Porn Parody better than DC Movies?

Above is actress Kimberly Kane from a forthcoming Axel Braun porn parody version of DC's as Wonder Woman, one of the many DC characters yet to get a big-budget film...


How Does the Porn Industry Do DC Movies Better than WB?

http://www.toplessrobot.com/2013/03/how_does_the_porn_industry_do_dc_movies_better_tha.php?utm_source=scribol.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=scribol.com

How about that? With the lighting, she almost looks like an Adam Hughes drawing. Pretty impressive.

But I went on to watch the trailer for the same company's Man of Steel XXX parody, and that looked cheap and lousy, so I'm not going to hold my breath for the full WW movie.

Peter Urkowitz wrote:

... I went on to watch the trailer for the same company's Man of Steel XXX parody, and that looked cheap and lousy, so...

"Lousy" by movie standards, or lousy even by porn standards?

I guess this thread can serve to talk all things DC Movieverse?

With the announcement at SDCC about the Superman/Batman movie looks like DC are in lightspeed mode to catch up on Marvel, which i think is a bad idea. As awesome as the idea is to have Supes and Bats meet up it's too soon, unless they explain this Batman is the same Batman as in the Bale movies, but since Nolan and Snyder have already gone on record as saying in the MoS universe there is no Batman then that means MoS served as the reset button to their movieverse.

Now, im not saying they should copy Marvels formula to a T but should try something similar, build it up then come at us with a huge JLA blockbuster. I would've planned for 2 new features every year for 2 years beginning w/ MoS, then introduce WW, Flash and Aquaman, have each one tease the imminent threat that will force them to unite and then have GL (recast or keep Reynolds whatever) show up midway through the JLA movie and Batman (recast) at the start of the third act hiding in the shadows of the Fortress of Solitude which is acting as the makeshift JLA base and telling Superman his plan sucks

You're right, Erick, that the movie versions of DC's major characters seem to exist in their own separate worlds without much resemblance to their comics selves. That's not true for DC's animation feature films though. I haven't seen it yet, but I understand the new FlashPoint is pretty much an animated version of the miniseries, and after that will come Justice League: War which hones closely to the new 52 reboot JLA #1-6 issues. It's like Marvel and DC are inverted mirror images of each other when it comes to live action versus animation films with Marvel excelling in one and DC in the other.

While I'm ranting, does anyone like the new Avengers cartoon series on Disney as much as the one that it replaced? I mean, I still watch it on Sundays, but it seems in every way inferior to what they had before!

Why not go with a "Justice League" movie that’s an anthology? You know, like the JLA (and JSA) used to be? A bunch of superheroes get together, then separate for their own missions and we follow each one in turn. Green Lantern fights (I dunno) Starro for twenty minutes and interacts with his supporting cast - Ferris Aircraft, Carol, the Guardians, Pieface [heh] – then we watch Wonder Woman for twenty minutes, rescuing Steve Trevor and running back to Paradise Island for something to help with the maguffin [whatever that is] and getting tied up by the surprise villain behind Starro. [I’d go with Darkseid but whatever.] Then we watch Superman for twenty minutes, Green Arrow for twenty minutes, Hawkman for twenty minutes , Flash for twenty minutes, Batman for twenty minutes, putting the plot together as a jigsaw puzzle, more like a series of big-budget tv pilots than a single epic movie. It would show each interesting character, setting up a solo movie for them - where the origin would *BELONG*, unlike 'most every other superhero movie which crams it into the first half of the movie anyway - and everybody finally reunites in the last twenty minutes for a cool Avengers/Incredibles-style fight scene against Darkseid, Despero or whoever.

This way, we wouldn’t have any reason to consider Carol and Steve and Shayera and Iris and Dinah and Lois and [I dunno] Vicki Vale as existing in the same universe. I don't think it's remotely doable, but it might be better if each character spot had a separate director. If it were me, I'd even include people in the GL and Hawkman scenes who don't believe in aliens. "What about Superman? He's from Krypton." "Superman is a great American!"

They could even use the opening scene to introduce another new character - let's say the Atom - so this adventure is his first, and there's an excuse for lots of exposition. Basically, the Justice League needs a movie that's less like a typical superhero epic and more like a bunch of really cool characters who are finally finally *FINALLY* together, even if the mass audience has never heard of them. This would be important since it [somewhat] carves in stone the very permeable DC cast of thousands. The Justice League cartoon had Hawkgirl, John Stewart and Wally West.

edquinby001 wrote:

While I'm ranting, does anyone like the new Avengers cartoon series on Disney as much as the one that it replaced? I mean, I still watch it on Sundays, but it seems in every way inferior to what they had before!

I think I missed a few episodes, I saw the Space Phantom, Dr. Doom, and the Dracula episodes. But from what I've seen you're right it's not as good as other. The animation isn't too different. It looks like they wanted more self contained episodes with a consistent regular cast.

The older show had characters come and go depending on the story, roster changes and lingering subplots. Many classic stories adapted from the comics. And the early episodes focused on single characters until they all came together, it was actually kind of interesting, even if the animation itself was pretty average.

Marvel cartoons have changed mid-stride before.

Back in the nineties there was a Marvel animation hour with two half hour shows, one featuring The Fantastic Four and the other starring Iron Man, but featuring War Machine and many of the West Coast Avengers as supporting cast. Both had HORRIBLE, HORRIBLE first seasons, the FF show's art and stories were unwatchable and juvenile, and Iron Man wasn't much better, with a toady Modok and Mandarin ruling over a cast of regular villains. Obviously designed to sell toys.

Whoever produced the shows made drastic changes in both the art and stories for the second seasons. The art was more on par with the long running Fox Spiderman show, and the stories were much better. The FF show was the most improved, many episodes taken directly from old Kirby & Lee comics. Even the art direction seemed to be modeled from the comics. That second season of FF is great fun to watch, probably some of the best Marvel cartoons ever made. But you'll never see them. Unfortunately it's been released on DVD along with season one, OR hidden behind season one rather. All the packaging reflects the first season. Every review I saw of the thing was awful, and obviously of the first season, with no mention of the style changes. I can't blame them, unless you know to skip the first season why would you watch that dreck thinking it's all like that.

Are you still going on about that FF dvd? You forgot to mention about the reviewer you argued with, that blew you off. Chris Gore? 

Hah, Marvel has started and aborted a lot of animated series in the last 20, haven't they?. Just to add to the ones you mentioned, Joe: there was an MTV Spider-Man series that didn't last long although I enjoyed the couple episodes that I saw. Also a Disney channel Spider-Man that was placed either in another dimension, the future or maybe both, I could never figure it out, but all people were animal types a la Kamandi. I think it's still shown on Disney late-late nite.

You're right that the animation on both Avengers series is not great, but I think my main problem with the new one is the characterizations and the dialogue. Characters have been stripped to their simplest form and dialogue seems to be just a string of cliches. The real problem is probably that I'm not the target viewer. This version of the Avengers may seem pitch perfect to most 12 year olds. Can't really expect all animation shows to have all-ages appeal like Adventure Time or Avatar, the Last Airbender. Some things are going to be just for kids and if this creates an interest in the characters in general for them, well more power to them.

And Chris, I would watch the heck out of that JLA show!

I agree, Chris' idea to do JLA as a kind of anthology sounds as good as any other way of approaching it. It's a puzzle, that's for sure.

Maybe shoot it in documentary/oral history style, too. Lotsa interviews with bystanders and secondary characters.

This short film, The Flying Man, had a cool take on superheroes:

http://vimeo.com/69882318

I wouldn't use oral history or documentary style except in small bits. That worked for "The Incredibles" to introduce us to characters who had never appeared before anywhere (like the Flying Man) but I don't think would work that well for a movie about established characters. Oddly enough, it would work for an episode of a television show, where (for instance) Clark Kent is writing a piece of hard-hitting investigative journalism and there's interviews and flashbacks where Superman (or Lois) is involved, or (for instance) Vicki Vale putting together a story about this guy who dresses like a bat. Unfortunately, we've reached the point where you can't spend half the movie recapping an origin for characters that are being rebooted. Batman: Year One worked because Miller and Mazzucchelli had such an original vision, and Bats was pushing fifty at that point. Robert Downey Jr. and Hugh Jackman can't be replaced as easily as Bill Finger could.

As far as interesting takes on superheroes which would help build up a larger franchise, here's something I wrote a few months ago when I heard about Marvel One-Shots.
https://www.facebook.com/christopher.woerner.1/posts/208472479291442

edquinby001 wrote:

... Also a Disney channel Spider-Man that was placed either in another dimension, the future or maybe both, I could never figure it out, but all people were animal types a la Kamandi. I think it's still shown on Disney late-late nite.

Originally it was on Fox. After the long running Fox Siperman show they wanted a new show, and it started out to be a cartoon version of Spiderman 2099, but the "powers that be" tweaked it a bit.

They wanted it to still be Peter Parker, and not any future guy. So they somehow came up with the idea of having Peter Parker getting marooned on "Counter Earth." They renamed it Spiderman Unlimited instead of Spiderman 2099. But kept the basic costume from 2099 and used some of the villains but in the Counter earth setting not the future.

"Counter Earth" was from the old Warlock comics. The basic premise is from an old Hulk comic run where he gets marooned on Counter Earth with Adam Warlock and the High Evolutionary etc...

Terry M (Ditko Fan) wrote:

Are you still going on about that FF dvd? You forgot to mention about the reviewer you argued with, that blew you off. Chris Gore? 

HEY DAMMIT!!!!!

The guy claims to be a reviewer and he obviously didn't even watch the dvd, he admitted as much.

He had no idea the two seasons were different in any way, and he refused to acknowledge it. He said only a geek like me would even notice the difference, to which I pointed out....

1. Who do you think your review was for, who would be buying an FF DVD based on a review on Attack of the Show, if not for an 18-35 year old geek right?

2. the writing an animation changes significantly in season two, so much so if you can make the claim "only a geek like me would even notice the difference," it proves  you didn't even watch any season two episodes. which is when he admitted an assistant did the watching

I just happened to accidentally bother to watch a season two episode and notice the difference, Icould just as easily never saw any more episodes from th show and assumed the whole thing sucked and agreed with his review based on what i had seen, but the whole thing, the three email conversation, it made me wonder how many more of this guys reviews were just bullshit based on what he thought the audience wanted to hear. The guy was more worried about being a brand name content provider for G4 tv, than making credible reviews. That's when I stopped trusting reviewers