Weren't you the one saying America is hypocritical in their movie tastes because they demand new, unique types of movies (Pacific Rim) but typically just go see generic movies with tropes that are done to death (Grown Ups 2)? Isn't this stance on movies with established characters sucking if they aren't entirely accurate to the character kind of hypocritical of you to say with that view? The conclusion I'm drawing from your recent posts about Godzilla (1998) is that you don't actually want anything new or unique, you do in fact want the same thing again.
I mean, if the movie sucked sure. But thinking it sucked
because the character wasn't the same as he always is seems like a horrible excuse to hate a movie in my opinion. Same with the guys in here saying the Nolan Batman movies sucked because it didn't accurately depict Batman, even if that wasn't the point of this "realistic" version of the Batman universe. Did the Jack Nicholson
Batman movie suck because he kills the Joker?
And maybe I am misunderstanding you (your inFamous example drew me to this conclusion) so correct me if I did. Though my point isn't directed just towards you so anyone who wants to discuss the subject please do.
I think different interpretations of characters
are a good thing, personally. I think the Nolan Batman was done well as a character. He isn't the same as comic Batman, but he and the villains of the movie are believable in the setting they're in and actually gave room for awesome situations that you couldn't see in the DC comic universe. Automatically thinking they're bad because it is an interpretation of the character instead of a 100% accurate depiction (impossible for a character that has been written by so many different people might I add) suggests that such a person could never have even given the movie a chance in the first place.
Don't know where he pulled that shit from.
.
