X-Men - Logan (2017) #3: Logan deserves recognition at the Academy Awards! - Page 10

sum1 · 02-04-2018, 08:26 PM

How do you tell?

LightYears · 02-04-2018, 08:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sum1 (View Post)

How do you tell?

You have to move your mouse over the Instagram post. If there's a pointed arrow, then it's a video. If not, then it's a pic.

Unless if you're using a smartphone or tablet, then use your finger or thumb.

sum1 · 02-04-2018, 09:13 PM

Ok, thanks.

**PhoenixRising** · 02-15-2018, 10:40 AM

Way to go, James!

And do you think it's any coincidence that the director and the main character are both named "James?"

Why James Mangold Hates When Logan Is Called High-Octane

sum1 · 02-18-2018, 07:22 PM

Logan was a damn good film about people, their interactions and their struggles.

**PhoenixRising** · 02-19-2018, 03:51 PM

I agree, sum1.

But Hollywood is always gonna be biased against comic book movies.

sum1 · 02-19-2018, 03:52 PM

Indeed. Hollywood is damn shallow.

**PhoenixRising** · 02-20-2018, 06:09 PM

Well, this is something, at least...

Logan is the first Oscar screenplay based on superhero comics | EW.com

sum1 · 02-21-2018, 06:15 AM

Yeah, that's good.

I think I'll bring over my post from the rant thread:

Did you hear how way back in 1998 Sony was offered a deal including all of the Marvel characters Disney is using in films now and they turned it down because "Nobody gives a sh** about any of the other Marvel characters. Go back and do deal for only Spider-Man." Idiots! Must be kicking themselves now. Nobody gives a sh**? Lots of people gave a sh** for multiple decades.

On the flip side, Marvel Studios decided which Marvel character to do a film of first by, get this, assembling a focus group of kids to decide which character they'd most like to play with a toy of (turned out to be Iron Man). Just goes to show how kid-oriented Marvel Studios' films are, something that will soon probably apply to the X-Men too. Thank god for Marvel's Netflix shows.

Why is it so hard for people to see that superheroes can appeal to adults too? This goes to the heart of why critics refuse to take superhero movies seriously.

Sure, I can see the problem with the superhero comic book material. People dressed up in tights, gaudy costumes, men with oversized muscles, women with oversized boobs who are often portrayed in ridiculously skimpy outfits, villains who go "Hahaha, your puny attempt to defeat me has failed!", silly codenames, illogical stories, characters who keep coming back from the dead, etc. And let's not forget the old idea that comics have pictures because comic book readers are too dumb to read a book with only words (an idea showing total lack of understanding of how artwork is an essential part of what is valued by comic book readers, an essential part of the art form, not a mere reading aid).

But here's the thing, if you get into the right mindset for it, it can work and open up an area of boundless creativity and imagination. Even the old primitive comics from the '60s and '70s have often a genuineness of spirit that is commonly lacking in more respected areas of fiction. Amid all their cliches and primitive writing, they ring true, as many "literary fiction" novels fail to. They represent a genuine, unaffected spirit of creativity that is offered without the sort of posing that plagues more "respectable" fields.

And there is an energetic relatability to their larger than life characters. Larger than life characters are all too commonly undervalued in fields of fiction, but that's what so many characters in medieval and ancient literature were, in legend and mythology, stories that stood the test of time and shaped culture. Larger than life characters mean something special to human beings and have a place of honour in the human tradition. Superhero comics are great at offering larger than life characters. This, more than anything else, is I think what makes the genre appeal to so many people.