versions the Amazons don't have super strength and Wonder Woman only gains super powered abilities once putting on her costume because it's been blessed by the gods.) And it makes more since for her to have muscles than Superman. But an actor playing Superman or Batman wouldn't be considered without having a certain amount of bulk. So why is it so weird for it to be a consideration for the actor for Wonder Woman?Happyninja42 said:I've never understood the need to have a character have physical muscles to justify them doing the feats of strength they do. NONE of the superheroes with super strength, can pull off what they do just because they've got guns. You could be as ripped as Arnold at the peak of his physical ability, and you still can't lift up a semi truck and hurl it 30 yards. So NONE of the heroes actually are as "realistically" muscled as they should be, to pull off what they do. They are all tapping into powers beyond the mere physicality of their body. So who cares if they look like a Mr. Universe weight lifter, or Steve Urkle? It's all completely fictional and unrealistic.
Maybe, MAAAYBE heroes like the Hulk could pull off some of the things they do, given they are inhumanely proportioned, and are like 10 feet tall, and have muscles thicker than most human torsos. But even then, I would doubt some of the stuff they pull off.
If the actor CHOOSES to do that, for example Gal Gadot decided she wanted to bulk up a bit for the role, then fine, that's her choice, and I'm certainly fine with it. I would also have been fine with Henry Cavil, or Ben Afleck saying "nope, I'm not going to do that drastic of a body change, as the long term effects of it are harmful if I don't maintain it", I would be fine with that too. But to demand it of them, and if they don't, the fan base brings out their torches and pitch forks? Yeah, fuck those people.
For one, Batman doesn't /have/ super strength, it's one of his defining characteristics. It's not unrealistic for him to be bulky as all hell, given what he does on a nightly basis, there is no reason for him /not/ to be musclebound.Happyninja42 said:Because I think it's equally unrealistic for the actors playing Batman or Superman. Because again, I don't care how much training they do, the fact that they can pull off the feats of strength they are famous for, has zero to do with their actual muscles. It's all superpowers. I personally wouldn't care if they got a Clark Kent who actually looks like a regular dude, if he can act the part well. To say "ok man, all of the depictions of Superman have him in the Rob Leifeld level of insane, steroid filled muscle mass, so you have to sell that look. So go train for 9 months and gain 50 pounds of pure muscle or else you don't get the part." Yeah that's a shitty work ethic in my opinion. Actors and actresses shouldn't be forced to gain, or lose weight for a role. If the viewing public is so fucking nitpicky, that they will throw a hissy fit because the actor doesn't exactly fit their ideal (an ideal that can vary from artist to artist in the comics) of the character, then it's the fault of the fan, not the actor.
If the actor CHOOSES to do that, for example Gal Gadot decided she wanted to bulk up a bit for the role, then fine, that's her choice, and I'm certainly fine with it. I would also have been fine with Henry Cavil, or Ben Afleck saying "nope, I'm not going to do that drastic of a body change, as the long term effects of it are harmful if I don't maintain it", I would be fine with that too. But to demand it of them, and if they don't, the fan base brings out their torches and pitch forks? Yeah, fuck those people.
In the original 1940's comic Wonder Woman was a clay statue created by Hippolyta and brought to life by the gods.BabySinclair said:Justice League: Why would the Flash wear armor? As mentioned before, it makes no sense. Armor is for reducing injuries from being hit, unless this Flash has fought speedsters with knives or something warranting armor all it could do is encumber him and/or limit his range of motion. Otherwise ehh, we'll see closer to release.
Wonder Woman: Looked surprisingly good, dialogue wasn't to bad, visuals were nice, the only real issue I took was when asked about her father she said "Zeus brought me to life". It sounds like they're going with her true origins, so why didn't they have Hippolyta as the one that brought her to life?
The T-1000 worked on a different kind of dread than the original Terminator. The original 'Arnie' Terminator worked on the implacable, relentless and tireless foe form of dread, kind of like being stalked by Jason Vorhees with heavy weaponry.AccursedTheory said:Of course, Terminator 2 provided a much less imposing foe...
But I think that largely worked because it was able to play off of the original Terminator - The dread factor didn't come from the characters physical characteristics, but because he was throwing around Arnold like he was Worf at a Star Trek Villainous Species Convention. If it was just two regular guys throwing each other around, I think that affect would have failed as well.
They're already introducing three new characters, plus three old heroes they have to maintain screen time for, plus the mandatory waste of space that is Lous Lane, plus Alfred and Luthor, plus the new villain...irish286 said:WTF no Green Lantern? I know the last movie sucked but don't hide him away just because you idiots are ashamed of that crappy costume...
Yes, and none of them were Zeus. Of the six gods that gave her her powers and brought her to life, Hermes was the only male and if memory serves he was involved after she came to life. That was the point though, her creator intentionally kept her from having a male progenitor.P-89 Scorpion said:In the original 1940's comic Wonder Woman was a clay statue created by Hippolyta and brought to life by the gods.BabySinclair said:Wonder Woman: Looked surprisingly good, dialogue wasn't to bad, visuals were nice, the only real issue I took was when asked about her father she said "Zeus brought me to life". It sounds like they're going with her true origins, so why didn't they have Hippolyta as the one that brought her to life?
And what exactly are you basing that off of?AccursedTheory said:John Steward, the only Green Lantern worthy of a live action movie
The same bizarre, silly, completely non-serious logic that led me to say that Booster freaking Gold should make it into the Justice League before any other new heroes.irish286 said:And what exactly are you basing that off of?AccursedTheory said:John Steward, the only Green Lantern worthy of a live action movie
The Justice League had two or three seasons and two other animated series under its belt before it went Unlimited. The DCAU is actually lot like a proto-MCU in terms of how it evolved over time. Really, the only way the DCCU could replicate that is if they either a) started way back with Nolan's batman or b) spent another five years and three movies setting stuff up.AccursedTheory said:The same bizarre, silly, completely non-serious logic that led me to say that Booster freaking Gold should make it into the Justice League before any other new heroes.irish286 said:And what exactly are you basing that off of?AccursedTheory said:John Steward, the only Green Lantern worthy of a live action movie
Which isn't to say Booster Gold wouldn't be completely awesome live action. Though that ship sailed when they decided to just focus on big names instead of going all Unlimited on us.
Didn't he play Aquaman in Smallville?AccursedTheory said:They're already introducing three new characters, plus three old heroes they have to maintain screen time for, plus the mandatory waste of space that is Lous Lane, plus Alfred and Luthor, plus the new villain...irish286 said:WTF no Green Lantern? I know the last movie sucked but don't hide him away just because you idiots are ashamed of that crappy costume...
The Justice League is already shaping up to be congested as hell (Like most super hero movies). Don't need to throw another one in, especially since I demand Hawk Girl/Woman accompany John Steward, the only Green Lantern worthy of a live action movie.
EDIT: Also, since this was pointed out to me recently, Green Lantern can wait another movie or two for an introduction. We have more important characters to introduce.