Julius

Please could you outline all of your qualms with such a game? Because I struggle to see why "it shouldn't be done". Also, for those interested, you can find the poll here

@\[u\]\[size\="5"\]Retro_Link\[/size\]\[/u\][/i][/b]

http://goo.gl/DJjXDn Made a poll which I'm now looking to get around the fans. Pretty simple. Would you or wouldn't you purchase an open world, MMORPG, Bank compatible beautiful (Unreal Engine 4) home console Pokémon game? This thread has seriously raised the question, and I'm interested to see what everyone thinks.

Not yet. Let's hope it doesn't get to that stage. But, I mean, look at the main series figures. They're hard to ignore: First entries into a generation - Millions of units sold RBY - 31.38 GS - 23.10 RS - 16.22 DP - 17.63 BW - 15.6 XY - 14.46 Sure, 2 million down in ten years across four generations. But only DP has ever gone against that, and I mean, by generation (so, including third versions/sequels and remakes), things look a little different I guess: Italics = no remake Gen I (4 game total) - 46.02 - avg.=11.51 Gen II (3 game total) - 29.49 - avg.=9.83 Gen III (5 game total) - 34.54 - avg.=6.908 Gen IV (5 game total) - 37.95 - avg.=7.59 Gen V (4 game total) - 24.12 - avg.=6.03 Gen VI (4 game total?) - 25.92 - avg.=6.48 I guess this just shows once the initial Pokémania hype started to settle, it really settled.

Except with Bank they could transport those Pokémon from home console to portable and vice versa. I don't recall anyone saying that the series would shift from being portable to home only? Can you please define the main issue/s you have with a home console Pokémon game which could potentially revitalise the franchise? I'm intrigued.

Wow that exploded FAST. @Retro_Link great discussion to start. I honestly don't see the problem with a separate open world MMORPG on something like the UE4, using Bank to transport Pokémon between the games. An argument for items could be made, but like I've said, an Item Bank could be implemented which limits users to not having more than one of certain items in a game (such as Master Balls and Legendary specific items), and to transfer items from game to game.

...a supplementary Bank system for items which limits each game to one of a certain item (such as a Master Ball and your special Legendary specific items, such as the Adamant, Lustrous and Griseous Orbs)?

Okay, okay, not waning. There's just a definite negative correlation in sales which has been apparent since the dawn of the franchise and only challenged by the release of Diamond and Pearl in terms of opening pairs for a generation.

YES BUT @Serebii BANK IS ALREADY PLANNED TO BE MULTIGENERATIONAL AND MULTIPLATFORM!

Honestly if they did it right, I'd be up for a version of this just in Kanto with he original 151 if they wanted to test it. I can see what Serebii means, Pokémon has roots, and by all means should stick to the portable side of gaming - but with waning sales figures Pokémon needs to do something outrageously righteous for the fans and themselves (MMORPG open world on UE4. Pretty please?).

By home console gaming I assume we're on about the much wanted open world MMORPG we all want on Unreal Engine 4? In which case, I'm totally in. Something like this seems even more likely given that Bank is going to be multigenerational (albeit in normally one direction) and serve the franchise on a number of platforms, as hinted during several interviews and press releases about Bank.

Plot twist: she figures you to actually be an extradited Chinese spy after you whisper "they're on to me". You know, Chinese whispers and all.

Your first sentence I couldn't disagree with more. Argue what you will, but Batman is among the top three most well known comic book characters in history, and especially in the modern era, so saying it's supposed to be them moving away from Batman seems extremely counter intuitive. A Batman movie won't help the DCEU? Urm...it's almost universally agreed that Ben Affleck's portrayal of Bats/Wayne is possibly the best on the silver screen to date, and is currently one of the most popular things about the DCEU's current state, and delving deeper into his lore would be great for both movie fans in general and comic book fans too. World-building will take place in every DCEU film, and he won't take the shine off of other characters like you suggest (unless, of course, he ends up having a major role in say Aquaman and Green Lantern Corps) by having a solo outing. The last two Batman movies alone (Nolan's The Dark Knight and The Dark Knight Rises) are not only critically acclaimed, but also grossed a little over $2 billion worldwide between them. For comparison, the first six MCU films (before The Avengers) grossed around $2.3 billion worldwide between them. Batman is a massive property, and if handled right could, in my opinion, be in for an Oscar nod. Affleck certainly has it in him, as we all know. That's a good way of phrasing it. Batman Beyond confirmed

I think WB have very wisely kept their options open to add more properties into the slate. I mean, look at 2018, 2019 and 2020. Only 2018 (with Aquaman in July) has a movie slated for release after June. So, *hopefully*, with Affleck's Live by Night and Justice League being released October and November 2017 respectively, we could see The Batman as soon as late 2018. Hopefully.

Oh gosh. Fingers. Pointing. You know what this means?! Nope. Me neither.

Been doing some thinking and talking with some friends about who the next James Bond should be, and after rewatching First Class, I have to admit that Michael Fassbender would be perfect for the role. For me, Henry Cavill has a lot on his plate already, playing Superman, and the guy is MASSIVE - not exactly Bond-esque, and not something hell easily be able to transition between. Idris Elba, though I'd love to see, would undoubtedly cause an uproar, in a larger version of the Black Stormtrooper debate about John Boyega's Finn (which was stupid anyway, clearly weren't real SW fans if they thought that was wrong). I'd like for him to portray a friend or ally of Bond's though, perhaps another agent. Tom Hardy is pretty big too, and personally I think he'd be a great villain for Bond to face off against.

This is the one I'm referring to: http://fortune.com/contentfrom/2015/10/5/lex-luthor-jr/ntv_a/3dsBA58oDAfxgFA/

Feel free to talk anything movies, from casting news to the latest rumours, as well as your own personal speculation and hopes! Whether it be who you think should be the next Bond, to how big a role Luke Skywalker should have in the next Star Wars instalment, talk anything that is movies on your mind!

From his sharing of the Alexander name to the past with his father, as well as many of the events outlined in that promotional interview, they've tried to make it pretty clear that he isn't Lex Luthor, like-for-like, from the comics, from his intellect to the way he acts, to his physicality, and so on.

I tried to share my point through a spoiler tag, but alas. Jesse Eisenberg isn't playing Lex from the comics, he's playing Lex Luthor Jr. Yes, they have similar names and similar stories, but they clearly aren't like-for-like. I'm still on the fence. Jesse's portrayal was good of the character he was given, but it clearly isn't Lex, but that isn't a problem that should be directed at Jesse but in fact at the casting director. This guy was lined up to play Jimmy Olsen and Cranston was in line to be Lex.

No chance. Firstly, each episode of season six of GOT, on average, will cost $10 million to produce. They could do a Netflix series which is a completely unique story, but otherwise, you're talking a LOT more than $10 million per episode. Call that $100 million to produce the ten episode season, minimum, and then possibly an equal amount just to market it (it's Star Wars - you know they love marketing). That's $200 million+ for a show they'll probably make less money from per head than they do when compared to ticket prices at the cinema. The Force Awakens cost $200 million to produce, and I'd much rather they make another movie (aka continue with what they're already doing) then get some crumby ten parter without the heart of Star Wars. Any story they wish to tell could also be done via animated media - look at how well Rebels and The Clone Wars do, commercially and critically.

I don't think Star Wars will ever delve into Netflix/TV until there's a unique story to be told. No way would a live action show be able to afford the visual and costume effects required, let alone the actors/actresses.

Going to see it again this morning. Perhaps it's one of those films that needs a second viewing, like Man of Steel? I'm not too sure yet, it currently stands at a 7/10 for myself.