Jump to content

Count Mario

TSS Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About Count Mario

  • Rank
  • Birthday 04/08/1998

Profile Information

  • Interests
    Video games, comic books, animated movies, manga, and pretty much anything geeky are what I'm all about.
  • Gender
  • Country
    United States
  • Location
    Spider-Island Two

Recent Profile Visitors

2,189 profile views
  1. I really dig this teaser. The red lighting reminds me of Daredevil and that's always a good thing. The music gives me a gritty noir feel before transitioning into a more traditionally bombastic gothic Batman vibe, which fits very well with how this movie is reported to focus more on Batman's detective side (about damn time). I also like how the suit looks. The cowl is made out of fabric and makes me think of Batman's early Detective Comic look. While the suit looks like it's composed of individual armor pieces strapped on instead of either straight-up spandex or plastic-y and overly detailed like the Nolan suit. Please get as far as away from the Nolan suit as possible, it's so freaking boring and tacky. In fact, this new suit design reminds me of the Arkham Origins Batman suit, which is easily my favorite Batman design of all time for looking practical yet stylish and faithful to his unique look. Not to mention finding a way to incorporate the black speedo without making it look goofy. Lots of people (including Kevin Smith) are saying that the Bat emblem looks like it's made out of the gun that killed the Waynes, which Kevin Smith apparently wrote for Detective Comics #1000. And while that sounds very plausible ... I can't decide whether that's a clever spooky portrayal of how Bruce embraces his tragedy to define his conviction, or just hilariously trying too hard to be edgy to the point it's difficult to take seriously. If that ends up being true, I guess my feelings depend on how its executed. As long as they don't shove Joker into the movie to finally focus on the rest of Batman' rogues gallery, I'm excited. Especially as a fan of the director's work on the Planet of the Apes reboot trilogy.
  2. That... sure sounds a lot like Vanellope leaving home for good is the wrong decision. "Consequences of a character's own actions extending far beyond [him or] her" is literally what Disney/Pixar's been doing for the past several years, and technically even decades. You're drawing a line between whether the negative consequences affect the protagonist specifically or other characters, but I still argue they've very similar story structures. Story structures that end with the protagonist realizing they were a tool letting their naive selfish desires mess up the precious status-quo of home being where you belong. We're practically arguing over semantics at this point. I'm saying that this is pretty similar to, say, Frozen. Elsa needed to return to stop indirectly ruining other people's lives with her powers. And you're saying this totally isn't like Frozen because Vanellope might have better reasons to leave than Elsa did and her selfish satisfaction would make other people not able to return home. The specific details are different, but the overall character roles and dynamics here are virtually the same. Not that these films don't have very different characters, and internal conflicts, but they both still have that resolution where balance is only restored if the protagonist comes back home and becomes happy about it so there aren't any regrets to taint the happy ending. Like we've seen in several other Disney/Pixar films. All I'm asking for is a little more variety in how Disney movies end no matter how much Disney is content with sprinkling different details and internal conflict circumstances. Thanks for reminding me about that with King Candy altering the code. Going Turbo messing everything up is a consistent element that works for Vanellope. And like I said before, Vanellope needing to return home to maintain order isn't a bad thing that ruins the movie or anything. There's enough to differentiate 2 from 1 since Vanellope wants to stay in the internet for good while only wanted to prove himself and return soon. Vanellope needing to become more mature and taking responsibility for her people works. And I REALLY like your theory about having parallels drawn between Vanellope and Turbo, which actually goes against how Disney usually never even wants their heroes and villains to even be blood related let alone even slightly similar in characterization/roles ( at least after we know those characters are bad). I'm only pointing out that if the plot could instead let Vanellope stay in the intent without being forced to go back home for plot-arbitrary obligations, or just do that type of thing with any Disney movie as it doesn't have to specifically be this one, that could help spice up the storyline variety in Disney movies nowadays. It's not absolutely necessary for this to happen with Wreck-It Ralph 2 specifically, but it's a formula twist I would appreciate a lot. Especially to help motivate people around the world that, hey, leaving home because home sucks and probably never coming back isn't ALWAYS a bad thing. Realistically speaking, we're either getting Vanellope not knowing how bad the indirect consequences will be until someone tells her or actually knowing her actions will screw everything up for Sugar Rush's citizens but still wanting to stay anyways for whatever reason until getting throughly convinced to return by Ralph. Heck, we might even get those in sequential order to intensify the act three tension. But there will only be one obvious resolution to that, and I hope we can agree on that.
  3. Wait, I'm sorry, I'm confused. What exactly are you arguing for? That Vanellope might have understandable reasons to leave Sugar Rush for Slaughter Race? I agree, but I never debated against that. Not sure what gave you that impression. I'm criticizing Disney's overall tendency for always making movies where the protagonist realizes the best place for them is home because they're obligated to their family or everything falls apart without them or whatever else is the big excuse. Which they can still easily do here even if Vanellope has good reasons for leaving, whether it's by making the protagonist realize their selfish or force them into an ultimatum that relies on them remedying their bond with their home/family. Or the new cool place is really super awful or whatever. As they did in Toy Story 2, Toy Story 3, and Coco. And sort of the first Wreck-It Ralph and Moana but they always intended to go back home with a status-quo change (not that those movies couldn't have subverted this either. Judging by Disney's usual patterns, no matter how good her reasons initially are, the plot would still find some way frame Vanellope wanting to stay in the internet as an irresponsible decision by the end of the movie even if she has very tempting reasons. Unless the film somehow ends with Vanellope being allowed to make either choice and not being a bad person for either decision. But then that would just make still going back to Sugar Rush the underwhelming safe potential-inhibiting ending instead of something more meaningful like staying in the internet and maintaining long-term distance with a now self-confident Ralph. Wreck-It Ralph 2's premise works fine on its own, I'm addressing the overall trend Disney's established and wondering why we can't have more dynamic developments. But on the topic though... does Sugar Rush REALLY need Vanellope to be present? Or are we just assuming that based on the cliche that leadership roles are always super duper important and can't ever be changed? Yeah, the game's getting unplugged because the controller broke. But we're forgetting that Vanellope was missing for a while, presumably even whole years, from her game after being upstaged by Turbo and the game still worked fine. It's not even like King Candy turned Sugar Rush into a dystopia or anything, it's still relatively the same game. And I doubt Vanellope has some ace political skills or anything and is probably just a symbolic figurehead at best like a mascot character usually is. All we know for sure is that their game needs is to get fixed, not Vanellope specifically. And that would be a very different scenario from Fix-It Felix needing both its hero and antagonist to function as a game. If you knew you were an expendable part of a video game cast nobody noticed was gone and had the opportunity to be Maybe they'll just ignore that and pull some sort of random reason to make Vanellope seem more important than we originally thought, like needing to lead them with spontaneous charisma out of nowhere to comfort them or making her powers relevant to saving them somehow or whatever. And I wouldn't have much of a problem with that. But it would be a good way to make her situation both similar and different from Ralph's enough to not just rehash the same morals and resolutions as the first film. And aside from solely this movie, again, all I want is more variety in Disney/Pixar films overall.
  4. I really, REALLY like where this is going. Finally, I have a reason to be excited about this movie. Although a part of me does wish that a Disney movie would actually have the main character not want to go back home to their friends/family and NOT portraying that as a bad thing. But I guess we'll have to wait longer for that kind of story. That's not a knock against Wreck-It Ralph though. Just a trend I've been noticing in a lot of recent Disney/Pixar movies focusing on protagonists wanting to leave home. I think the only exceptions are if they return to their birthplace/family or get married into royalty. I think only Toy Story 3 has sort of done it? But even then it was Andy's choice to hand down his toys, the autonomy of the toys themselves didn't matter at all and they're still basically right where they started with a kid owner since Andy already grew up.
  5. Loved the announcement. I was expecting this to be saved for E3 2019 after Luigi's Mansion 3D comes out, but nope, it's rolling right in! It apparently takes place in a hotel, which I really like. It would be so easy to just make another different looking mansion to fit the series title. Speaking of which, Dark Moon is a dumb name that should have just been Luigi's MansionS, and maybe the S could even look distorted to simultaneously resemble a 2, but I digress. But I must say that the Dark Moon elements turn me off immediately. I appreciated certain aspects of Dark Moon like the refined controls/combat system, Luigi's vivid animations, puzzles, and varied location themes. But the mission-based format, generic ghost designs, and overall lighthearted slapstick atmosphere felt like a huge step down. You can tell the difference between the two games in an aspect as simple as the sound design, where Dark Moon plays over the top ghoulish music all the time while the original Luigi's Mansion has pure silence whenever Luigi slowly opens a door with a new key or when you can only hear Luigi whistling in lit rooms while dark rooms are silent or the the mansion exterior having a single solemn harp play. Dark Moon is a perfectly fine game on its own, don't get me wrong. If it was the first and only previous Luigi's Mansion game, I would not complain at all because it would be exactly what I would expect from a Ghostbusters-esque Mario spinoff. People who only played that game probably wouldn't care much about the original did since Dark Moon looks bigger and better with the multiple mansions and such. But that's pretty much my problem. The series lost its unique creepy trapped overworld ambience in a way that feels like it was, say, "Mariofied". The linear A-B missions, the lighthearted nature, no actual non-traditional Mario series characters like the Portrait Ghosts, recycling the same kidnapping plot but with Mario instead of Peach, and even the mansion locale tropes being styled like worlds. The first few Mario RPGs, Yoshi, and Wario are allowed to be wildly different from Mario when it comes to their gameplay, casts, dialogue, tone, and aesthetic. Which is why I wish Luigi could get that much experimental freedom again, although Dark Moon still obviously stands out from the rest of the series. Dark Moon feels a lot like so many animated movies that wear horror tropes like a superficial costume that's really hiding goofy kid antics underneath, like the average Halloween cartoon special or The Nightmare Before Chrustmas. Meanwhile, the original is actually willing to be creepy and memorably suspenseful like, say, Coraline. One of the only genuinely unsettling animated horror movies aimed at kids. You can still have lighthearted moments here and there and some humor, but I would appreciate that not being the main spotlight. I look at those generic blue Casper ghosts and the purple toony gates and automatically sigh disappointment. But the game looks like it might center around only one hotel-themed skyscraper and maybe switching up locale themes every certain amount of rooms/floors, and that can work very well. And a single hotel setting could easily work in miniboss ghosts like the Portrait Ghosts again, which I really hope Next Level Games is interested in after remaking the original Luigi's Mansion. If the foreboding atmosphere, single overworld, and boss ghosts from the first game could be combined with the refined controls, level design, and animations/cutscenes from the second game, Luigi's Mansion 3 could easily become my game of the year in 2019. Add in some Joycon co-op or online multiplayer and it could become one of my favorite games of all time. Although I would prefer a second player being someone like E. Gadd or Daisy instead of some green ectoplasm Luigi abomination like in Luigi's Mansion 3D and I'm not too sure how comfortable the Joycons are with using their should buttons to suck and blow.
  6. Oh, THAT's the plot. I see now... So the main conflict of this film is seeing how Mr. Litwak finds a replacement accessory for an outdated arcade machine! That easily has the grounds to tell an unorthodox story about a man learning how futile it is to keep resurrecting the past as newer generations move onto more contemporary mediums and art forms. Allowing parallels about the cycle of life and death not just for video games but also human beings themselves who feel out of touch with old age. I have to admire Disney being bold enough to elevate a humble everyman like Mr. Litwak into the leading role while subverting Ralph and Vanellope's former roles by making them comedic relief for cameo interactions.
  7. I would definitely call the Spider-Verse a gimmick of its own as of late even if Marvel has always loved multiverse shenanigans. It completely took over the premise of the Ultimate Spider-Man cartoon, multiple Spider-Men including Miles and Gwen are main characters in the latest Spider-Man cartoon, there were the two Spider-Men series about Peter and Miles, and there seems to be a sequel to the original Spider-Verse comic book event called Spidergeddon coming out later this year. Not to mention Shattered Dimensions and Edge of Time video games. So yeah, I would call it a gimmick specifically for Spider-Man at this point. While other alternate universe crossovers have happened all over comics, no other hero has this big of a recurring repertoire for multiversal crossovers all over every medium in recent years. Which makes sense no other hero really has so many interesting and charismatic alternate universe counterparts besides maybe Batman. Or Flash if you count time traveling too. Spider-Man's design and overall themes/brand are just that iconic in making his series always stand out while any other alternate Marvel hero counterpart usually fizzles out unless they're a villain like Maestro or Iron Man 2020. TMNT does it a lot too, but it's usually spread out years at a time and focuses primarily on a brand new series. I'm betting on two Peter's and Ultimate Peter Parker staying dead since we saw Peter Parker's grave. The death of Ultimate Peter Parker was the hook for Miles aside from being a new minority character. I would like Peter's death kept in since grappling with Peter's legacy is a big part of Miles' story, and without that he sort of just becomes another teenage Spider-Man without much of a unique direction, which is pretty much what he is now after joining the main comic book universe. I don't know if they would want to take the gravitas out of that by having Peter resurrected and/or faking his death (then again, that's what Bendis did at the end of his Ultimate Spider-Man run before Secret Wars lol). But they could go for either route. I used to think that this movie would go for multiple Spider people being born in the same universe like you said since the first trailer made this movie look so primarily focused on Ultimate Spider-Man villains. Miles' comic book origin involved him getting bit by one of several mutated spiders, so I thought this movie would take that and rework various Spider-Men into it. But I don't know anymore. The way Miles' narration literally talks about his universe being different from the mainstream one, even if that is only for the trailer and not included in their trailer, makes me think this movie will incorporate multiverse Spider-Men after all. At the same time, I can't really figure out exactly why alternate universe Spider-Men would need to come help out Miles specifically. Sure, it would be easy to come up with some multiversal threat macguffin. But we're still only talking about Prowler, Kingpin, and Green Goblin. They're usually not THAT dangerous. Then again, Spider-Men and Shattered Dimension had Mysterio making trouble in multiple universes because of random magic/technology. And the Ultimate Spider-Man cartoon had Green Goblin traveling to different dimensions to steal Spider DNA or whatever. So anything can go. I only hope for every spider person in this movie to play a notable role rather than be a shallow reference for support fodder and gags.
  8. I thought for a while that this was going to solely focus on Miles without any multiverse shenanigans, and the additional Spider-Man would be born in the Ultimate universe itself. But damn, I was wrong lol. Well, just because Peter's crossing into this universe doesn't mean other spiders can't. For all we know, Peter might already know a bunch of alternate Spider-Men in this continuity and they follow him to the Ultimate universe to train new Spider-Man or stop a multiversal threat or something. But if you want the real meta reason, then Spider-Gwen's showing up because Marvel loves using Gwen as a gimmick these days (actually, they like using multiple Spider-Men as a gimmick in general nowadays, just look at the most recent Ultimate Spider-Man and Spider-Man cartoons). A la Gwenpool, or the onslaught of Gwen variant covers for their comics. I'm not even sure where the whole Gwen-craze started (maybe people REALLY liked Emma Stone's live-action performance lol), but it's lead to some interesting things. If they were going to add a third Spider-Man besides Peter or Miles, she would be included for sure because of how much she's pushed in the mainstream. I also heard about Miles and Gwen actually dating or something months/years ago, so maybe they might make Gwen his love interest. Who knows? All I'm hoping for is that she actually contributes to the story in a meaningful way. Like maybe talking to Miles about how her own Peter Parker died and living up to that guilt/legacy or something. I'm not really into the Spider-Verse gimmick Marvel's been pushing since the comic event because, well, seeing multiple people with the same powers and not much more chemistry than that doesn't really interest me. But seeing Peter mentor Miles in an eccentric Yoda-esque way like in this trailer looks freaking awesome.
  9. http://www.ign.com/articles/2018/04/24/spider-man-into-the-spider-verse-villains-revealed Ultimate Green Goblin, the Prowler (who we briefly see in the trailer), and Kingpin are confirmed to be in the film. So just like I assumed, the movie seems to be focusing primarily on the Ultimate Spider-Man universe with the "Spider-Verse" titling being reworked into meaning multiple people getting bitten by spiders who may or may not reference different Spider-Man universes but are still born in the Ultimate universe.
  10. I will give Brad Bird the benefit of the doubt. But ironically enough, he just stated in an interview yesterday that he has planned to swap gender roles between Bob and Helen ever since developing the first installment. While the main conflict of the story is what he's constantly struggled with and redone over the past few years. http://www.ign.com/articles/2018/04/16/why-did-incredibles-2-take-so-long-brad-bird-explains-the-sequels-delay It also mentions how he wants to dig into gender norms, father participation, and women being just as vital in the workplace as men. Which are valid truths and concepts to explore. The idea of Helen becoming the protagonist for a movie is a great move, although I would personally prefer a movie giving the whole family around equal amounts of focus rather than relegating most of them to a B plot at home for half the film like both of these installments seem to love doing. I get that they want to have their cake and eat it too by having both superhero and family drama, and it's extremely difficult to not have a film focus around a specific protagonist. But is having one member recruited into some sort of secret agent program while the rest of the team is left out of the loop the only premise they can come up with? Seriously? But I'm really REALLY hoping they go for something more than Bob feeling insecure/emasculated about being stuck at home with the kids and Helen feeling liberated from the typical monotonously inhibiting and unappreciated housewife lifestyle. And even if you get past how cliche that conflict has become, I still always find at least the male side of that conflict so shallowly trivial. Because I've seen that a million times and the moral messages to tell for those dilemmas are obvious nowadays. Not that I'm pretending as if there still isn't clear societal gender disparity, but stay-at-home dads and working moms aren't anything new. Unless, I don't know, you're really deep in American bible belt territory. I'm sorry, but all I see in these trailers are either what I just described or running gags loosely from the first film. Oh, and apparently the villain is an electronic media obsession/manipulation metaphor for modern society too, how clever. Although that power can be used very interestingly if handled right, like with the Purple Man's mind control in Jessica Jones (not that Pixar should ever go that dark). Pixar also knew that a sequel to Monsters Inc was clamored for too. And we all got was every college movie cliche splattered with monster paint. Finding Dory wasn't much better or original. I wouldn't be surprised if this movie's only getting made now because Tomorrowland flopped and Incredibles 2 was always a back pocket nest egg Brad could bring out if he hit hard times. But even so, if he makes it all work out, great! I am praying that I will be proven wrong after waiting over a decade for this film.
  11. The movie parallels are actually what worries me. I worry that this sequel will mainly "just" be a spouse swap. The cinematics look amazing, but the the amount of story that's been revealed in these trailers hasn't really wowed me. And the only Bob parenting joke that made me crack up a little bit was the "MATH IS MATH" scene. Even Syndrome and Screenslaver seem like they could occupy similar "rich person using resources to reform the world" supervillain niche, even though they obviously appear to have different costume/power gimmicks and opposite motivations. Judging by the cast list released for the movie:
  12. As somebody who played the Vigilante storyline first and watched the Villain storyline later And I must say... I am so overwhelmed by the dissonance in plot quality that I am going to replay the entire Telltale Batman series for reevaluation to end with the Villain scenario next time. The Villain storyline felt like a much tighter, properly paced, and thematically compelling narrative. The Vigilante storyline was decent and Joker's dialogue is freaking beautiful, but I don't have many other praises. Don't get me wrong, the Villain storyline is still far from perfect. But for all of this season's faults, I really liked what it was going for. If anything, most of its flaws stem from the baggage of having to wrap up poorly developed plotlines from the rest of the season, while everything new they did with Joker's transformation managed to engage me at least somewhat more than I expected. So the Vigilante storyline: In the Villain storyline though: All in all, the Vigilante storyline feels like an afterthought checking off boxes that were developed around planning the Villain storyline ahead of time. Which is a damn shame given how much I love Vigilante Joker's design and character interactions with Bruce, Alfred, and Waller. I love the themes for both Jokers and the final fight though, here they are if you want to listen: What a coincidence, I considered the same thing. But considering the difference with the Villain ending, nah. Both after-credits scenes were seriously meh, although the Vigilante one did tug my heartstrings a tiny bit. As for Hush, well... They can't disappoint us more than Arkham Knight did. At least, that is what I'd like to say, but I just remembered that Mr. Freeze doesn't return in either episode 5 version. I don't know where he'd fit, but that still sucks. Bane doesn't show up for closure in the Villain storyline either, but... who cares lol.
  • Create New...

Important Information

You must read and accept our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy to continue using this website. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.