Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I was wondering if there are any physical traits or aspects in a movie, such as clothing, costumes, hair, size or height of a character, etc. that turn you off and kind of messes up your movie experience. Because I know with X-Men Origins: Wolverine, a lot of people absolutely hated the way that Deadpool looked. Also, with such a smart-mouthed character, people also hated that his mouth was sewn shut. Plus, I heard that people who read the Jack Reacher books, were turned off that Tom Cruise played that character, because in the book, Jack Reacher is pretty tall.
But what prompted me to start this thread is that I had recently noticed something that they did with Spider-Man's eyes in the new Spider-Man: Homecoming posters. In the new posters, I had noticed that his eyes are bigger.
And this would be in comparison to his eyes in Captain America: Civil War.
And I knew there was something that I didn't like about Spider-Man in CACW, but I'm just now figuring it out. (Although, I'm also not crazy about the pointed black bans around his arms and on his boots, but I think that I can live with that.) But I'm glad that someone had the discernment to change his eyes from how they looked in CACW.
So are there any physical traits or aspects that have turned you off in a movie?
Also, I'm almost embarrassed to admit this, but I wasn't real crazy about Ricardo Montalban's hair in Star Trek: The Wrath of Kahn because I was used to Kahn's black, slicked-back hair from the television series:
However, I had heard that Ricardo Montalban's hairline had been receding at the time of making STTWOK, therefore, he wore bangs to cover that:
However, there was always something about the 'bangs' that I didn't like, and I think that I would have liked STTWOK more than I did, if he didn't have the bangs.
I haven't seen Spider-Man: Homecoming yet, but I already don't like the costume. Too techy. Part of the fun of the old comics was that Peter was a "street-level" hero in New York, always running out of web fluid, trying to scrape up rent money, etc. Brian Bendis actually had a lot of fun with this in ULTIMATE SPIDER-MAN with Spidey constantly having to sew up his suit, pay for chemicals for the web fluid, Kingpin crushing his web-shooters, losing his mask, freezing in winter, etc.
I think that just about everyone hated the triangle shaped arc reactor on Iron Man's chest in Iron Man 2.
Although thankfully, Joss Whedon hated it too and decided to change it back to the round one in The Avengers.
Quote:
On that point, here's an interview of Whedon talking to Empire about why the Iron Man suit in the trailer no longer has the triangular arc reactor from Iron Man 2. In short, he thinks "the triangle is ass," and even if he'd kept the triangle, you wouldn't see it long anyway: in the spirit of Iron Man 2 and Marvel wanting to have a bunch of variants to sell as toys, there are going to be all sorts of suits worn and Battle Damaged
And I forgot to mention that I always disliked the boring all-red uniform tops in Star Trek II and beyond.
However, I absolutely loved the gray and tan uniforms(and the captain's white center) with the centered belt buckle instead of the full belt in Star Trek: The Motion Picture.
But I feel like they threw the baby out with the bathwater when Star Trek: The Motion Picture failed and they decided to totally revamp the franchise. Uniforms and all.
But I feel like they threw the baby out with the bathwater when Star Trek: The Motion Picture failed and they decided to totally revamp the franchise. Uniforms and all.
Although come to think of it, it really wasn't a revamping at all... Because I recall that it was said that they downsized the budget for Star Trek II because Star Trek: The Motion Picture was a very expensive movie(actually, I think that the uniforms show that).
Although come to think of it, it really wasn't a revamping at all... Because I recall that it was said that they downsized the budget for Star Trek II because Star Trek: The Motion Picture was a very expensive movie(actually, I think that the uniforms show that).
True.
Star Trek II actually began as a made-for-TV movie. But then the studio started seeing how fantastic it was and decided to give it a theatrical release. It just goes to prove: Great story trumps expensive special effects every time.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
