Offside Chat Archives (2014-2021)

Ashley Bailey6 said:Batman is pretty much the only superhero franchise I can get into.
I guess it's because they feel the most grounded in reality.

Nolan really leaned into that serious tone with his final trilogy.

Deadpool was a decent break from all that, though.

That’s exactly why those three Batman movies are such a disaster to me. Honestly, I'd rather watch Wonder Woman, no matter how she turns out, than deal with Nolan's version of Batman. The guy puts on a bat suit to fight criminals and then this director tries to act like it's realistic. 🤣

For me, the best Batman is the one from 1989. It wasn't just a good movie; it was a great piece of Gothic cinema. These newer versions might try to be gritty, or the Avengers movies might feel epic because they have more heroes and special effects, but nothing beats Burton's atmosphere and his take on Gotham. And Michael Keaton was just incredible. 🙏

Joseph Thompson34 said:That’s exactly why those three Batman movies are such a disaster to me. Honestly, I'd rather watch Wonder Woman, no matter how she turns out, than deal with Nolan's version of Batman. The guy puts on a bat suit to fight criminals and then this director tries to act like it's realistic. 🤣

For me, the best Batman is the one from 1989. It wasn't just a good movie; it was a great piece of Gothic cinema. These newer versions might try to be gritty, or the Avengers movies might feel epic because they have more heroes and special effects, but nothing beats Burton's atmosphere and his take on Gotham. And Michael Keaton was just incredible. 🙏

It isn't a Halloween costume.
Batman relies on technology an ordinary person could actually use.

That's why you can portray him realistically, unlike other superheroes.

That’s all true, but a problem arises when it crosses that line of reality. When I watched those Nolan Batman movies, I got the feeling he didn't quite know what to do with all that realism. I could totally see him thinking, "Okay, let me try to make a realistic Batman for the real world," and fine, but then he realized he couldn't dose it properly because he had to throw in this guy or that guy, and then Batman has to use gadgets that wouldn't actually stand a chance against supervillains in real life. It bothers me, especially hearing people constantly say Nolan's Batman is great just because it's "realistic." I'd rather you just tell me they're great because they're well-directed or something. But realistically, it isn't, no matter how hard he tries to present it that way.

I always say with those films, "A guy dressing up in a bat suit, using all these different gadgets to fight criminals—including some guy with a painted clown face—can't be real." It can't happen in any world. Honestly, props to Nolan for even managing to sell that to audiences, and for people still saying ten years later that it's realistic. No, it isn't.

The Joker concept works too—that chaotic genius archetype is pretty common in the world.
It was definitely Heath Ledger’s career-defining role, maybe even the best Joker we've ever seen.

Obviously, it can't be 100% realistic, but it doesn't have to be. As long as the movie stays engaging for everyone, not just kids or people chasing nostalgia, I'm fine with it.
We needed to see this version.

It's a legitimate sequel to the franchise, yet it manages to feel totally original.

Ashley Bailey6 said:The Joker concept works too—that chaotic genius archetype is pretty common in the world.
It was definitely Heath Ledger’s career-defining role, maybe even the best Joker we've ever seen.

Obviously, it can't be 100% realistic, but it doesn't have to be. As long as the movie stays engaging for everyone, not just kids or people chasing nostalgia, I'm fine with it.
We needed to see this version.

It's a legitimate sequel to the franchise, yet it manages to feel totally original.

The "deranged genius" is nothing more than an urban legend.
In reality, geniuses are typically just geniuses, perfectly sane.

There are plenty of "geniuses" who were once brilliant, only to lose their grip later and cease being brilliant altogether.
Frankly, using the term "genius" is a bit foolish when viewed from a mainstream perspective. For instance, I am fairly certain that someone who proved Fermat's Last Theorem possessed far deeper knowledge, methodology, and imagination than someone like Tesla. The tragedy of that mathematician is simply that his field of expertise—at least for now, and likely forever—hasn't impacted human life as profoundly as Tesla's work did.
It's a simple question: how many people label Steve Jobs or Bill Gates as geniuses? In truth, they were exceptional businessmen who pushed the right products at exactly the right moment.

There is something vaguely unsettling about this habit of crowning geniuses.

I have no intention of diminishing the legacy of Tesla, Da Vinci, Einstein, or even Newton.
It is merely that I am convinced there were, and still are, individuals far more intelligent and specialized in their respective fields than they were. They simply weren't lucky enough to work on something that fundamentally altered the course of human history.

The "mad scientist" is a convenient cliché. What would Einstein be without that iconic photo of him staring into the camera with that wild hair? Unthinkable.
I highly doubt he was writing his papers or presenting his findings looking like that.
Tesla serves as perhaps the best example. There is no dispute that he arrived at revolutionary ideas, or at least proved them to be viable. But it is equally true that he didn't produce those breakthroughs during his later years when his mental health declined.
In his final chapter, Tesla wasn't a "deranged genius." He was simply deranged. There wasn't a trace of brilliance left.

No matter how you spin it, these "deranged geniuses" simply do not exist in the real world.

Just Zagor, just Dylan, just Nathan, just Lazarus.

I mean, I’ll occasionally find myself scrolling through some old issues when I swing by my parents' place a few times a year, but I wouldn't go so far as to say this whole genre is just for kids.🤷

Honestly, American superheroes have never really done it for me. Once they get superpowers, the tension just evaporates. It’s gone.

Give me Zagor with his tomahawk and a thick cigar any day.☕

Matthew Young35 said:People are drawn to these films because of their metaphysical weight. There’s something transcendental and timeless about them. Let’s be honest: the Avengers are timeless. They represent a pursuit of sublime perfection that resonates with all of us, regardless of whether we’re living in the present, tomorrow, or some post-apocalyptic wasteland envisioned by a visionary director.
They serve as a timeless equivalent—or perhaps a substitute, if you prefer—for that asymptotic approach toward the inevitable triumph of justice.

I think part of the answer is that people are constantly bombarded by a million different news bites and info streams. We've already Googled all the standard stories about wars, moral dilemmas, and tragedies. To actually grab someone's attention, you have to invent something they don't see in the headlines every day, which is where superheroes come in (and they conveniently frame the U.S. as the global gold standard for justice, democracy, and fighting the good fight)

Matthew Young35 said:The "deranged genius" is nothing more than an urban legend.
In reality, geniuses are typically just geniuses, perfectly sane.

There are plenty of "geniuses" who were once brilliant, only to lose their grip later and cease being brilliant altogether.
Frankly, using the term "genius" is a bit foolish when viewed from a mainstream perspective. For instance, I am fairly certain that someone who proved Fermat's Last Theorem possessed far deeper knowledge, methodology, and imagination than someone like Tesla. The tragedy of that mathematician is simply that his field of expertise—at least for now, and likely forever—hasn't impacted human life as profoundly as Tesla's work did.
It's a simple question: how many people label Steve Jobs or Bill Gates as geniuses? In truth, they were exceptional businessmen who pushed the right products at exactly the right moment.

There is something vaguely unsettling about this habit of crowning geniuses.

I have no intention of diminishing the legacy of Tesla, Da Vinci, Einstein, or even Newton.
It is merely that I am convinced there were, and still are, individuals far more intelligent and specialized in their respective fields than they were. They simply weren't lucky enough to work on something that fundamentally altered the course of human history.

The "mad scientist" is a convenient cliché. What would Einstein be without that iconic photo of him staring into the camera with that wild hair? Unthinkable.
I highly doubt he was writing his papers or presenting his findings looking like that.
Tesla serves as perhaps the best example. There is no dispute that he arrived at revolutionary ideas, or at least proved them to be viable. But it is equally true that he didn't produce those breakthroughs during his later years when his mental health declined.
In his final chapter, Tesla wasn't a "deranged genius." He was simply deranged. There wasn't a trace of brilliance left.

No matter how you spin it, these "deranged geniuses" simply do not exist in the real world.

For me, the best scenes are always when those "disturbed geniuses" listen to classical music while plotting world domination or carrying out some massacre. It’s such a cliché, honestly. Of course, the only "normal" people—the ones who eventually take these geniuses down—just listen to rock and roll. It’s proof that the average American can still triumph over a genius they might not fully understand, but can definitely handle...🤣 clearly, the regular folks are the ones who end up winning against those eccentric types in the end 😁

Look, I think comics are mostly meant for kids and teens, and later on, they should probably just serve as a nice break from more serious topics, but I can definitely see them as a solid way to unwind. Like I mentioned before, I actually have some pretty massive collections at home, and not just of things like *Condor*. I know my way around a comic book. But I feel like a real comic needs to be cohesive—it should focus on a single theme or a set of characters that inhabit their own consistent world. For instance, you have someone like *The Phantom* and then a hundred episodes following that same journey. Or you take Batman, and then you watch the Batman movies. They build this stylized, fictional reality that is part of what makes a specific comic charming. Batman has his own logic and world where everything makes sense. Iron Man is similar. Those types of films stay relatively close to a grounded reality. But what they’re doing with the "Avengers" feels different to me. It seems like they just grab any random characters from various movies and cram them into one giant commercial where none of the established rules seem to apply. I guess it lacks actual plot or any real sense of direction. It feels more like a two-hour advertisement; I wonder why people don't see it that way?

Just as an example, let's look at this question. I guess you could say Marvel created the "Avengers" by mixing together everything they’ve done so far. Essentially, the only thing tying all those stories together is that they come from comics published by Marvel. But why stop there? Take Universal Studios, for instance—they also produce huge blockbusters and even run their own theme parks. Here are some of their biggest hits:

1 Jurassic World Uni. $652,270,625 4,291 $208,806,270 4,274 6/12/15
2 The Secret Life of Pets Uni. $368,384,330 4,381 $104,352,905 4,370 7/8/16
3 Despicable Me 2 Uni. $368,061,265 4,003 $83,517,315 3,997 7/3/13
4 E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial Uni. $359,197,037 1,778 $11,835,389 1,103 6/11/82
5 Jurassic Park Uni. $357,067,947 2,566 $47,026,828 2,404 6/11/93
6 Furious 7 Uni. $353,007,020 4,022 $147,187,040 4,004 4/3/15
7 Minions Uni. $336,045,770 4,311 $115,718,405 4,301 7/10/15
8 Meet the Fockers Uni. $279,261,160 3,554 $46,120,980 3,518 12/22/04
9 Sing Uni. $270,395,425 4,029 $35,258,145 4,022 12/21/16
10 Despicable Me 3 Uni. $264,624,300 4,535 $72,434,025 4,529 6/30/17
11 How the Grinch Stole Christmas Uni. $260,044,825 3,256 $55,082,330 3,127 11/17/00
12 Jaws Uni. $260,000,000 675 $7,061,513 409 6/20/7

Maybe they could create a "Universal Cinematic Universe"? You could maybe tie dinosaur battles to a shark on vacation attacking the Fockers while kids play with Minions. Then, maybe Vin Diesel zooms in at 2,500 mph and runs over a T-Rex, only to freeze in shock when E.T. lands right in the middle of the road. From there, E.T. could probably steal Christmas from the Grinch, along with the sharks and the Fockers. Probably not Vin Diesel, though, since he's such a bald goofball.

🤦

Is there actually a single comic where the scenario described above takes place? No.

When it comes to the Avengers, you have a massive library of comics and one beautifully interconnected universe. Honestly, I cannot wrap my head around the hipster hate directed at superhero movies. It’s clearly just whatever is trendy now; these same people used to worship Star Wars and treat it like high art—what’s the difference? There isn't one.

Look, I’ll watch anything. I’ll sit through massive Hollywood epics, gritty crime thrillers, action flicks, dramas, or even those deep philosophical stories from European or Asian cinema. If it's good, I'm in. But I find this stuff fun too. I go to see a superhero movie knowing exactly what I'm getting into after nineteen films of this type. They did a fantastic job connecting these franchises; the character interactions are entertaining and packed with pop culture nods (like that scene in the latest film where S.L. Jackson starts fading away right before dropping the "motherfucker" line). The action is shot well, and this last installment actually delivers an ending that breaks the usual Marvel formula. At the end of the day, you go to the theater to be entertained. To question the fundamental purpose of a blockbuster is ridiculous. If we all wanted to satisfy some lofty intellectual standard, we’d spend our entire lives watching Bergman or Kurosawa—not that I don't love them. It's pure snobbery, plain and simple.

I guess the hipsters will probably be hyping those movies up ten years from now.

They’ll still be around in ten years. 😬

Honestly, I don't get the hate. If you love it, watch it; if you don't care, there are a hundred other things to do instead of wasting your breath. There was a time when I wasn't into Star Wars either, but I never felt the need to talk trash about it.

Look, I get that superhero movies are meant to be light entertainment, but even then, they used to actually have a decent plot. Nowadays, most of these blockbusters just feel like a total mess. I couldn't even sit through ten minutes of Wonder Woman, and Black Panther was just as bad... honestly, even the last Star Wars movie felt like one of the dumbest things I've seen all year.

I honestly think you’re just being blinded by nostalgia. Even those old classics had massive flaws if you actually bothered to look—at least that was my experience when I watched them. But nowadays, with high-speed internet and everything at our fingertips, plus a million theories and deep dives circulating constantly, everyone is much more susceptible to scrutiny. In this day and age, every single movie is going to have its fair share of critics and shortcomings.

It’s not really that these movies are childish or inherently stupid. Sure, they might be pretty mindless, and I get why people want to just switch off their brains for a bit. But I don't think we should accept movie theaters becoming exclusive venues for just that kind of stuff. It feels like Hollywood only produces one thing now. And honestly, I'm not even sure I'd call them movies anymore. To me, it's more like an amusement park ride—all the thrills without any actual surprises, just minor tweaks here and there. Like, maybe the roller coaster tracks are green instead of red, or the turn goes right instead of left. Or instead of a werewolf in the tunnel, it's LeBron James. That seems to be the difference between Hulk, Spider-Man, or Black Panther movies. They all feel identical. It feels like there's nothing else in theaters lately, except for these massive, two-hour long commercials packaged together.

The Nazi Party started out as nothing more than some rowdy, trivial entertainment peddled in Bavarian beer halls ☕

Jessica Gonzalez said:It’s not really that these movies are childish or inherently stupid. Sure, they might be pretty mindless, and I get why people want to just switch off their brains for a bit. But I don't think we should accept movie theaters becoming exclusive venues for just that kind of stuff. It feels like Hollywood only produces one thing now. And honestly, I'm not even sure I'd call them movies anymore. To me, it's more like an amusement park ride—all the thrills without any actual surprises, just minor tweaks here and there. Like, maybe the roller coaster tracks are green instead of red, or the turn goes right instead of left. Or instead of a werewolf in the tunnel, it's LeBron James. That seems to be the difference between Hulk, Spider-Man, or Black Panther movies. They all feel identical. It feels like there's nothing else in theaters lately, except for these massive, two-hour long commercials packaged together.

I think I realized about 5 to 10 years ago that the return on investment in the film industry was hovering around only 5%. The studios probably caught on, which is why they've largely abandoned "risky" projects like smarter, original films. These superhero stories are clearly just a formula for easy cash and easy marketing. Everything else takes a backseat. It’s all about the money, and everything else is secondary. I think that’s the biggest issue with modern Western civilization today (and probably everywhere else too, though I wouldn't know)...

Noah Roberts46 said:I honestly think you’re just being blinded by nostalgia. Even those old classics had massive flaws if you actually bothered to look—at least that was my experience when I watched them. But nowadays, with high-speed internet and everything at our fingertips, plus a million theories and deep dives circulating constantly, everyone is much more susceptible to scrutiny. In this day and age, every single movie is going to have its fair share of critics and shortcomings.

Maybe so. Even those old Batman flicks weren't exactly masterpieces or deep intellectual studies. In fact, quite the opposite. But what we're seeing now is a step down even from that; for most of the movies I mentioned, Predator is basically Citizen Kane by comparison...

But every once in a while, a low-budget gem comes along that actually catches you off guard. A great example would be this: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0756683/

I stumbled upon this one by total chance. The budget was clearly as tight as it gets, but the movie isn't just smart—it's incredible. There isn't a single special effect, yet it stays completely intense...

I watched that movie and it was actually pretty solid; I didn't see those plot twists coming at all. 👍

But let’s get one thing straight: these big franchises aren't the reason quality elsewhere has tanked. We've always had blockbusters, and they never dragged down the rest of the industry. Hollywood's decline is due to a total lack of original ideas, not because of superhero movies. To claim those thirty DC and Marvel flicks are the culprit just proves people can't figure out how to make decent films anymore. Yeah, right. 🤣

I mean, look at the absolute garbage Vin Diesel and The Rock churn out—just endless piles of mindless action junk. The real issue is that superhero movies are actually significantly better than that trash. There are still good films out there; sure, maybe they're harder to find than they used to be, but they exist.

Noah Roberts46 said:I watched that movie and it was actually pretty solid; I didn't see those plot twists coming at all. 👍

But let’s get one thing straight: these big franchises aren't the reason quality elsewhere has tanked. We've always had blockbusters, and they never dragged down the rest of the industry. Hollywood's decline is due to a total lack of original ideas, not because of superhero movies. To claim those thirty DC and Marvel flicks are the culprit just proves people can't figure out how to make decent films anymore. Yeah, right. 🤣

I mean, look at the absolute garbage Vin Diesel and The Rock churn out—just endless piles of mindless action junk. The real issue is that superhero movies are actually significantly better than that trash. There are still good films out there; sure, maybe they're harder to find than they used to be, but they exist.

It's honestly great that someone finally checked out that movie... 👍

I remember seeing a great visual explaining how those scenarios get picked out... it was in that Matt LeBlanc series, Episodes or something like that. I watched the first season a while back and it was pretty cool...

I can't quite remember if blockbusters were always this trash, but it’s getting pretty obvious that these massive, hundred-million-dollar productions are mostly just disposable junk. They’re built to be consumed and forgotten, right? Luckily, there’s still a ton of other stuff being made out there—different genres, different vibes. At least nowadays, we have enough access to actually decent movies and series that we aren't forced to rely on whether or not someone decides to churn out another mediocre superhero flick.