Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Ten superheroes that don't need their own movie


Mr. Scot

Recommended Posts

Id be interested to see Gambit get his own movie...

DC characters are really cool when youre younger, but lack any real awesomeness as you get older. There just aint enough to compete with the Marvael heros, short of Batman. The Dark Knight is badass regardless of Adam West, Val Kilmer & George Clooney... Ive heard of a JLA movie for years, thought it was supposed to be out to contend with Avengers. Going back to my previous statement, I think the only way most DC heros could make a movie is by collaboration, none are cool enough to be the centerpoint, IMO. Im not a big fan of the Superman movies, any of them. I saw the preview in the theater & all that went through my head was Adam Sandle from Billy Madison -Well WOOPADEEDOO! Although I hear Smallville is cool...

DC heroes are gods... as such they act as archetypes rather than actual characters...

Kingdom+Come+TPB_sm.jpg

if DC wants to make movies, this is what they should make... IMO one of the best comic stories ever put to paper... and I don't really like DC books.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's one of the things I've always disliked about DC.

Their heroes are rarely 'down to earth' which makes them less relatable.

it's also a good thing when used correctly though, because DC heroes are symbols and myths in their own right... when used properly (as in kingdom come,) it can be very effective.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • lol, that second part is quite literally one of the dumbest things ever. Having or not having guaranteed contracts has absolutely nothing to do with how much these billionaires have to pay.  Because there is a hard cap and a minimum cap spend requirement, and teams either use their cap or roll it over to use it all the next year, so the owners have to pay the same amount of money in the end no matter what. Having fully guaranteed contracts in the NFL would only hurt salary cap management, and thus would end up screwing over the team and its fan base when teams kiss on signings as they take up cap room that is needed to improve the roster. Look at the Browns with Watson, they gave him the fully guaranteed deal and all it’s doing is sucking up massive cap space now.  If they hadn’t done that, the owner would still be paying the same amount of money each year as that cap space would still be used elsewhere. If you want to argue for fully guaranteed contracts because the players deserve it, that’s an entirely different argument and a fair one to discuss.  But anyone against fully guaranteed deals isn’t doing it to argue for the billionaire owners.
    • Start posting in threads in the other forums instead of just creating threads. No one comes over here so you aren't starting conversations.  Get your ass up to 100 posts. It's not that hard. Don't create 100 posts. Contribute to conversations. 
    • Ryabkin could be the steal of the draft, he was a Top 10 pick heading into last season and had a rough year.  Lots of GMs passed on him because of that and his workouts. Pick has really high upside and Svech should be able to translate Rod tearing his arse a new one for making dumb plays since Svech has had several years of it.  🤣😂
×
×
  • Create New...