|
Thwomp posted:Even though I was into comics for a long time, I still get confused that there are three Captain Marvels: 1) the original Captain Mar-Vell and his subsequent successors who received the later title of Captain Marvel, 2) Captain Marvel of DC (Bill Batson with the power of SHAZAM! and now known in DC as Shazam), and 3) Ms. Marvel who was originally separate from Captain Mar-vell but is now the actual Captain Marvel. You forgot the most famous Captain Marvel of them all: 
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2013 16:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 05:58 |
|
|
Marvel has surprisingly moved Ant-Man's release date up from November 2015 to July 31st 2015. This stops it from being in direct competition with the new Bond and I think it shows that this movie is finally moving along and that Marvel has some faith in it. http://www.comicbookmovie.com/fansites/notyetamovie/news/?a=86749
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2013 02:34
|
|
|
Dacap posted:Marvel has surprisingly moved Ant-Man's release date up from November 2015 to July 31st 2015. This stops it from being in direct competition with the new Bond and I think it shows that this movie is finally moving along and that Marvel has some faith in it. That's two weeks after Superman/Batman. Marvel sure has a lot of faith in the movie.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2013 07:08
|
|
|
They also may not be worried about a superhero movie being rushed through development that has already alienated a bunch of fans by casting Affleck. It's a gamble, but WB has a history of making mostly bad superhero movies. Marvel's betting on WB falling on its face again.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2013 13:31
|
|
|
AFoolAndHisMoney posted:That's two weeks after Superman/Batman. Two weeks might be enough but maybe this is a lower budget film with lower expectations?
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2013 14:28
|
|
|
The Action Man posted:It's a gamble, but WB has a history of making mostly bad superhero movies. Marvel's betting on WB falling on its face again. Plus you can gamble on DC being incompetent straight to the bank.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2013 14:43
|
|
|
Whizbang posted:Plus you can gamble on DC being incompetent straight to the bank. I worked a Temp job at a Time Warner office in NYC the summer that Jonah Hex came out. The entire office had free passes to go see Jonah Hex, and even at the price of nothing, it was too much for people who worked for the company that made the drat film. With that anecdote in mind, I agree with Marvel/Disney's move.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2013 15:15
|
|
|
The Action Man posted:I worked a Temp job at a Time Warner office in NYC the summer that Jonah Hex came out. The entire office had free passes to go see Jonah Hex, and even at the price of nothing, it was too much for people who worked for the company that made the drat film. I'll say this for Jonah Hex: It was a very short movie. Incredibly short - run time of 81 minutes, credits included.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2013 17:29
|
|
|
I don't think we can compare something like Jonah Hex to a Batman/Superman crossover, particular when its predecessor actually did pretty well.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2013 17:37
|
|
|
BrianWilly posted:I don't think we can compare something like Jonah Hex to a Batman/Superman crossover, particular when its predecessor actually did pretty well. On second thought, I think a more accurate comparison would be Iron Man 2. I predict that it will be a middling to terrible sequel based on rushing it into/through production in order to reach a release date scheduled in advance of casting and completing the script. However, WB has so many awful DC movies under their belt that I think we need to really appreciate how badly they can gently caress up a project. After all, they didn't reboot the Batman franchise for the sake of fun.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2013 17:39
|
|
|
Like, I'm all for making GBS threads on WB/DC as much as possible myself these days, but if you guys think that the same nerds buttsploding about Affleck's casting won't be the first ones in line for midnight showings after they see the new costume and trailers and carefully-cultivated promotion, you're severely underestimating nerd culture. Batman the character still has a lot of goodwill left from Nolan's work. Emo gloomy property-damager Superman seems to have captured the attention of many demographics who go for that sort of thing. The film may yet end up being incredibly lovely, that is true, but the hype is going to be huge, easily-rivaling any of Marvel's recent releases.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2013 17:50
|
|
|
BrianWilly posted:Like, I'm all for making GBS threads on WB/DC as much as possible myself these days, but if you guys think that the same nerds buttsploding about Affleck's casting won't be the first ones in line for midnight showings after they see the new costume and trailers and carefully-cultivated promotion, you're severely underestimating nerd culture. Batman the character still has a lot of goodwill left from Nolan's work. Emo gloomy property-damager Superman seems to have captured the attention of many demographics who go for that sort of thing. I dunno. The Hype for Avengers was pretty drat high. This might reach Ironman 2 Hype. But the build up to the Avengers was crazy.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2013 18:02
|
|
|
BrianWilly posted:Like, I'm all for making GBS threads on WB/DC as much as possible myself these days, but if you guys think that the same nerds buttsploding about Affleck's casting won't be the first ones in line for midnight showings after they see the new costume and trailers and carefully-cultivated promotion, you're severely underestimating nerd culture. Batman the character still has a lot of goodwill left from Nolan's work. Emo gloomy property-damager Superman seems to have captured the attention of many demographics who go for that sort of thing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2013 18:03
|
|
|
Gatts posted:Two weeks might be enough but maybe this is a lower budget film with lower expectations? If I recall right, that was actually what Wright talked about when it was first announced a couple years back. He said it wouldn't be terribly expensive, which I think was a big point at the time for Marvel to say "sure, go ahead!" since this was before they had that sweet sweet Disney money. Checking, Scott Pilgrim was his most expensive movie at $90 million, while the cheapest Marvel movies are $140 million, which are Thor and Captain America.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2013 19:33
|
|
|
Say what you will, but as critically dubious as DC's output is, their movies are a thousand times more watchable than the vanilla crap Marvel photocopies every year.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2013 10:27
|
|
|
scary ghost dog posted:Say what you will, but as critically dubious as DC's output is, their movies are a thousand times more watchable than the vanilla crap Marvel photocopies every year. So how does it feel to be the one person who liked Green Lantern?
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2013 11:25
|
|
|
Grendels Dad posted:So how does it feel to be the one person who liked Green Lantern? Green Lantern was interesting from a "why is this bad" standpoint. It wasn't really what I'd call "more watchable" but it is certainly more memorable than a lot of Marvel stuff.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2013 11:44
|
|
|
scary ghost dog posted:Say what you will, but as critically dubious as DC's output is, their movies are a thousand times more watchable than the vanilla crap Marvel photocopies every year. Iron Man 3 addressed pretty much every complaint I had with the first wave of Marvel movies: It had actual character growth and a satisfying conclusion, it had Shane Black's fingerprints all over it instead of being toned-down and generic, there was almost no Avengers bullshit and you didn't need to see the other movies to follow it but at the same time it was a logical continuation of the events of The Avengers and it remembered that a wormhole opening over New York was a thing that happened and would probably rock peoples' poo poo. Not to mention actively addressing the uncomfortable politics of the previous movies. I'm looking forward to see if Phase 2 continues that streak. Now that they've laid the groundwork and audiences have shown that they're more than willing to roll with the fantastic elements they've thrown out they have a little more wiggle room.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2013 11:51
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Green Lantern was interesting from a "why is this bad" standpoint. It wasn't really what I'd call "more watchable" but it is certainly more memorable than a lot of Marvel stuff. Maybe from a dissection standpoint. From an actual entertainment "I'm enjoying the story being presented on screen" standpoint I've enjoyed Marvel's lesser works far more than Green Lantern--and I saw Green Lantern for free so my standard was pretty low for that one.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2013 12:04
|
|
|
...of SCIENCE! posted:Iron Man 3 addressed pretty much every complaint I had with the first wave of Marvel movies: It had actual character growth and a satisfying conclusion, it had Shane Black's fingerprints all over it instead of being toned-down and generic, there was almost no Avengers bullshit and you didn't need to see the other movies to follow it but at the same time it was a logical continuation of the events of The Avengers and it remembered that a wormhole opening over New York was a thing that happened and would probably rock peoples' poo poo. Not to mention actively addressing the uncomfortable politics of the previous movies. Both upcoming Thor and Captain America sequels seems to be addressing how the events of Avengers and the protagonists' own movies affect the character and the world around them, from what I read so far. Thor 2 will have Asgard be the target of foreign attacks after they are weakened by the destruction of the Bifrost, and develop the relationship between Thor and Loki further. Captain America 2's plot will show Steve Rogers dealing with how much the world changed since WW2, and suggests he might have to deal with an enemy on the inside.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2013 12:08
|
|
|
The MSJ posted:Captain America 2's plot will show Steve Rogers dealing with how much the world changed since WW2, and suggests he might have to deal with an enemy on the inside. Suggests? The title of the goddamn movie is The Winter Soldier. You only need the most cursory knowledge of recent Captain America to know what the plot is going to be.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2013 12:12
|
|
|
Grendels Dad posted:So how does it feel to be the one person who liked Green Lantern? Green Lantern is crap pretty much because it's trying to be a Marvel movie and failing. And talk about cherry picking. You know which films he's talking about when he says that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2013 12:13
|
|
|
mind the walrus posted:Suggests? The title of the goddamn movie is The Winter Soldier. You only need the most cursory knowledge of recent Captain America to know what the plot is going to be. I have to admit I don't know much about recent Captain America storylines (specifically after his resurrection and Secret Avengers). I just base this on Robert Redford saying that his character is a villain while also being Nick Fury's boss, as well as Steve and Natasha reportedly having issues with SHIELD leadership. It might have started with Steve finding all those Hydra tech on the Helicarrier.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2013 12:30
|
|
|
mind the walrus posted:Suggests? The title of the goddamn movie is The Winter Soldier. You only need the most cursory knowledge of recent Captain America to know what the plot is going to be. Wasn't the Winter Soldier a Russian agent though? Like, that was why he was called the Winter Soldier, right? I legitimately don't remember. Of all the super major Marvel characters Captain America I know the least about.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2013 12:43
|
|
|
WickedHate posted:Wasn't the Winter Soldier a Russian agent though? Like, that was why he was called the Winter Soldier, right? Spoiling this because it's THE SPOILER for the comic arc and most likely the movie. When Bucky 'died' he ended up being frozen too. The Russians thawed him out, brainwashed him into a super black ops assassin, and gave him a robot arm. He's the Winter Soldier.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2013 13:11
|
|
|
Joe Don Baker posted:Spoiling this because it's THE SPOILER for the comic arc and most likely the movie. When Bucky 'died' he ended up being frozen too. The Russians thawed him out, brainwashed him into a super black ops assassin, and gave him a robot arm. He's the Winter Soldier. I knew that much, but I wasn't sure if the Russians were involved because last I read about it was years ago and I have a really bad memory. So why does The Winter Soldier title imply he deals with "an enemy on the inside"?
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2013 13:20
|
|
|
They may be borrowing from another comic arc involving SHIELD that also ties in to some of the Cap stuff.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2013 14:07
|
|
|
AFoolAndHisMoney posted:Green Lantern is crap pretty much because it's trying to be a Marvel movie and failing. Honestly, I don't. The Batman movies aren't "critically dubious" as he put it, so poo poo like Green Lantern is the only stuff I can think of. Please feel free to name other movies, and maybe point out how them sucking was indirectly Marvel's fault too.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2013 15:50
|
|
|
WickedHate posted:So why does The Winter Soldier title imply he deals with "an enemy on the inside"? My guess is a super obvious "Robert Redford is the mastermind" reveal.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2013 16:46
|
|
|
Grendels Dad posted:Honestly, I don't. The Batman movies aren't "critically dubious" as he put it, so poo poo like Green Lantern is the only stuff I can think of. Please feel free to name other movies, and maybe point out how them sucking was indirectly Marvel's fault too. Mostly I'm talking about how Man Of Steel was more engaging than The Avengers despite lacking punchy dialogue. Going down the line, though, you can put any Marvel movie bar Spider-Mans up next to any DC movie and I'll probably prefer the DC movies. Marvel's output lately has just been bland and inoffensive, taking no risks. I'm really looking forward to Guardians of the Galaxy, though.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2013 18:07
|
|
|
You do know that literally everything you said is in "that's just like, your opinion man" territory right? I found Man of Steel interminable and boring in many parts and I've got a Superman tattoo on my back--I was looking for reasons to forgive--while the Avengers kept me thrilled based on novelty alone (yet still held up on a rewatch). So as long as we're going with opinions... Part of what I found lovely and refreshing about Marvel Phase I was that after a decade of movie studio politics and producers/directors messing with fairly straightforward adaptations of characters-- Sony and Fox from 2000-2009 posted:Cyclops isn't an important part of the X-Men. Sure shoving the symbiote and Venom into the Goblin/Sandman plot is a wise choice. Dr. Doom and Galactus are cheesy so gently caress them. Let's use the Elektra revenge plot for the origin story of Daredevil because it's well-known. The fans will love it when we remove Deadpool's ability to speak. --we finally had Marvel saying "Back the gently caress off and quit trying to reinvent the loving wheel. We have repackaged and resold these dudes to the same audience for half a century. loving trust that we know the direction to go in." So we had four major character presented in a no-bullshit no-frills straightforward cinematic adaptation. Was it bland and vanilla in many parts? Absolutely. Iron Man 2 had a messy script, and Captain America was essentially bungled despite having the best first half out of any of the Phase I movies. The Hulk and Thor are featherweight features of plain escapism. Iron Man has a super weak villain. The Avengers teasers can be distracting, especially if you're somehow retarded and forgot that you're watching a serial feature and not a complete standalone feature. I don't know of anyone who is propping any Phase I movies up as cinematic triumphs. What they are are adaptation triumphs. They are proof that you can translate the characters without sticking your dick in the concept and still find an audience. A substantial one it turns out. But no. Because it's not "risky" suddenly that means it's unengaging. Because it doesn't obviously fall on its face or have aspirations to be more than "just" a superhero feature it's bland. It's vanilla. Do you know what the thing about vanilla is though? Vanilla is loving delicious and a strong foundation to branch off into a huge variety of flavors. Iron Man 3 is proof that--conscious or not--there is an evolving style to the Marvel movies and gives a promising hint that Phase One was about foundation--Phase Two will be more about style. Now granted, if Phase Two doesn't start to bring out some more evolved qualities in the storytelling and cinematic flourish then I'll be right there with critics saying that Marvel Studios needs to stop focusing on quantity of sequels/characters and focus on quality more. Even so they've already proven themselves more than capable of the WB's best efforts when it comes to presenting a cohesive whole, and I'll take their worst over dour pretension like Man of Steel or the Nolan Bat-flicks any day.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2013 18:41
|
|
|
mind the walrus posted:You do know that literally everything you said is in "that's just like, your opinion man" territory right? I found Man of Steel interminable and boring in many parts and I've got a Superman tattoo on my back--I was looking for reasons to forgive--while the Avengers kept me thrilled based on novelty alone (yet still held up on a rewatch). That's just, like, your opinion, man. As far as I'm concerned the worst film that's interesting to watch for myriad reasons (The Last Airbender) is better than an aesthetically fine, well written slab of concrete (The Avengers.)
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2013 19:36
|
|
|
scary ghost dog posted:That's just, like, your opinion, man. As far as I'm concerned the worst film that's interesting to watch for myriad reasons (The Last Airbender) is better than an aesthetically fine, well written slab of concrete (The Avengers.) Same basic logic I always use. An interesting failure is better than a predictable, by the numbers affair to me. I also agree with the earlier statement that Green Lantern's biggest problem is that it follows the Marvel template as compared to making something truly different. The Marvel template being essentially the same approach taken for the DTV marvel cartoons (as compared to the DC stuff adapting things like All Star and DKR that are based off Elsworlds that take more liberties). And, yeah, I liked Iron Man 3 and am looking forward to Ant Man.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2013 20:42
|
|
|
mind the walrus posted:Part of what I found lovely and refreshing about Marvel Phase I was that after a decade of movie studio politics and producers/directors messing with fairly straightforward adaptations of characters-- This is the big reason I would absolutely love to see Marvel get their hands on the X-Men films. I'd love to see a more comic-accurate version on the big screen rather than the franchise we have that always seems to be a bit embarrassed by its own content.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2013 20:50
|
|
|
scary ghost dog posted:Going down the line, though, you can put any Marvel movie bar Spider-Mans up next to any DC movie and I'll probably prefer the DC movies. Conversely, I prefer all of Marvel's movies to any of DC's movies. Batman Begins is the only one I've enjoyed out of the ones I've watched, but I'd rather watch Iron Man 1 instead of that nowadays. DFu4ever posted:This is the big reason I would absolutely love to see Marvel get their hands on the X-Men films. I'd love to see a more comic-accurate version on the big screen rather than the franchise we have that always seems to be a bit embarrassed by its own content. What I'd love is a live-action X-Men TV series.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2013 20:54
|
|
|
Jamesman posted:Conversely, I prefer all of Marvel's movies to any of DC's movies. Batman Begins is the only one I've enjoyed out of the ones I've watched, but I'd rather watch Iron Man 1 instead of that nowadays. I don't understand statements like that. Rewatchability for me is plot nuance, cinematography, score...all of which Batman Begins has more of. What is there to draw from or revisit on Iron Man 1 in subsequent viewings that overrides it being dully shot, the most un-memorable score in a big superhero film (literally, I can't remember a single thing of it, while I can at least kind of remember small bits from Thor, kinda), etc.?
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2013 21:30
|
|
|
People bitched about the constant dutch angles in Thor, but at least that was something memorable.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2013 22:48
|
|
|
DFu4ever posted:This is the big reason I would absolutely love to see Marvel get their hands on the X-Men films. I'd love to see a more comic-accurate version on the big screen rather than the franchise we have that always seems to be a bit embarrassed by its own content. Marvel has yet to make a movie as good as X2, so I'll hold off on wanting to see them take the X-Men back. Especially because Days of Future Past is shaping up to be pretty drat good.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2013 23:03
|
|
|
CPFortest posted:People bitched about the constant dutch angles in Thor, but at least that was something memorable. I loved the dutch angles in Thor. poo poo was hilarious! "Nothing is happening in this scene, better film it sideways!"
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2013 23:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 05:58 |
|
|
Yoshifan823 posted:Marvel has yet to make a movie as good as X2, so I'll hold off on wanting to see them take the X-Men back. Especially because Days of Future Past is shaping up to be pretty drat good. Although it has aged better than the first X-Men, I still think Thor, IM 3, and Avengers are superior films.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2013 23:41
|
|