Sign in to follow this  
The Founder

Marvel is firing it's guns

Recommended Posts

I'm ok with no solo Hulk movie. He's had two solo ones already with mixed results. The ensemble movies are good enough.

I am surprised to see another Thor movie though. I found the solo movies to be real mediocre.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd love to see Mark Ruffalo get a solo Hulk movie. With two so-so Hulk movies, they finally nailed Banner with their third pick; Ruffalo was perfect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm a little disappointed that there's no Captain America 4.

I've also been enjoying the whole 3 movies a year thing.

If they are doing Civil War, then Captain America gets killed at the end. The movies can always change that, and I hope they do.

The story of how Captain America survives his apparent death is a movie by itself, and it would make a great followup to Winter Soldier.

If there's no Captain America IV, then it's very possible that we will not see Steve Rogers after Captain America 3 until 2020, which is a very long time.

Logically, you'd want Captain America in the Infinity War story, so hopefully, they will alter Civil War so that Steve Rogers is not killed.

A lot of pressure is going to be on both Captain Marvel and Wonder Woman since female action heroes historically don't do as well. Should be interesting to see, though if history holds true, Marvel will knock it out of the park and DC will disappoint.

That said, I would get the writer of the Wonder Woman cartoon movie, because that story kicked ass. If they could have extended it another 30 minutes or so, that could have easily been a live action script. It had everything. Action, violence, serious stuff, but comic relief as well.

You couldn't ask for more in a live action movie. That DVD is the standard for the live action.

Other than the lack of Captain America IV and maybe a new Hulk movie, this is good stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm ok with no solo Hulk movie. He's had two solo ones already with mixed results. The ensemble movies are good enough.

I am surprised to see another Thor movie though. I found the solo movies to be real mediocre.

I don't disagree, but they make money, especially overseas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they are doing Civil War, then Captain America gets killed at the end. The movies can always change that, and I hope they do.

The story of how Captain America survives his apparent death is a movie by itself, and it would make a great followup to Winter Soldier.

Betting money that Steve dies and stays dead and that Bucky takes over.

Particularly interested in who that cast as Captain Marvel.

Edited by prometheus59650

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they are doing Civil War, then Captain America gets killed at the end. The movies can always change that, and I hope they do.

Kevin Feige says this will be the cinematic version of Civil War and won't be related at all to the comic book version.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they are doing Civil War, then Captain America gets killed at the end. The movies can always change that, and I hope they do.

Kevin Feige says this will be the cinematic version of Civil War and won't be related at all to the comic book version.

As it should be. The movies should do the things that work with them.

Edited by prometheus59650

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they are doing Civil War, then Captain America gets killed at the end. The movies can always change that, and I hope they do.

Kevin Feige says this will be the cinematic version of Civil War and won't be related at all to the comic book version.

As it should be. The movies should do the things they work with them.

Agreed.

Different mediums, different requirements.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they are doing Civil War, then Captain America gets killed at the end. The movies can always change that, and I hope they do.

Kevin Feige says this will be the cinematic version of Civil War and won't be related at all to the comic book version.

As it should be. The movies should do the things they work with them.

Agreed.

Different mediums, different requirements.

Darn typos. :)

Anyway, yeah. I don't think Marvel would be nearly as successful as it's been if they slaved themselves to the comics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they are doing Civil War, then Captain America gets killed at the end. The movies can always change that, and I hope they do.

Kevin Feige says this will be the cinematic version of Civil War and won't be related at all to the comic book version.

As it should be. The movies should do the things they work with them.

Agreed.

Different mediums, different requirements.

Darn typos. :)

Anyway, yeah. I don't think Marvel would be nearly as successful as it's been if they slaved themselves to the comics.

I agree with you. Then again, the comics in and of themselves allow for tangents into other story-lines as well so no harm no foul for the most part.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Different mediums, different requirements, but a good story is a good story.

Clearly, they have to adapt the civil war story. For one thing, Spidey was a major part of it, and that's not happening.

Plus, I wouldn't WANT the exact story done because it's been done.

The problem they have by choosing a famous comic story is that it's very hard to present something as good. That goes with almost any book adaptation even outside comics.

The Harry Potter movies were good, but the books were much better in part because of the character development and no need for time constrictions.

I've found at least in animated form, DC rarely does something as well when they choose a classic comics story, even if they do a good job.

But Marvel writers are so much smarter than DC writers. They don't try to inject their own arrogance into properties they didn't make famous. They pick the things that work, and tend to stay true to the characters.

You don't see Thor trying to be Iron-Man because Iron-Man was popular.

But you do see Superman trying to be Batman because Batman was popular.

It would be galactically stupid to kill off Steve Rogers.

Captain America has had 2 movies on his own. There is no reason for Bucky to take over as there are many Steve Rogers stories that could be told, and movies come out so rarely.

Maybe on a TV show, they could do some story arc like that, but in a movie universe, with no Cap 4 planned, it would make no sense to kill off Steve, especially because other Avengers movies are coming.

Anyone who knows Steve dies at the end of Civil War also knows that Steve returns.

The return of Steve Rogers was a really good storyline and would make a fine movie adaptation. But if they don't plan on that, then they should end Civil War differently than in the comic.

Plus, it would be good just so the audience doesn't have that massive spoiler going in.

Marvel has made good choices so far. I hope that continues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Clearly, they have to adapt the civil war story. For one thing, Spidey was a major part of it, and that's not happening.

That may not be true:

Hitfix reports, “While I can’t get the confirmations I need to verify the story, I’m hearing that there are some very cool ‘Spider-Man’ plans being discussed that would help Sony refocus their enormously important franchise while also opening up some connections in the on screen Marvel movie universe that would blow fandom’s minds.”
This is certainly interesting, but we’ve heard this before and then Sony has shut down rumors that the webslinger could be moving back in Marvel/Disney’s fold.
HitFix continues, “I would love to be able to state for sure that it’s happening. What seems clear from what I’ve heard is that Marvel wants to be able to play with all of their characters, and if they can make that work creatively and on a corporate level, they will, and that means the world gets bigger again.”
Rumor? Yes. May these early chats collapse as I type this? Sure. But it makes perfect sense for both. Marvel wants Spidey back under their tent as much as they can, and Sony is in desperate need to re-energize their mediocre and financially disappointing take on the franchise. We'll see,

Captain America has had 2 movies on his own. There is no reason for Bucky to take over as there are many Steve Rogers stories that could be told, and movies come out so rarely.

Bucky has 7 more pictures in his deal. Bucky is far more interesting thematically to take the Cap mantle, particularly in these movie adaptations than Falcon. Now, I'm not saying Steve couldn't be resurrected, but I think the audience will need time to miss him...to be ready to see another actor in the spot. I don't think the audience is ready to instantly jump to a new Steve anymore than they are ready at this point to see a new Tony Stark.

Anyone who knows Steve dies at the end of Civil War also knows that Steve returns.

In the comics. The outcomes in which, the producers have proven willing to change or discard outright.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Different mediums, different requirements, but a good story is a good story.

Yes, but adaptation from one medium to the other necessitates change; they have different needs.

A mass audience (for whom movies are primarily designed) aren't as steeped in, nor are they at all concerned with, the nitpicking nuances of the comic books.

Movies are about paring an idea down to the essentials; it's show, not tell. And pacing is an issue as well. A comic book (or novel) is bought and can be read at the purchaser's leisure; but for a movie, an audience's time is money. They are paying for the experience right NOW, not a book to be read at any time. And they only have a couple of hours in which to receive that experience, so you have to do things quickly and succinctly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice find. There are also vids now of a "party" scene at Tony Stark's tower and a conversation between Stark and Rogers. This movie is looking good. I'm really excited.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Look, the idea of bringing in Spidey to the proper Marvel universe would be tremendous. I believe if anyone could pull it off, Marvel would, but I'm not expecting it any time soon.

It shouldn't just be Spidey. Imagine Hugh Jackman sharing screen time with say, Robert Downey.

Imagine if the movies become almost like a TV series, with 3 a year, and a different hero taking the spotlight, while we have guest shots of other heroes in each movie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Look, the idea of bringing in Spidey to the proper Marvel universe would be tremendous. I believe if anyone could pull it off, Marvel would, but I'm not expecting it any time soon.

It shouldn't just be Spidey. Imagine Hugh Jackman sharing screen time with say, Robert Downey.

Imagine if the movies become almost like a TV series, with 3 a year, and a different hero taking the spotlight, while we have guest shots of other heroes in each movie.

Theoretically, sure. Awesome. Practically? Not so much with a terrible re-imagined Spidey. Had it been Tobey Maguire's Spider-Man then yes.

And Hugh Jackman would be a good fit in with those actors.

Most importantly though, I don't want either of those things to happen. They already have enough characters to juggle. However, if anyone can do it, it's Marvel!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who's to say that if they do bring in Spidey, it has to be with the Andrew Garfield version and not a new person?

If this is the Marvel universe, and it's NOT a Spidey movie done by them, then technically, he wouldn't have to be out of costume.

A first appearance could be something similar to Hawkeye in Thor.

Or maybe there's a major battle going on, and you get glimpses of various heroes doing their thing, and as a surprise, you see Spidey's arm sling a web or a glimpse of the Thing.

Why NOT have these things happen? Just because you have a lot of characters doesn't mean that each character has to be used in each movie.

Do you watch the Marvel cartoons? They have Ultimate Spider-man, an Avengers series, and a Hulk series.

I don't know if I would call the cartoons better than the movies because unlike DC, the movies are good, but some characters are used better.

Hulk is used much better in the cartoons, and I'm hoping we'll get a little more out of him in Ultron.

But the point is that they do crossover often.

Spidey even joined the Avengers on occasion.

And we have seen Wolverine.

You wouldn't have to use every character in every movie, though an Avengers movie requires a bit of the kitchen sink. But that's what makes them special.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who's to say that if they do bring in Spidey, it has to be with the Andrew Garfield version and not a new person?

Very good point. It can be someone else just like we'll see a different Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch in the X-Men franchise and The Avengers. The point I didn't make well is that The Avengers have enough to do from a character development perspective and way more to come. They don't need the "name dropping" aspect especially from characters that have their own franchises. I'd rather see a new character developed well that we've never seen before. There's a ton. No need for more Spidey and Wolvie.

Having a prominent character like Spidey do a flyby is tantamount to fan wankerism. I'm not interested. If they're going to include him then it should be in a meaningful manner, not an unexplained cameo. From that aspect Maguire is the better actor better suited imho with the other actors.

Here's the more important point: Some of us know that all those characters do live in the same Marvel universe. Most people that watch these movies don't. I know this will sound funny but having Spidey pop up in an X-Men movie will shatter that necessary suspension of disbelief(whatever that phrase is). For many people it would be like Spock showing up at the Jedi Academy to train with Luke. I'd rather they didn't. It's not about how closely they can mirror the comic book world. It's about storytelling. They've done a good job with it so far and they have enough material and characters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's wrong with fan wankerism? Movies are for the fans. If the fans like the movies, they make money. Everyone's happy.

People know Marvel is one universe, and they know Spidey can share screen time with X Men. And if they didn't, it's not a hard stretch at all.

I don't think people who like a movie where a guy can heal instantaneously, another guy looks like a blue animal, and still another can shape shift is going to lose its suspension of disbelief if a guy who crawls on walls shows up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Except that movies are NOT made for the fans. Movies are made for the maximum number of butts you can put in the seats.The powers that be cater to that, not "fans." Let's say after marketing studies and test screenings of raw footage TPTB see that audiences will potentially respond to a re-invented Superman with a Gattaca bend. Say Superman is a government experiment gone wrong (or right) a scientist with a conscience escapes with the kid and leaves him with the Kents.

If those in charge think that might work? If they think that's going to get them the next Avatar or Iron Man 3 when another standard rehash of Superman's origin story is just going to get them Man of Steel? Then Clark is going to be lab grown and all the fans screaming about Krypton can scream into their pillows from home.

And if the result GETS them Avatar box office? Then it was the right call. If it gets them better than Man of Steel box office is the right call because Sony or Warner or Paramount are not in the fan film business.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's wrong with fan wankerism? Movies are for the fans. If the fans like the movies, they make money. Everyone's happy.

Except that movies are NOT made for the fans. Movies are made for the maximum number of butts you can put in the seats.The powers that be cater to that, not "fans." Let's say after marketing studies and test screenings of raw footage TPTB see that audiences will potentially respond to a re-invented Superman with a Gattaca bend. Say Superman is a government experiment gone wrong (or right) a scientist with a conscience escapes with the kid and leaves him with the Kents.

If those in charge think that might work? If they think that's going to get them the next Avatar or Iron Man 3 when another standard rehash of Superman's origin story is just going to get them Man of Steel? Then Clark is going to be lab grown and all the fans screaming about Krypton can scream into their pillows from home.

And if the result GETS them Avatar box office? Then it was the right call. If it gets them better than Man of Steel box office is the right call because Sony or Warner or Paramount are not in the fan film business.

^

This (the 2nd quote).

Fan wankerism in a movie only works in small doses (a reference here, a cameo there, etc). The whole film can't just turn into a fanboy wet dream because it won't make money; certainly not enough to justify a $150 million or more budget. That's why we fans can take refuge in the comic books and graphic novels; those are made for just the faithful, but movies are made for the fans AND everybody else. They need to make more money than what a sole fanboy audience can guarantee.

Movies are art, but they're also a business.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's wrong with fan wankerism? Movies are for the fans. If the fans like the movies, they make money. Everyone's happy.

Except that movies are NOT made for the fans. Movies are made for the maximum number of butts you can put in the seats.The powers that be cater to that, not "fans." Let's say after marketing studies and test screenings of raw footage TPTB see that audiences will potentially respond to a re-invented Superman with a Gattaca bend. Say Superman is a government experiment gone wrong (or right) a scientist with a conscience escapes with the kid and leaves him with the Kents.

If those in charge think that might work? If they think that's going to get them the next Avatar or Iron Man 3 when another standard rehash of Superman's origin story is just going to get them Man of Steel? Then Clark is going to be lab grown and all the fans screaming about Krypton can scream into their pillows from home.

And if the result GETS them Avatar box office? Then it was the right call. If it gets them better than Man of Steel box office is the right call because Sony or Warner or Paramount are not in the fan film business.

^

This (the 2nd quote).

Fan wankerism in a movie only works in small doses (a reference here, a cameo there, etc). The whole film can't just turn into a fanboy wet dream because it won't make money; certainly not enough to justify a $150 million or more budget. That's why we fans can take refuge in the comic books and graphic novels; those are made for just the faithful, but movies are made for the fans AND everybody else. They need to make more money than what a sole fanboy audience can guarantee.

Movies are art, but they're also a business.

The only ones that went to Nemesis were the most faithful of the faithful. What was that worth?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this