The Fish

If you love them so much why don't you marry them?

Remember when Cabaye curled a free kick to the far post (shocker I know) and we scored, and in the post game interview Pardew couldn't fucking wait to tell the world the goal was down to him? I bring it up because I'm convinced that's the only time he's told Yohan Cabaye to do anything but "'Ave a good gayme moi sahn"

I know it was Wacky and I know it was typically Wacky, but I can't for the life of me remember the rest of that.

Because it's a superhero movie. The kids of 15 might not have been alive for Toby Maguire's Spider Man and might not even have watched Garfield's. They haven't had a Spider Man of their own and while the upcoming movie isn't going to be a classic origin movie it is yet another reboot. That's who the studios are hoping turn up to the cinemas. Teenagers who'll watch the movie, buy the toys, play the video games, wear the merchandise and spend a fortune of their parents money on in-game purchases. Have to say I'm glad both major stables are departing from the heavy hitters. There's no way Guardians of the Galaxy would have been made if Iron Man and subsequently the Avengers hadn't knocked it out the park. DC now have the confidence to give Suicide Squad their own movie and while it might have been a misstep, it hasn't stopped them reaching out of the comfort zone and they're apparently pushing properties like Shazam and Nightwing. In short, the studios preferred to reboot the icons, who they're convinced will get bums on seats no matter how bad the movie is, rather than risk millions on a maybe. Maybe because they've been burned by Daredevil, Elektra, Constantine et al? Batman and Robin btw... Apparently "Anthony Hopkins was the first choice for Mr. Freeze, while Hulk Hogan was Schumacher’s third choice, which makes Batman and Robin the only movie in the history of mankind in which Hulk Hogan and Anthony Hopkins were up for the same role."

See, I don't think you've a problem with origin movies, I think you've a problem with bad origin movies.

It is, but there is more to most of the comic book titles. Spider Man is puberty and drugs and whatnot, X-Men is racism and bigotry, Iron Man was about nasty evil communism during Cold War era, but now it's pretty much Atlas Shrugged with added tank missiles. Yeah, but I'm the side of the coin that basically thinks that if the point/opinion I have about a political situation was worthwhile, someone would have made it by now. I'm not as well read on actual real world events as I am on the goings on inside a comic book.

The second one had one cool CGI scene, but nothing else, Catwoman didn't even have that. Everything looked like it was built out of balsa wood and bounced cheques I also think because origin stories are generally popular, studios mistake interest in a fresh character for interest in any old origin story. So, instead of introducing Nova, they'd rather do another Spider Man reboot. "Hey they loved the first Spiderman movie, we'll just do that again!" As an aside, it looks like they're having some fun with Thor's character in the new film. The short marketing clips seem to be pivoting him towards a more comedic role. Makes sense as I don't see Black Panther providing many LOLs.

I think if Nolan had lurched into Dark Knight without first setting up that world, we'd have struggled to buy the concept. Superman is a famous story with a familiar mythology no doubt, but Man of Steel was definitely supposed to be a setup for Dawn of Justice. The idea was obviously to give Batman a reason to distrust and fear Superman. The guy obliterated a city centre, killing hundreds of thousands of people. If we went into DoJ without seeing that, would we buy Batman's antagonism? (Not saying the film succeeded in it's plan, but that was surely the plan). And without it being an Origin movie, even a poor one as it was, Man of Steel would have basically been one of the Transformers movies. To get the audience on board with the DCEU, the audience needed to be reintroduced to Superman's mythos and have that mythos translated into the vocabulary of the grittier world where Batfleck, Wonder Woman, the Flash and Aquaman can exist, rather than Brandon Routh's shiny world. It is Dunning-Kruger

I can't contribute to the politics threads so...

I think the first one pales in hindsight, but at the time it was outstanding. It hasn't aged brilliantly, but I remember being absolutely blown away by it when it first came out. There'd been a slew of Superhero movies that were absolutely terrible; Elektra, Catwoman, Blade Trinity, and it looked like they would only get worse. Batman Begins wasn't just a movie that bucked that trend, it also changed the rules. You didn't have to camp it up and make the bangs bigger and the outfits more ludicrous. You could go more grounded, grittier. I think without Batman Begins you can't have the world that the other two operate in. I also think without BB you wouldn't have had Iron Man and the birth of the Marvel Cinematic Universe.

Jesus, that went on for a while! The poor thing'll look like a strawberry on a bit of frayed string.

Aye, but Batman and Robin came out and killed the franchise. It took 8yrs, a visionary director and some absolute heavyweight actors to get back on track. The first Nolan movie absolutely had to be the origin and not, as in Burton's Batman, a brief snapshot of the incident that sewed the seeds of the fully fledged Batman we see in the rest of the film. But Bruce Wayne the child (not) dealing with his loss, becoming powerful, returning with a focus and finally, at the films end, becoming Batman. Burton didn't tell the origin story, Nolan did. It was 20yrs between Reeves' Superman and Routh's and a further 7yrs until Man of Steel. 20yrs is definitely long enough to reboot a franchise like Superman and because of the failure and poor reception of Singer's Superman Returns it makes sense (to me anyway) to retell the story. Like Burton's Batman, Singer's Superman was already fully formed character and that film wasn't the origin story that could have established a contemporary version of Superman. Snyder should have nailed it, Nolan, Favreau, Johnston and Whedon and shown how you can do a variety of Superhero movies for the modern audience. But he done fucked it up. re: Bond he doesn't need an origin story movie because there's a Bond movie every 2 or 3 years and he's never had a pivotal incident that created him. Not like Uncle Ben biting the dust. Although Casino Royale was as close to an origin movie as Bond will likely get. Bond's character has a permanence in the broader culture that I'm not sure comic-book heroes do.

Batman hadn't been in a movie for years, Nolan had to not only remind people who're not au fait with the character's origin and lore, but he also had to establish his version of Batman. One that was far removed from Burton's run and certainly not like Adam West's tv show. Superman Returns was a hamfisted attempt to relaunch an iconic character without rebooting him entirely. Man of Steel was, like Batman Begins, an attempt to introduce the character to new audiences and distinguish the character from previous iterations. Had the film followed Clark Kent going off into the world, putting him through Herculean labours, until he comes out the other end ready to lead that double life, it would have been brilliant. But the studios were far too timid and opted, instead, for the boring Baystruction of a city. Spider-man's origin has been done to death and I'm glad this new film isn't going to be the origin (I've no doubt it will be referenced) and is instead what got a lot of people into the comic in the first place; high school. At it's core, Spider-man is about an unpopular kid, struggling to fit in, to find his place, and the mutations from the spider bite are allegories of pubescent sexuality, ascent into adulthood, and drugs.

First thing they addressed for Batfleck. I mean, the guy is supposed to be a lunatic genius billionaire, I'm sure he could have come up with a better way of disguising his voice than doing a Slipknot cover.

They would have been much better off going down in 2013 imo. Clear out a load of shit (that are still there), cash in on Johnson, Fletcher, Mignolet etc. Get rid of Di Canio and bring in someone who isn't a massive fascist mad heed. Rowett? Adkins? Dyche? A year to reinvent themselves before the gap between Premier League and Championship sides gets too big. Aye that's fair enough. I'm probably being too generous to a man that has, by most measures, failed. Even with the cards stacked against him he hasn't exactly made a good fist of it. Also, stating in August that you're in a relegation fight is a sackable offence imo.

Deadpool was an 18, Logan a 15. The Studios seem to be finally realising they can still make a shit load whether the PG the shit out of character who's a straight up Serial Killer or actually let him be as he was originally written. Mostly from Nerdlingers like me.

Why I've always enjoyed Marvel more than DC. Deadpool had a few characters questioning his choices, but because the 4th wall was broken so often I couldn't really buy into this reality, so when his girlfriend asks why he left her, I didn't think "because he couldn't bear to see him like this", I thought "Well, to set up the big climactic battle silly". Outside of the 4th wall breaking and the humour, it was just another Superhero origin movie. Character intro->bit of a fracas->peril->all is lost->comes to terms with being a superhero->success despite adversity->kiss a girl. But, if Superhero movies can be disposable and hilarious like Deadpool or actually a story like Logan each time, I'm happy enough.

Never been a better indictment of the strength of their squad that missing Lee fucking Cattermole has been pivotal

Honestly, I think he could be a good fit for them. I think the fans have turned though and there's pretty much no chance of coming back from that. For the record I don't think he's very good, just think the underlying issues are countless and deep rooted and all criticism of him should be tempered with that caveat?

What did you think of Deadpool?

It is pretty hilarious that we all said that tongue in cheek, but it looks entirely true. I thought maybe those 6 points would come from Swansea, Burnley or whomever, but nope, they needed a match to get up for and needed a side to wilt under that pressure as we did.

Well, aye maybe. But not a manager that would have entertained joining Sunderland, not considering the plight they're in; No players, no money, not even enough players good who're enough to sell for enough money to fund the kind of recruitment that was needed. A disrupted preseason and a lengthy list on the treatment table. Moyes is bad, but he's about as good as Sunderland could hope to attract, surely? Don't think his position has been helped by the board, I mean how much did they spend in the January window, when it was obvious to every man and his dog they were in serious trouble but still in touching distance of safety? They were 18th then, 2pts behind Palace. Since then they've dropped to 20th, scored 7 and only won 6pts. Surely with a bit of money spent in January even Moyes could have got more from the reinvigorated squad?