Well Randomguy, the fact that the popularity of Lobo in early 90s comics was directly because they made the character a Wolverine spoof.

Not that people assumed that connection. The writers in control of Lobo in his revival in the early 90s specifically said that Lobo was intended to be an over-the-top parody of Marvel Comics superhero Wolverine.

You laugh, but its not observation. Its fact. Thats what the character was.

In addition to the violence, Lobo was half about crude humor. Half the stories and dialogue and his reactions were just flat out hilarious. The Lobo character, like Spawn, will be a character that would be bigger after a movie came out, simply because many non-comic fans aren’t aware of him, but once he received ‘exposure’, many of your average male target demographic would eat it up. I personally find ‘traditional’ superheroes like Green Lantern to be far less interesting than anti-heroes. Most NON-comic book fans would probably agree. If Rambo wore fruity tootie undies, and refused to kill, he would not have had as much appeal.

Well at least you managed to illustrate that you know nothing about comics.

And that you know nothing about me.

Nolan proved that you can make a serious comic book movie and have broad appeal. This is why people are so eager to see other franchises treated like “real movies”

Be sure to check your own narrow views at the door.

“they take this obscure D-List 2 dimensional character to make a movie out of” As opposed to all those cool A list ones DC has lol. TEH FLASH!! look out man I dont think the worlds ready for cool that fast.

“This character ONLY came to popularity because” He wasnt some lame water dude or wonder chick? Plasticman is the real pick for movie madness lol
This rodney dude seems like a Little Mermaid fan. Brother bear right up his ally lol. I can see it now, HOUSE OF 1,000 CORPSES THE PG13 VERSION lmao Oh wait wait I know how about Halloween 2 now with more flowers and “implied” violence lol. People coming out of the the show being all like,”Omg dude! Ive never seen so much over the top implied violence! It waz crazy”

People talking serious about comic book movies is about the dumbest thing ever. New Astroboy movie coming out and O M G had it better be done RIGHT lol.

Oh and on the topic of R rated crap

be sure to check you man crad at the door

Unless the trailer turns out to be freakin’ awesome, I’ll pass.

I am sure Supermax might have been a decent idea on its own, but to cram Oliver Queen into it just seems a waste of a unique prison break action film and a superhero film.

He has to have the bow…

Since reading the script review for SUPERMAX, I wish they would’ve pulled the trigger on the project. Sure, it could fail miserably, but it’s an original idea and sounds interesting.

My comments will be to the prospects of the movie possibility. I don’t think this will be able to happen for a couple of reasons.

First of all, Giffen is a hiliarious writer, but he definitely has his fans. But if Gaiman and Moore can’t generate Box office returns, most of which were great movies (except LXG….blech), I don’t think a lesser known but still talented writer such as Giffen will be able to make a dent.

However, if McFarlane is bringing back Spawn…I guess anything is possible.

If they went ahead with Lobo, may I suggest Jeffrey Dean Morgan or Javier Bardem?

And lastly, if DC/WB wants “their own Wolverine”, then I suggest The Sub Mariner.

I to grew up in the Church. A brief background of me is that I spent twenty years, from the time I was born to the age of 20, going to a Baptist church and I attended Christian (non-denominational) private schools all the way through high school. So, yes, I to have seen plenty of depictions of the crucifixion, but I still hold to the fact that it would not result in the same impact between showing the nails going through the hand as opposed to just showing a hammer swing. It’s one thing to read about it, just as it is another thing to hear about it, just as it is an entirely different thing to see it. Each of these would result in a different reaction from the audience. Take reality, which is going to have a greater reaction to an observer: hearing a gunshot or seeing a person get shot? One is going to remain embedded in your mind for a bunch longer period of time than the other. One is a much greater eye opener than the other. Both are horrible events, but the latter one is going to convey the truth of the situation much better than the other. May not be the best example, but it makes sense in my head.

In regard to Old Boy, I use it as an example because you would have to change a huge chunk of the movie to drop the adult themes that really make it worthy of that R rating. Still not disputing the fact that it could be done, its just good the way it is and something might be lost if it was changed.

It wouldn’t have made it a rated R film to imply that he had a phsycial relationship with a woman who turned out to be his own daughter. That wouldn’t get it an R. Adult themes are present in PG13 movies.

And as someone who grew up in the church.. I have seen LOTS of depictions of the crusification of Christ and his tortures that he went through to properly convey the point without having to show the nail actually driven through his hand.

Ok, explain how they could make Old Boy into a PG-13 movie without having to rewrite the script. And yes, if you write out the big reveal at the end of the movie *spoiler* the girl is his daughter */spoiler* then you have rewritten the script. They do not need to show the sex scene to imply that it happend; however, that is still a very adult theme that makes the movie worth of an R rating even if they do not show any nudity.

Nobody said, well I don’t think they did, that getting rid of some violence would change the story. What I personally said is that it might change the impact it has on the audience. If Passion of Christ had only shown a whip flying in the air but never showing Christ’s back or the blood then it would have the same impact on the audience either way? I remain skeptical. Just as somebody brought up the alien coming out of the guys stomach had been shot in such a manner than it was implied rather than shown would also result in the same impact for both the audience and the actors that were in the scene? Sure it would not change the story, nobody is doubting that as far as I can see; however, it does change the impact the scenes have on the audience.

They could have made Passion of Christ a G movie where it showed Christ growing up, a small scene way off in the distance of three crosses, and final scene of a turned away boulder, but then the audience would not fully connect to what Christ went through prior to and being on the cross.