Jump to content


Toggle shoutbox Squawkbox Open the Shoutbox in a popup

Please don't post Youtube videos in the chat box. The forums software auto embeds them. 

@  Maximus Ambus : (23 January 2019 - 03:47 PM)

LOL bananas

@  unluckiness : (23 January 2019 - 08:37 AM)

Either way, I'd stick to the definitions of the people who actually work in the field and know what they're talking about over incredibly loose unhelpful ones 

@  unluckiness : (23 January 2019 - 08:34 AM)

Which fossils and genetic sequencing proved were quite different from wolves as we know them. Which is kind of the point, since while domesticated organisms changed genetically, so have their wild counterparts.

@  Pennpenn : (23 January 2019 - 08:34 AM)

I mean, even more extreme would be to ask if cows would turn back into aurochs. They'd go feral or exitinct, but they wouldn't revert.

@  unluckiness : (23 January 2019 - 08:33 AM)

Don't be ridiculous. The domesticated dog wasn't derived from the modern wolf. Both descended from a common ancestor

@  Tm_Silverclaw : (23 January 2019 - 08:33 AM)

Then they are still Geneticly modified. ;P I mean hell, in a lot of cases, there is very little difference between removing a gene and making it dormant. Anyways. Gotta run, stuff to do right now. Have fun.

@  Pennpenn : (23 January 2019 - 08:32 AM)

The ones that survived would be more wolf like, but they wouldn't be wolves. And in a lot of cases without human intervention most of the heavily modified animals and plants wouldn't survive a "few generations".

@  Tm_Silverclaw : (23 January 2019 - 08:31 AM)

Are you saying, given a few years (relativily speaking) of no humans, dogs will return to wolves?

@  unluckiness : (23 January 2019 - 08:30 AM)

Within a few generations without human intervention, the same traits resurface. because again, the genes aren't changed. Only the population.

@  unluckiness : (23 January 2019 - 08:28 AM)

The genes for those traits are still present though. You're not manipulating the genotype, rather than the phenotype of the population.

@  Pennpenn : (23 January 2019 - 08:26 AM)

The fact that it's a more indirect method compared to, say, CRISPR is irrelevant.

@  Pennpenn : (23 January 2019 - 08:25 AM)

Selective breeding is a form of genetic manipulation, since you're restricting or eliminating unfavored genetic patterns from being expressed in the target organisms.

@  Tm_Silverclaw : (23 January 2019 - 08:25 AM)

As it should be... People whine about GMO, but most of it is because they don't understand that biotech is usually just a faster way of doing the exact same thing thousands of years of crossbreading does.

@  unluckiness : (23 January 2019 - 08:20 AM)

You can call it whatever you like, but again, that definition is so wide as to be worthless and few people would agree with the definition.

@  unluckiness : (23 January 2019 - 08:20 AM)

The commonly accepted definition of "genetic modification" by the scientific community involves biotechnology and direct manipulation of genetic material

@  Tm_Silverclaw : (23 January 2019 - 08:13 AM)

But.. While slower.. That's -exactly- what crossbreeding is.. Genetic modification.

@  unluckiness : (23 January 2019 - 08:02 AM)

Which is patently ridiculous. They didn't modify the genetic makeup of these organisms; just manipulated the odds of traits deemed as favorable being expressed. 

@  unluckiness : (23 January 2019 - 07:53 AM)

By that definition, literally everything that humans have domesticated is a GMO.

@  Tm_Silverclaw : (23 January 2019 - 07:44 AM)

Why? It's completely geneticly modified to be almost completely distinct from what a real banana is.

@  unluckiness : (23 January 2019 - 06:52 AM)

By looser definitions of GMO. So loose as to be worthless pretty much.

@  Tm_Silverclaw : (23 January 2019 - 06:35 AM)

So.. All banannas that anyone eats.. organic or not.. is a GMO..

@  Pennpenn : (23 January 2019 - 06:23 AM)

Aren't they usually called palatains? But yeah, the only reason those cultivars survive at all is because of humans.

@  unluckiness : (23 January 2019 - 06:16 AM)

That said, there are still wild banana plants which do reproduce sexually. If you don't mind gigantic seeds in them.

@  unluckiness : (23 January 2019 - 06:16 AM)

This makes them highly susceptible to disease due to the stagnant genetic pool and inability to adapt.

@  unluckiness : (23 January 2019 - 06:15 AM)

The domesticated kind reproduced asexually, meaning that the ones present today have the genetics of the same banana plants circa whenever bananas were domesticated

@  NotVeryKnightly : (23 January 2019 - 04:53 AM)

Why would they be?

@  Maximus Ambus : (23 January 2019 - 04:07 AM)

Shouldn't banana's be extinct now?

@  MEDdMI : (22 January 2019 - 11:38 PM)

:p You leave my male harem alone.

@  unluckiness : (22 January 2019 - 11:27 PM)

Yeah, but unfortunately, it was Fire Emblem Fates.

@  MEDdMI : (22 January 2019 - 11:22 PM)

Fire Emblem Fates didn't force the gay pairings to have kids, not even for adoption. Granted, there were only 2 canon gay/bi options amoungst a sea of hetero, but still.

@  Pennpenn : (22 January 2019 - 10:27 PM)

It pissed off more people than usual since when the game was getting hyped much was made that you could have your character be gay as the first of May, and also the fact that the achievement for that event in the DLC was called "Growing Up"

@  SHIELD Agent 47 : (22 January 2019 - 10:19 PM)

Never played the game, but that works as well! Textbook mindless natalism.

@  Pennpenn : (22 January 2019 - 10:15 PM)

Huh, I figured you were talking about that Assassins Creed Oddessy DLC that forces your character to have a kid regardless of your choices, previous behaviour, or current situation.

@  SHIELD Agent 47 : (22 January 2019 - 09:16 PM)

Some context: I am bemoaning the fact that Modern Family is currently demonstrating why it should have already ended. Because not only it is making its annoying characters even worse, but Haley's storyline is taking her in a direction I hate.

@  SHIELD Agent 47 : (22 January 2019 - 09:08 PM)

So when a lazy cop-out in the story happens, I'm going to object to the shoehorning.

@  SHIELD Agent 47 : (22 January 2019 - 09:05 PM)

I think you misunderstand me. History is rife with instances wherein having children turned out not to be the right decision, and people with normal intelligence saw it coming. So people like myself find it infurating when television writers broadly pretend this doesn't happen.

@  Shrug : (22 January 2019 - 09:02 PM)

So it's not weird that it shows up in a lot of fiction. Since it shows up in a lot of nonfiction.

@  Shrug : (22 January 2019 - 09:01 PM)

But you know, like... the majority of people do it.

@  SHIELD Agent 47 : (22 January 2019 - 08:49 PM)

And no characters call out this course of action for the stupidity it is. Believe it or not, not everyone is cut out to have kids, and having children is not an extraordinary life accomplishment.

@  SHIELD Agent 47 : (22 January 2019 - 08:48 PM)

Yup. Like writers knocking up a (usually female) character for no good reason, often when said character has not previously expressed the desire for children, or children would heavily set back their life plans, or the other biological parent is not a good relationship partner.

@  Pennpenn : (22 January 2019 - 07:29 PM)

I mean, there's more to it, and varying levels of related concepts and blah blah blah, but I'm not gonna go further in the shoutbox.

@  Pennpenn : (22 January 2019 - 07:27 PM)

It's the "everyone's gotta make babies" school of thought. It varies but in media it manifests as "all characters end up married with kids or dead". For contrast an anti-natalist concept would be China's One Child policy.

@  Locoman : (22 January 2019 - 06:28 PM)

.... pro-natalist?

@  SHIELD Agent 47 : (22 January 2019 - 06:10 PM)

Pro-natalist clichés in fiction are overrated. But no Hollywood writer can come up with new ideas. Argh.

@  unluckiness : (22 January 2019 - 10:05 AM)

How does the giant gimmicky Bumblebee toy have such an incredible leg transformation compared to the MPM

@  lastmaximal : (22 January 2019 - 09:27 AM)

I mean it's Vigo. We are like the buzzing of flies to him.

@  unluckiness : (22 January 2019 - 05:51 AM)

Perfectly. His talent is only surpassed by Tommy Wiseau

@  TheMightyMol... : (22 January 2019 - 04:57 AM)

How well he can play them is another story.

@  unluckiness : (22 January 2019 - 04:34 AM)

Blasphemy. Nicolas Cage can play anybody.

@  Pennpenn : (22 January 2019 - 03:34 AM)

I'm just glad we're in a timeline where Nicolas Cage was too busy to play Aragorn in Lord of the Rings. As much as I may like Cage, there was no way he could have done that and Viggo was infintely better for the part.


Photo

The Future of the DC Film Universe


1046 replies to this topic

#1 Random Items

Random Items

    Just this once, everybody lives!

  • Retired Staff
  • 10452 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Calgary, AB - Canada

Posted 13 June 2014 - 08:55 AM

Grain of salt time, folks!

 

via: http://nikkifinke.com/comic-con/

 

We know that Warner Bros Pictures is way behind Marvel Studios when it comes to making movies out of its comic book properties. But I have intel on what is coming up at this July’s  Comic-Con from the studio. A lot of stuff remains in flux  but my sources have so far:

 

May 2016 – Batman v Superman
July 2016 – Shazam
Xmas 2016 – Sandman
May 2017 – Justice League
July 2017 – Wonder Woman
Xmas 2017 – Flash and Green Lantern team-up
May 2018 – Man Of Steel 2

 

There had been talk of a Metal Men and Suicide Squad movie for sometime in 2016 but that project fell off the schedule.

 

 

 

 

Awesome "inside sources" aside, it looks like a pretty full slate for Warner, with three movies each year. Too much product too fast? Where is the solo Batman film? Are they shoehorning Sandman into the DCFU, when he really has no place being there? Will anyone actually go see a Flash v. Green Lantern movie?

 

I guess all these questions and more will be answered at Comic Con.... IN July!



#2 unluckiness

unluckiness

    A Metal Slime appeared!

  • Citizen
  • 17909 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The Philippines
  • Faction::Minicon

Posted 13 June 2014 - 09:22 AM

Lol. DC-F-U.

Either way that certainly is ambitious but not too out of the ordinary seeing as Marvel has 2 movies a year and they're playing catch up. We'll see I guess.


pDHhVB1.jpg


#3 Random Items

Random Items

    Just this once, everybody lives!

  • Retired Staff
  • 10452 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Calgary, AB - Canada

Posted 13 June 2014 - 09:27 AM

Lol. DC-F-U.

 

 

 

I was hoping someone would see what I did there.



#4 Fnu Aw

Fnu Aw

    I like coffee!

  • Staff
  • 36730 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Faction::Free Agent

Posted 13 June 2014 - 10:01 AM

I guess all these questions and more will be answered at Comic Con.... IN July!

I'd love to know how you emphasize "in" in "in July"...

B5ofTKU.jpg


#5 NotVeryKnightly

NotVeryKnightly
  • Staff
  • 21142 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Location:here and there
  • Faction::Free Agent

Posted 13 June 2014 - 10:15 AM

"Iiinnn July."

Or something like that.

Edited by Naas, 13 June 2014 - 10:16 AM.


#6 PiratedTVPro

PiratedTVPro

    Quoth Akitsu, "NEVERMORE!"

  • Retired Staff
  • 14495 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The Space Coast
  • Faction::Free Agent

Posted 13 June 2014 - 10:25 AM

I love Warner Bros. / DC's new tagline:

 

DC: Ruining It For Everyone

Edited by PiratedTVPro, 13 June 2014 - 10:26 AM.

Yep.

#7 Shenanigans

Shenanigans

    Cynic-in-residence

  • Supporter
  • 6492 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:England, Earth
  • Faction::Free Agent

Posted 13 June 2014 - 10:32 AM

The Future of the DC Film Universe

trainwreck02.jpg


XnIZN7T.jpg 

 

Shenanigans

Nonsense; mischief; often, a treacherous or deceitful trick.


#8 Eneon

Eneon
  • Citizen
  • 6166 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Location:Michigan, USA
  • Faction::Maximal

Posted 13 June 2014 - 11:30 AM

Great that there's a Wonder Woman movie I guess, but overall I'm not sure if any of those interest me. 

Not really sure which DC heroes I'd really be interested in seeing a movie of. Maybe Teen Titans?


Edited by Silent_Magnus, 13 June 2014 - 11:31 AM.



#9 Exatron

Exatron

    Kaiser Dragon

  • Citizen
  • 1554 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Michigan
  • Faction::Decepticon

Posted 13 June 2014 - 01:52 PM

For whatever it's worth, a few years ago I had no interest in seeing a movie about Iron Man, and little interest in Thor or Captain America. About the only Marvel characters I did have any real interest at all in were the X-Men, Spider-Man, and the Hulk.

 

Granted, I'm not ready to make the leap to thinking these will turn out to be as pleasantly surprising, but I'm not ready to discount any of them either.



#10 Eneon

Eneon
  • Citizen
  • 6166 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Location:Michigan, USA
  • Faction::Maximal

Posted 13 June 2014 - 02:58 PM

I think Green Lantern/Flash has the potential to be cool, but for me it will kind of depend on who is wearing the ring.




#11 Random Items

Random Items

    Just this once, everybody lives!

  • Retired Staff
  • 10452 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Calgary, AB - Canada

Posted 13 June 2014 - 03:10 PM

Barry Allen, because DCFU.



#12 Kil

Kil
  • Supporter
  • 9449 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New Haven, CT, USA

Posted 13 June 2014 - 04:09 PM

If a Green Lantern/Flash movie isn't about John Stewart and Wally West, and based primarily on their DCAU versions, then there is no point whatsoever to such a film.



#13 Fnu Aw

Fnu Aw

    I like coffee!

  • Staff
  • 36730 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Faction::Free Agent

Posted 13 June 2014 - 05:07 PM

I'd base the whole thing primarily on the DCAU.

B5ofTKU.jpg


#14 Eneon

Eneon
  • Citizen
  • 6166 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Location:Michigan, USA
  • Faction::Maximal

Posted 13 June 2014 - 05:14 PM

I'd be up for a Hawkgirl movie, but there's probably the issue of no non-virgins knowing about her like with the Martian Manhunter. :rolleyes


Edited by Silent_Magnus, 13 June 2014 - 05:16 PM.



#15 skankerzero

skankerzero

    Back in DFW!

  • Citizen
  • 7459 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Dallas, TX
  • Faction::Autobot

Posted 13 June 2014 - 05:43 PM

The Hawk what? Martian who?


-----------
jesse sosa
owner / creative director
Dinosaur Games

#16 Fortress Ironhold

Fortress Ironhold

    Blasphemer

  • Citizen
  • 20529 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Copperas Cove, Texas

Posted 13 June 2014 - 05:45 PM

At this point, the only DC character I'm really interested in is Lobo. 



#17 Zamuel

Zamuel

    Dream Valley Survivor

  • Supporter
  • 17294 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Faction::Equestrian

Posted 13 June 2014 - 07:06 PM

At this point, the only DC character I'm really interested in is Lobo.

Isn't he a sparkly vampire now in the Nu52?
 

If a Green Lantern/Flash movie isn't about John Stewart and Wally West, and based primarily on their DCAU versions, then there is no point whatsoever to such a film.

I only dislike Barry due to them ditching Wally to bring him back. Though there's elements of the characters that could be added to movie versions of the characters.

The problem with the Nu52 is that it's trying too hard to be gritty and "serious" that they aren't worth being taken seriously anymore. DCAU would be an excellent start but they'll be insistent on using Nu52. Thing is, they really need to take a step back and figure out what actually works. That's probably the biggest shame, the reboot didn't have to be as terrible as it has been.

I see Wonder Woman as "took you long enough". Shazam is a good or terrible choice, pending on how they handle his personality. Aquaman still needs a movie.
Spoiler

#18 MrBlud

MrBlud

    Goes down smooth...

  • Retired Staff
  • 51404 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Westlake, OH
  • Faction::RIBFIR

Posted 14 June 2014 - 06:22 AM

The biggest problem with the reboot is "we'll reset numbering to get sales!" is the extent of the thought they put into it.

 

Turns out you need a smidge more planning.


card-strongarm.jpg


#19 Steevy Maximus

Steevy Maximus

    Snarky Siegie

  • Citizen
  • 4300 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Altus, OK
  • Faction::Unicron's Spawn

Posted 14 June 2014 - 05:18 PM

For whatever it's worth, a few years ago I had no interest in seeing a movie about Iron Man, and little interest in Thor or Captain America. About the only Marvel characters I did have any real interest at all in were the X-Men, Spider-Man, and the Hulk.

 

Granted, I'm not ready to make the leap to thinking these will turn out to be as pleasantly surprising, but I'm not ready to discount any of them either.

In fairness, though, our first pair of Marvel Studio films were Iron Man and Incredible Hulk, and it was the success (critically and financially) that made us interested in MCU as a whole.

 

DC, on the other hand, has NEVER shown any real vision to such an idea UNTIL Marvel reaped a few billion dollars from their films, and now are trying to "me too" it without half the thought or planning. Hell, Man of Steel wasn't (as far as I know) supposed to be a "universe foundation" until Avengers made a billion dollars and DC realized "oh crap, we got half a dozen heroes here, we need to do our OWN Avengers!" (Which amuses me when one considers the origins of the Avengers in the comic world).

 

Discounting the Nolan Batman series, I've yet to see ANYTHING from DC to make me particularly optimistic about the future projects.  Most either try WAY too hard to epically epic, copy the grim and realistic Nolan work, or too much world building without guarantee it will pay off.  And the fact Neil Gaiman's Sandman is on tap as a "DC Feature Film" just proves to me that they really don't have a clue to what they are doing (though, I wonder if Shazam and Sandman aren't an attempt to move the DC series into more magic, rather than the cosmic angle Marvel used.  At least until Dr. Strange comes out).

Long and short, they haven't made particularly good stand alone movies, much less "world builders", and nothing they've done has made me change that view.  Marvel has done enough good I'll give Guardians of the Galaxy far more a shot than I'm willing to give Shazaam or Wonder Woman at this stage.



#20 Zamuel

Zamuel

    Dream Valley Survivor

  • Supporter
  • 17294 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Faction::Equestrian

Posted 14 June 2014 - 05:46 PM

I think their main problem is less of a lack of an Iron Man and rather a lack of a Blade. While the current connected movie universe started with with IM, Blade is what got Marvel rolling so that they could do Spider Man, X-Men, and the Fantastic Four. As said, DC needs more good standalone movies before their universe sticks and they need to potentially pass off a C or D lister to another studio to help build hype. Outside of animation, there's been an abnormal lack of use of their characters. And it's particularly bad for a few like Wonder Woman who are in a bit of a vicious circle where they wonder why the character has been steadily losing respect even though they don't push the character or only make shortsighted changes.
Spoiler



Reply to this topic



  


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users