Jump to content

Genre: Comic Book/Superhero Movies


  • Please log in to reply

1505 replies to this topic

#1171

lastdaughterfk

lastdaughterfk

    Fanatic

Posted Apr 21, 2012 @ 9:17 AM

I liked Lobo when I was a teenager, but that was long ago. I'm not convinced this will be another hit. Considering the director, DC seem to agree with me.


I smell Punisher levels of...failure? Hard to tell but some characters are so bidimensional that can't be translated well, specially for solo movies. He might fare better as supporting of Superman or any other DC hero, YMMV.
  • 0

#1172

FoolishWanderer

FoolishWanderer

    Fanatic

Posted Apr 25, 2012 @ 3:56 AM

So the Avengers opened here today. It's very good, as far as superheroes go. Now, important things: there's a scene during the credits instead of after. Once that's done, you're good to go. The brunette who reminded me of Katie Holmes is Cobie Smulders. It was bugging me the whole movie. The 3D is barely noticeable.

Assorted things that cross my mind.
Spoiler

  • 0

#1173

erilyn

erilyn

    Fanatic

Posted Apr 25, 2012 @ 8:24 AM

I really enjoyed Avengers too, and I'm gonna go see it again at the cinema again, and I can't remember the last film I felt that way about.

Edited by erilyn, Apr 25, 2012 @ 8:28 AM.

  • 0

#1174

snowcrash

snowcrash

    Couch Potato

Posted Apr 28, 2012 @ 6:08 AM

FoolishWanderer, regarding your query on the credits scene: Oh yes. Yes it is.

Am still bouncing of the walls with excitement....
  • 0

#1175

Tableau

Tableau

    Fanatic

Posted May 8, 2012 @ 1:31 AM

I think because of the performance of the Avengers this weekend, it's only a matter of time before Warner Bros starts putting together the Justice League, if they haven't started already.

I don't know how I feel about a live action movie with the Justice League. On one hand it might help get some characters that aren't Batman or Superman off the ground in the mainstream arena but on the other, it could go wrong so very very easily. The way they handled Green Lantern doesn't give me much confidence that they can pull off a JL film.
  • 0

#1176

lastdaughterfk

lastdaughterfk

    Fanatic

Posted May 8, 2012 @ 1:47 AM

I don't know how I feel about a live action movie with the Justice League. On one hand it might help get some characters that aren't Batman or Superman off the ground in the mainstream arena but on the other, it could go wrong so very very easily. The way they handled Green Lantern doesn't give me much confidence that they can pull off a JL film.


If the ever do a Justice League movie I think they might just do it directly without individual movies, after the fiasco of GL it might be more appealing to create a pocket universe with a different Batman and Superman and God's knows that Wonder Woman movie most be cursed at this point since it never takes off. I can't see Aquaman or The Flash having a good enough script or movie to beat the records of Batman so yeah...probably JL movie might be the best move for DC. They could recruit an all star cast and do a lot of publicity and maybe work opposite Marvel the big JL movie leading to individual characters having their own movies later on, YMMV.
  • 0

#1177

TheSporkWielder

TheSporkWielder

    Fanatic

Posted May 8, 2012 @ 2:03 PM

I could also see "Avengers" possibly leading to individual films that the heroes might not normally get. One of my good friends is a huge Hawkeye fan, but figured Hawkeye wouldn't get his own movie since he's not technically a SUPERhero, just an awesome dude with mad archery skillz, and doesn't have the name recognition that Cap and Iron Man and Thor have. Maybe now that "Avengers" is smashing all the records with Hulk-like intensity, maybe Hawkeye will get his own post-"Avengers" movie? (I would totally pay to spend two hours staring at Jeremy Renner's arms, by the way.)

But since there seems to be more familiarity with Marvel than DC for the general public (at least, I could probably name more Marvel heroes than DC ones, and I've never read the comics), doing it the other way 'round would be a good thing for DC to do, to introduce those lesser-known heroes.
  • 1

#1178

taiko

taiko

    Fanatic

Posted May 8, 2012 @ 7:18 PM

I think because of the performance of the Avengers this weekend, it's only a matter of time before Warner Bros starts putting together the Justice League, if they haven't started already.


What are the rights and ownership like with DC? Would Batman and Superman be out of the mix because they were sold off? Basically Marvel sold off their A-Teams and had to go down to their b lister's when they started making movies on their own. Is any big name director wanting to make a picture where Bruce Wayne and Clark Kent are bit players as the FX went on all around is the big question. In Marvel's case you had the comic book people pushing the project with 50 years of organization experience of how to sell it.
  • 0

#1179

ElymianDucat

ElymianDucat

    Fanatic

Posted May 9, 2012 @ 10:42 AM

I seems Kick-Ass 2 is really going to happen.

I guess it was now or never, since Chloe Moretz was going to get too old to play Hit-Girl.

Edited by ElymianDucat, May 9, 2012 @ 10:48 AM.

  • 0

#1180

Spartan Girl

Spartan Girl

    Fanatic

Posted May 9, 2012 @ 3:50 PM

Chloe Moretz BETTER be in this one.
  • 0

#1181

Tableau

Tableau

    Fanatic

Posted May 10, 2012 @ 2:01 AM

What are the rights and ownership like with DC? Would Batman and Superman be out of the mix because they were sold off? Basically Marvel sold off their A-Teams and had to go down to their b lister's when they started making movies on their own. Is any big name director wanting to make a picture where Bruce Wayne and Clark Kent are bit players as the FX went on all around is the big question. In Marvel's case you had the comic book people pushing the project with 50 years of organization experience of how to sell it.

The rights for DC properties are a lot less complicated than Marvel's but I don't claim to be an expert on the topic. As far as I know the entire DC universe and anything under the DC banner like Vertigo is owned by one company: Warner Brothers. Therefore theoretically crossovers would be a lot easier if a Justice League movie was to happen. But Warner Brothers has been extremely gun shy with DC characters for feature films outside of Batman and Superman. When they have stepped out of that comfort zone they've screwed it up, heck, they sort of screwed up Superman too. Unlike Marvel which is an entire studio built on superhero films, the fact is Warner Brothers doesn't need superhero films to work for them so they don't bother to take the chance and if they do and things don't work out, they're quick the abandon and heroes that aren't Superman or Batman because they can afford to.
  • 0

#1182

lastdaughterfk

lastdaughterfk

    Fanatic

Posted May 10, 2012 @ 2:16 AM

Unlike Marvel which is an entire studio built on superhero films, the fact is Warner Brothers doesn't need superhero films to work for them so they don't bother to take the chance and if they do and things don't work out, they're quick the abandon and heroes that aren't Superman or Batman because they can afford to.


That is a good point WB really is a monster maybe DC should start to try to gain back their properties and create an studio for movies.
But even so, someone once commented that the difference between DC heroes and Marvel heroes was that Marvel has human characters with powers, and that DC had powers that were represented as humans. Even though DC has learned to write them better I do wonder if the Godlike qualities of most of the DC heroes would be a problem to make their movies as fun and approachable as the Marvel ones are now we live in the antihero/anti-divinity age after all...thoughts?
  • 0

#1183

nicole8705

nicole8705

    Couch Potato

Posted May 10, 2012 @ 7:07 AM

Even though DC has learned to write them better I do wonder if the Godlike qualities of most of the DC heroes would be a problem to make their movies as fun and approachable as the Marvel ones are now we live in the antihero/anti-divinity age after all...thoughts?


I'm not familiar with the DC characters but from what I saw of Thor/Loki's take on humans the line would be pretty drawn on who was the villian and hero. Loki was sympathetic to an extent but it was pretty clear what we were supposed to think of him when he had that monologue at the gala steps. In seems to be in the gods nature for absolute rule and Thor was the exception who had been to Earth and fell in love which is sort of a tried and true trope to make him likeable. Even still he took on a Protector of Earth role that could be perceived as sort of demeaning(?) if not used correctly.

Edited by nicole8705, May 10, 2012 @ 7:10 AM.

  • 0

#1184

taiko

taiko

    Fanatic

Posted May 10, 2012 @ 9:26 AM

That is a good point WB really is a monster maybe DC should start to try to gain back their properties and create an studio for movies.

So it is a matter of corporate courage. Would DC do a buy back and try to make movies without Batman and Superman? Would they be willing to throw three Hulk films out to get the desired buzz.
  • 0

#1185

lastdaughterfk

lastdaughterfk

    Fanatic

Posted May 10, 2012 @ 12:52 PM

Would DC do a buy back and try to make movies without Batman and Superman?


I seriously doubt it to be frank, DC is not a fan of risky moves they are very conservative about what they do or not with their properties and I don't see them risking that much just for live action they regularly do movies with the characters and probably profit enough to make them not envy Marvel too much. I think only a big drop on sales would force them to do something drastic. But who knows once upon a time we had a sorts of rivalry that propelled many interesting changes in both publishing houses, time will tell but I wouldn't bet money on that...well maybe a dollar ;)
  • 0

#1186

Tableau

Tableau

    Fanatic

Posted May 10, 2012 @ 3:42 PM

In case anyone has forgot, Marvel is owned by Disney, a corporation just as big as Warner Brothers. When Marvel was by themselves they had to be extremely conscious of their money spending and have become infamously penny pinching as a result. They had to make these big comic book movies on a budget and the movies couldn't fail or one failure could bring down the whole studio. Disney's deep pockets and security was the best thing that could have happened to them.

I really doubt DC would ever willingly part ways with Warner Brothers (if they even could, Warner Brothers has owned the properties for well over 30 years) especially over a dumb reason like lack of live action movie properties of their characters. It seems like a long term solution to something that could be a short term problem. We as fans would love to see a Flash, Wonder Woman, Supergirl, Nightwing, or Martian Manhunter movie but what fans want isn't always practical. Warner Brothers might change their minds about the risk of making live action movies with the properties in the future but right now their doing great things with those properties in the animated arenas.

I think right now they're starting to put together a Justice League movie. They've wanted to do one for a while and with the smash success of the Avengers they have a possible proof of concept to help move things forward.
  • 0

#1187

Trini Girl

Trini Girl

    Stalker

Posted May 10, 2012 @ 8:24 PM

I think right now they're starting to put together a Justice League movie. They've wanted to do one for a while and with the smash success of the Avengers they have a possible proof of concept to help move things forward.

I think they'd want to see how well the next Superman movie is received, though. That's 2013, right?
  • 0

#1188

taiko

taiko

    Fanatic

Posted May 10, 2012 @ 8:35 PM

I don't know the Avengers made so much, so fast they are probably full speed ahead right now. What I don't see is the ground work being laid. The three Hulk movies, the Captain and Ironman movie equivalents all with cameos pointing towards the big team picture
  • 0

#1189

FoolishWanderer

FoolishWanderer

    Fanatic

Posted May 10, 2012 @ 9:19 PM

Three Hulk movies? I can only think of the Bana and Norton ones.
  • 0

#1190

lastdaughterfk

lastdaughterfk

    Fanatic

Posted May 10, 2012 @ 10:28 PM

In case anyone has forgot, Marvel is owned by Disney, a corporation just as big as Warner Brothers. When Marvel was by themselves they had to be extremely conscious of their money spending and have become infamously penny pinching as a result. They had to make these big comic book movies on a budget and the movies couldn't fail or one failure could bring down the whole studio. Disney's deep pockets and security was the best thing that could have happened to them.


If I understand correctly the transaction Disney wanted Marvel to start making live action movies since they were negotiating and that is why they were getting back most of their properties. WB has had the properties for 30 years like you say and nothing is happening as of now.

I really doubt DC would ever willingly part ways with Warner Brothers (if they even could, Warner Brothers has owned the properties for well over 30 years) especially over a dumb reason like lack of live action movie properties of their characters. It seems like a long term solution to something that could be a short term problem. We as fans would love to see a Flash, Wonder Woman, Supergirl, Nightwing, or Martian Manhunter movie but what fans want isn't always practical. Warner Brothers might change their minds about the risk of making live action movies with the properties in the future but right now their doing great things with those properties in the animated arenas.


Is not a good reason if you take in account that DC is older, its properties are probably more known around the world than Marvel properties were till recently has more awards and plenty of stories to tell if they think. This is not just a fan issue if the DC investors see Marvel taking big chunks of the cake of profits with their live actions I'm sure some of them will want some of that and consider that they do have a fair chance of getting. Is about money, money they are not making. The profit from movies is 10 times bigger because of both international markets and tickets price (think about it a family of four in USA might buy one DVD's/Blue Ray compare with that family paying for four tickets to watch the movie and then buying the DVD, plus merchandise and add people around the world), so all goes down of how much money Marvel movies need to make before the big wigs at DC say that WB is not working for them anymore? I can't predict that of course but this will be a serious question to ask themselves in the future, YMMV.
  • 0

#1191

Tableau

Tableau

    Fanatic

Posted May 10, 2012 @ 11:53 PM

DC works for Warner Brothers, not the other way around. Warner Brothers says jump, DC asks how high. DC has been part of Warner Brothers since 1969 and since Warner Brothers has a movie studio already, DC properties are produced through them. DC is just another department in the huge mess of companies that makes up Time Warner.

Marvel and Disney on the other hand are very new in their partnership. Marvel was an independent studio when they released Iron Man and The Incredible Hulk back in 2008. They were a completely new start-up movie studio that branched directly from the comic book producer, and as such, it was a risky venture because they were placing their entire business model on the popular demand for comic book movies. Disney did not come to own Marvel properties until they bought Marvel a couple years ago, since then Marvel has still maintained their operations independently from the House of Mouse but they have the security of Disney money to pull off their projects while before every movie they attempted was sink or swim for the entire studio.

I hope I'm being clear here. My point is all DC properties are owned by Warner Brothers because Warner Brothers owns DC Comics, DC Comics was never an independent entity like Marvel was, it has always been owned by one corporation or the other. There really isn't a DC like there is a Marvel. They're two very different situations business-wise.

Edited by Tableau, May 11, 2012 @ 12:06 AM.

  • 1

#1192

runningoutofnam

runningoutofnam

    Couch Potato

Posted May 11, 2012 @ 11:17 AM

So after fighting the Chitauri for five minutes, Black Widow knows how to fly one of their vehicles? Damn, where do you learn that?

Captain America is more dexterous than I remember. There were moments when he was moving like Spider-Man. However, on a strange note, he relied soley on his shield this time. I know it's traditional, but he used a gun in his movie.


She wasn't steering it. She was using the chitauri body to steer it. Similar to how you control a horse.

Cap did use guns. He used one in the engine area and he used the chitauri weapons against them while he was giving orders to the police.
  • 0

#1193

Trip McNeely

Trip McNeely

    Couch Potato

Posted May 11, 2012 @ 5:14 PM

There is a simple way to improve the quality of live action films based on DC Comics characters: Put the people from the animation division in charge of the live action films. The animated films have consistently been quality productions that effectively develop the properties they're based on. Take the Green Lantern release "First Flight". It gets the origin out of the way in the first 10 minutes and then plunges the audience into the world of the Lantern Corps much more effectively than the Ryan Reynolds movie did (and only takes about 75 minutes to tell the story).

Edited by Trip McNeely, May 11, 2012 @ 5:18 PM.

  • 0

#1194

FoolishWanderer

FoolishWanderer

    Fanatic

Posted May 11, 2012 @ 9:58 PM

Cap did use guns. He used one in the engine area and he used the chitauri weapons against them while he was giving orders to the police.

Point taken. However, he wasn't equipped with a gun the whole time, unlike the CA movie. It can't even be an anti-gun thing, because Black Widow had two.
  • 0

#1195

runningoutofnam

runningoutofnam

    Couch Potato

Posted May 11, 2012 @ 10:34 PM

He didn't have a gun the whole time in the Captain America movie. Also that was war time different circumstances. Plus he has gotten more used to using the shield as well as his body both defensively and offensively.

Black Widow also had her stingers which can deliver electric shocks plus her peak human physique.
  • 0

#1196

Tableau

Tableau

    Fanatic

Posted May 12, 2012 @ 1:25 PM

He didn't have a gun the whole time in the Captain America movie. Also that was war time different circumstances.

Cap had a holster as part of his outfit, so if he didn't use the gun he likely had it on him often. Also they kept on calling the conflict in Avengers war, therefore I assume they would be considered the same things here. Anyway...

Can 'The Dark Knight' Rise Above 'The Avengers'?
  • 0

#1197

TheSporkWielder

TheSporkWielder

    Fanatic

Posted May 12, 2012 @ 4:51 PM

Can 'The Dark Knight' Rise Above 'The Avengers'?


I don't know if it can. I'm looking forward to TDKR, and I really like Nolan's take on the character,but, like that article pointed out, TDKR is not going to be as light as "Avengers." Part of the reason I liked "Avengers" so much was because it was fun to watch and it had a lot of that quippy dialogue that Joss is known for. TDKR is going to be a much more serious film, so I know, at least for myself, that I most likely won't be seeing it more than once or twice just because it's probably going to be so damn depressing, judging by the trailers.

I'd be okay with it if TDKR did earn more, though, if that leads to more superhero movies as well made as these and fewer that are like "Green Lantern."
  • 0

#1198

lastdaughterfk

lastdaughterfk

    Fanatic

Posted May 12, 2012 @ 7:44 PM

Can 'The Dark Knight' Rise Above 'The Avengers'?



I think that would be about demographics, if it has as wide appeal as The Avengers then it has a shot but I seriously doubt it.Anyone has the break down of demographics for Batman movies?

He didn't have a gun the whole time in the Captain America movie. Also that was war time different circumstances. Plus he has gotten more used to using the shield as well as his body both defensively and offensively.


That begs the question is Cap a civilian or a military man as off now? When he was a civilian he was not using a gun maybe he believes that guns are not for civilians and unless a huge exception (like taking an enemy's gun) he wouldn't carry one in the comics and animated series I don't think he ever used a gun it was all punches and his shield... just a though

Edited by lastdaughterfk, May 12, 2012 @ 7:48 PM.

  • 0

#1199

taiko

taiko

    Fanatic

Posted May 12, 2012 @ 7:58 PM

Let's say Steve Rogers was declared MIA and later presumed dead and is no longer a US Army Captain assigned to the Strategic Scientific Reserve. However he has been taken in by SHIELD as a covert ( in bright red white and blue) operative who has just been revealed to the public. He may not be US Army anymore but he is still with a security service
  • 0

#1200

ElymianDucat

ElymianDucat

    Fanatic

Posted May 12, 2012 @ 7:59 PM

There is a simple way to improve the quality of live action films based on DC Comics characters: Put the people from the animation division in charge of the live action films. The animated films have consistently been quality productions that effectively develop the properties they're based on.


I don't know if that is such a good idea. Animation and Live action are very different things. I've read that one of the reasons John Carter had so many problems was that they put a successful animation director in charge who tried to run the production like he did the animated ones and it was a disaster. 
  • 0