One thing that many people think is that since Donald Trump is a business man he would be able to bring in jobs. Although Trump has failed numerous businesses and may not even be a billionaire. One defense many people use is that he got himself out of bankruptcy which he officially filed for 4 times and that’s not even the amount of times when he bankrupted company’s without filing for bankruptcy. However Donald trump has only gotten out because his dad bailed him out and inherited a bunch of money from them. If he were to just invest in the stock market from day one he would be much richer than he is not.
He has no plan
He speaks in generic bold statements and offers little or no details. He goes off and says thing like “I know more about ISIS than the generals do, believe me” and says that his plan to defeat ISIS is a secret. It’s obvious that he doesn’t know what he’s going to do when he gets to office. He even admitted to this in one of the republican debates
His economic plan
Put hold on all business regulations
· Make child care tax deductible (which it already is in some cases)
· Major tax cuts and increment in government spending (the rich get 25% before deductions)
· Restart the keystone pipeline (google it, it takes 4 seconds)
His plans would destroy the economy business regulations are made to protect citizens from the dangers of businesses harmful mishandling or incompetence. He would get rid of food and drug regulations that make sure our food and medication is safe. Millionaires would end up paying like 10 or 15% on taxes, if we don’t put serious budget cuts and reducing government spending my billions than the government wouldn’t have enough money to pay for its necessary programs.
He doesn’t understand how government woks
The most important part of being president is knowing how to do the job. He can’t go to congress and get things done. It would be like getting an A in American government then running the country. Even George W. Bush experience as governor of Texas and he’s largely considered as the worst presidents in American history. Also before someone says it in the comment section Ronald Reagan was governor of California for 2 terms (8 years January 2, 1967 – January 6, 1975).
His lack of knowledge or understanding of foreign policy
Does Hillary Clinton have a good track record in foreign policy? No, but at least she has experience and knowledge about it and Donald trump has none. Even if you think she would run amuck in the Middle East (and I’m one of them) he is even worse. In today’s world we need someone who knows about foreign policy or at least has a good plan on how to not make a disaster.
Most of his policies are very misinformed
When you hear him talk about the Muslim ban and anything involving immigration there’s so many inaccuracies or things he’s overlooked.
He offered John Kasich the job as president
He offered John Kasich VP and full authoritarian control over all foreign and domestic polices which would is essentially everything and he would just take credit. What legitimate presidential candidate would do that?
Mike Pence
He changes positions a lot
He’s been on opposite ends of almost every issue how can we trust a word he says?
What makes the two characters different is that redhood kills, if batman kills than there would be no conflict between the two of them. If they were to meet instead of trying to stop the redhood from killing criminals, but in the movie that wouldn’t make much sense. This version of batman would agree with Jason and most likely have no problem with Jason’s actions. That confrontation between the redhood, batman and the joker wouldn’t be the same since if this version of batman could kill the joker he would have done it already. The only way the joker is still alive is because the batman hasn’t been able to kill him yet or batman doesn’t know the joker was alive. So what would Jason be mad about?
You could create a different dynamic between the two of them but then it wouldn’t be the same relationship or the same story. Scene’s between the two of them would be boring. They would have too much in common. They would agree on everything and a fight between the two of them wouldn’t hold any conflict. Having such a similar fighting style and both being ok with killing people, a fight between them wouldn’t as exciting as it is in the comics were Jason has a more lethal style against batman’s non-lethal but more experienced background.
In comic book movies like Captain America: the winter solder and X-Men days of futures past they are story’s that writers came up with in a room by themselves. The movie wouldn’t take the comic book story arc then translate it would be its own movie and the Red Hood would be in it. So then what would be the point, other than under the red hood and redhood: lost days his story arcs aren’t that good. There have been a few good ones but none that make me think wow not that should be made be made into a movie. So how would coming up with a movie with him being its own story be any different. Plus they never mentioned him in batman v superman, showing his suit was all they had of him.
What more could you do with the story? If you’re going to make a movie than you should go bigger and better, but the problem is that other than better visuals you can’t go any further than what they have already done. We have already seen the Red Hood come out of the comics and into TV and film so seeing him in a movie wouldn’t be as cool.
Outside of a few good story’s from the comics he hasn’t been as interesting as the under the redhood story arc. A movie version wouldn’t do much better for him. He has never been a great character on his own. Unlike other members of the bat-family he hasn’t done much to separate himself from being a mirror image of batman with a few tweaks here and there. He’s one of those characters that is like batman except not as rich and he kills. The punisher and Midnighter are much cooler and have the same concept.
what are you thoughts? do you agree with me if not why am I wrong?
Reed sends a message to an alien planet latter reviled to be the skulls in a sequel. The mole man starts abducting people and taking them into the sewers. The Fantastic Four goes to stop him but when they do Kang shows up. Kang warns them of the skrull invasion and tells them that they should allow him to take over the planet so he can prepare earths army's. The Fantastic Four stops him.
other points below
No origin story
Baby Franklin Richards
Sue and reed are married
No mention of the x men or mutants but leaving room for them to be in the same universe if the franchise is a success
I know it's bad to give joker a real name and I don't want them to, but it's fun to spectate as fans and think about whom he might be.
Joe Chill
I know that he died in one of the zero comics in the new 52 but that could be a fake out and being that his name was mentioned before he asked who the joker was it would make sense that he did it. In addition, it would be a nice connection. Also in the Burton movies joker killed his parents as well.
Joe chill Jr
Another connection could be his son. With similar reasons to Joe Chill Sr.
Another Gotham criminal
It is also possible that joker has a duel identify and that is the reason why batman was shocked.
Bruce Wayne's uncle (Philip Wayne)
He does die during year zero but it could be told that he survived and became the joker.
Thomas Wayne
I know it is a bit of a stretch but what if he survived and was drove insane by the death of his wife and turned to a life of crime.
Thomas Wayne Jr
Thomas Wayne Jr. who was thought to be dead in the main universe but during court of owls Bruce Wayne said that Martha Wayne had a son named tames but got sick and had a miscarriage, what if she didn't have a miscarriage and instead for some reason he grew up without parents.
• Matt Smith’s small role (great for Dr. Who fans)
• Good final battle scene
• Best special effects ever used in a Terminator film
• The first 30 minutes of the film
• The future war between Skynet and the humans done right
BAD
• Jai Courtney plays a bad version of Kyle Reese with bad comedic timing and terrible acting that takes away from the personality that made him such a great character in the first terminator movie.
• The dialog is not very good
• Jai Courtney
• Confusing plot
• Jai Courtney
• Too much time traveling
• Jai Courtney
• Absolutely no chemistry between the male and female leads who are supposed to be love interests.
• Jai Courtney
• Erases what made the first two films great
• Jai Courtney
• Toned down the violence
MY OVERALL THOUGHTS
I did not like this movie; in fact, I thought it was the worst installation of the terminator franchise. In addition to all the things I mention in my good and bad parts of my review the movie did a terrible job on portraying the characters and proved that the franchise should either be rebooted leaving all of the past movies behind or be left a one for a while. Now there will surely be another terminator film at some point regardless of how this one does because the opportunity of bringing this franchise back to what it was is just too great. Now as I said before the first 30 minutes or so of the film are ok but the movies starts to fall apart when the good people try to make a plan to stop judgement day. Lastly, I did not like the way they used Arnold Schwarzenegger in this movie and was not a fan of his dynamic with the mediocre version of younger Sara Conner.
this list doesn't include heroes who already have public identities like superman, ironman or aquaman also some of the reasons are repeated.
5) Blue Marvel
Honestly, what are they going to do?
4) Sentry
Honestly, what are they going to do?
3) Kyle Rayner
Kyle Rayner usually operates in space and spends little time on earth. His identity means nothing in space since all his villains know his identity anyways. Now on earth criminals would have no way of telling when he would or would not be home is planning an attack would be nearly impossible and like I said before he doesn’t have any enemy’s wouldn’t already know his identity so nobody would immediately want to attack him aside from petty crooks who would fail.
2) Hal Jordan
Hal Jordan usually operates in space and spends little time on earth. His identity means nothing in space since all his villains know his identity anyways. Now on earth criminals would have no way of telling when he would or would not be home is planning an attack would be nearly impossible and like I said before he doesn’t have any enemy’s wouldn’t already know his identity so nobody would immediately want to attack him aside from petty crooks who would fail.
1) Batman
Bruce Wayne is rich enough to buy protection during events when he would be out in public and his ninja training would have taught him how to spot an assianation attempt he would likely know is coming. He could also use his wealth to upgrade his defenses in Wayne manner in case there was an attack. In addition, it would help his public image with non-dirty cops and criminals.
Of course, criminals would go after him but he would probably be ready for it. Oliver Queen and Tony Stark reviled their identities and like Bruce Wayne they are rich, if they can do it so can he. Lastly, some of his investors would be willing to make some of his gadgets and body armor. Now if they did they would want to mass produce it and sell it to the cops or the army and Bruce Wayne wouldn’t want that for stuff that could be used as a weapons to harm or kill human beings, but for some of his body armor or gadgets he might willing to sell.
This negates many other variables like scredualing conflicts and what kind of movie WB is going for. Also we don't know what kind of batman we're going to get. Lastly until I see batman v superman i'm leaving zach snyder off this list.
Reading comic books and knowing about characters makes criticism of comic book movies more legible. Now I do think that criticism from comic fans is unfair, usually however in criticism of movies that comic fans have seen in the entirety it is more justified. In addition usually when a movie is good there are less complaints from when they change a character in a bad comic book movie like the green lantern; however there are reasons why the criticism sometimes has more valid than people think. Non-comic book would not know if it is valid without the same knowledge or interest the comic fans have. Below are some other reasons that reading comic books and knowing about characters makes criticism of comic book movies more legible.
Knowing about the history of characters helps understanding the inspiration or similarity’s from each cinematic or TV version to the comics. For instance, the aquaman that we are getting in batman v superman is much like the late 90’s and early 2000’s Aquaman. Peter David who wrote the Aquaman title praised the cinematic aquaman saying that that was his Aquaman. Many misinformed people not familiar with this version would say there butchering the character when it could not be further from the truth. Another example of this is the Andrew Garfield version of Spiderman, which is well liked by most. However many people criticize his attractiveness saying Peter Parker is dorky and scrawny in the comics and should not look as handsome as Andrew Garfield when Peter Parker has been attractive in the comics before and has not been dorky and scrawny for decades.
Often people who are not familiar with the comic make assumptions about the character or are uninformed. Many people make assumptions about Aquaman based off his Family Guy appearances and the super-friends cartoon who most people that reference it did not watch. Non-comic book readers often forget characters change over time and differentiate from each creative team the works on them not just in the way they look but also in the way they act as well including their backstory. This goes back to Spiderman and a number of other characters who were put on to the big screen when people see things as changes from the comic when they are just pulled from a different era than more people are familiar with. Many people do not know that Spiderman has been a science teacher, a student, a photographer, a scientist and a C.E.O. People are also unaware of all the changes that have gone on in his personal life.
There is more than one version of a character and many non-comic book readers either do not know this or overlook it. With all the multiverse, stuff it possible for filmmaker and show creators to pull from incarnations like all-star superman or all-star batman. These are versions set out of continuity made to stand on their own and are different from the norm on purpose. Many fans would love an all-star superman movie. These are version non-comic book fans would be un-familiar with and would not recognize the parallels between those versions and cinematic versions that take inspiration from them.
Book readers often are just as critical as comic book readers in terms of how the film differentiates from the source material. One common misconception is that so-called fan-boy criticism is unfair and specific to comic book fans, but book fans do the same thing when they see novel adaptations. In addition, many history buffs are upset when it is changed in movies. One of the criticisms of fan boy criticism is that it negates originality and that it turns into a view that everything has to be exactly like the comic book, but book readers often do the same thing. In some film franchises derived from novels book fans often claim that it was too different from the book and that alone ruined the entire movie.
WB can make as many live action interpretations of a DC character as they like. I believe that WB can use as many live action versions of characters as they like. It would not tie them down at all as long as they do them well and make them different from one another as possible. This has been done before with non-comic book characters just not at the same time in so many instances. I do not think that this would be different if WB did make the same characters show up at the same time in movies and TV shows. Through comic books and movies making the same characters be different through different interpretations has worked it would not be different now.
There are so many versions of Robin Hood that have been displayed. See how Robin Hood: men in tights and the Russell Crowe version are different in many ways. One was campy and funny while the other though not very well was more serious and took away what defined Robin Hood: Men in Tights. Another thing to think about is how many ways characters can be presented and how film and television characters can make those characters different. This goes on in more than just the Robin Hood character others like Godzilla and the three musketeers have gone under many different characterizations on the big screen.
Characters have been displayed in so many different ways in the comics. There are alternate versions of characters like all-star superman, red son superman and kingdom come superman; this can work because not every alternate take has to be so different from the usual take on the character. See how superman and batman have changed over the years and remained mainly positive throughout their continuity while remaining the core essential elements of the character, now superman is not anything like he was when he was first created but he has maintained a somewhat consistent background to him for the past few decades.
There is a difference between superhero movies and superhero TV shows. Superhero TV shows usually have a team set up relying on each other to help them out even in cartoons like the ultimate Spiderman. Superhero movies usually have a solo set up where the superhero is on his own. Show like agents of shield, arrow and the flash are different than the movie set up even more so than just having team based set up. TV shows have a whole season to tell a story and continue to build a storyline for an entire season. Movies tell an adventure that lasts a couple of hours.
Log in to comment