|
Metal Loaf posted:Originally Marvel only had two as well (Spider-Man and Wolverine), but they've put a lot of effort into building up Cap, Thor and especially Iron Man since the MCU thing kicked off. Yeah, but the success of the Green Lantern movie compared to the success of Iron Man, Thor, and Captain America movies speaks for itself. DC's only non Batman/Superman success story this decade (or any other since god knows when) is Arrow, which is a television show on CW. I will grant that it's a poo poo ton better than Marvel's TV show.
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 22:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 18:04 |
|
|
Hey. Congrats to everyone on their dumb expensive movies!
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 22:43
|
|
|
Go Marvel and DC. Congratulations to all the creators that made it happen that either died penniless or are spending their later years in crippling debt or illness. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 23:06
|
|
|
Metal Loaf posted:Originally Marvel only had two as well (Spider-Man and Wolverine), but they've put a lot of effort into building up Cap, Thor and especially Iron Man since the MCU thing kicked off. I'm been more invested on DC's whole output since the N52 but I still don't give a poo poo for anything at marvel aside of Spider-man. 
Dark_Tzitzimine fucked around with this message at 23:22 on Mar 10, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 23:18
|
|
|
Waterhaul posted:Go Marvel and DC. Out of all the creators Bill Finger got hosed the worst.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 23:32
|
|
|
Senor Candle posted:Also as I understand it nobody wanted to see an Iron Man movie until it came out. "This will kill comic movies. There will be so many clunkers released that no one will finance what could be a really good comic book movie because they have been overexposed. gently caress you Arad." "Goodbye comics book movies. I was once filled with so much hope for you." "He just doesn't get it. The man has no idea when it comes to making these properties interesting. Blah, he makes me mad. They better not make an Iron Man movie because there's absolutely no way it can't suck." "Arad is a raving lunatic who should spend more time getting his company's comics-related poo poo together instead of foaming at the mouth." "Well it is nice to see that Arad is trying to destroy comic book movies and make sure no more ever get made again."
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2014 00:10
|
|
|
Dark_Tzitzimine posted:I'm been more invested on DC's whole output since the N52 but I still don't give a poo poo for anything at marvel aside of Spider-man. Well, we were talking about movies, but if you want to talk about comic books congratulations on reading a bunch of poo poo comics instead of good ones, I guess.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2014 00:21
|
|
|
Skwirl posted:Well, we were talking about movies, but if you want to talk about comic books congratulations on reading a bunch of poo poo comics instead of good ones, I guess. Hey, that's basically his job around here. If he doesn't read them, no one would know just how truly bad they are and might accidentally pick them up thinking they could have improved.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2014 00:41
|
|
|
Literally The Worst posted:Straight up if you don't think "Garth Ennis reminisces about reading FLESH!" is the best arc in comics, smh. Skwirl posted:The major issue is that DC only has 2 characters that people want to see in theaters, where Marvel has a ton. Marvel's movies feel very centrally controlled so that they all work together as a single work, which reflects their one-world comic direction, while DC's only direction seems to be "Alan Moore is hot again? EXPLOIT EVERYTHING" Know what would be loving awesome and different while capitalising on the monothematic focus of Marvel's movies? A period noir piece of Golden Age Sandman. I'm sure if someone pitched that to DC they'd fund it but only on the provision that it's set in the modern day and he has a full-black muscle suit with a dart-shooting hand-cannon; maybe a transforming motorbike?
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2014 01:02
|
|
|
Can we make a move in this place against warrioring for companies, similar to the rule Games has? Although, I guess a lot of people would suddenly have nothing to post about.
Teenage Fansub fucked around with this message at 01:26 on Mar 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2014 01:11
|
|
|
Teenage Fansub posted:Although, I guess a lot of people would suddenly have nothing to post about.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2014 01:17
|
|
|
Skwirl posted:Well, we were talking about movies, but if you want to talk about comic books congratulations on reading a bunch of poo poo comics instead of good ones, I guess. I was talking about the whole media input from the two companies. I follow with interest anything coming from DC (cartoons, live action series, games, movies, comics) but outside Spiderman nothing from Marvel has piqued my interest. I'm really pumped by ASM2 though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2014 01:48
|
|
|
Ghostlight posted:That's not true at all. I can think of half a dozen characters I'd love to see a movie of, one of which even already has a movie! The issue is that they sink their cash into the BIG TWO because those are guaranteed properties while every other property gets farmed out to whoever for script/direction and the quality, tone, and polish is all completely different. The core MCU movies are being treated the same as their universe - they look very similar in aesthetic to each other, and they've realised the value of securing actors so that they can do things like shove Hawkeye into a two-minute cameo in Thor so that people are like "oh that guy!" when they watch Avengers as opposed to DC who can't even (or don't care to) secure Batman's girlfriend in a trilogy. Green Lantern was a failure. I meant people in general, not you specifically. I agree a period neo-noir (noir has a very loose definition, but almost always refers to movies filmed pre-60s, anything filmed after drawing on that ouvre is neo-noir) golden age Sandman film is a great idea, but no one would watch it, or Warner Brothers would destroy it in the process of making it, and still no one would watch it. Also I was talking about marketing and financial success of Marvel films, which DC/Warner Brothers fail completely at, not quality of the product. If rumors are true there's going to be a Black Widow film before there's a Wonder Woman film, that's a huge failure on DC's part.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2014 02:09
|
|
|
I know this is anime but I'm posting it here because it's awesome and relevant to comicbook nerds. http://kotaku.com/awesome-dad-anima...dium=Socialflow  "Robson Menezes dos Santos is definitely a "Father of the Year" candidate. He spent 6 months to create a Dragon Ball animation for his son's birthday, replacing Vegeta, Trunks and Gohan with himself and his 9-year-old son. In the full clip—which is in Brazilian—he was also able to bring the original, Brazilian voice actors of Bulma and Goku round. They're basically saying "Happy Birthday" in portuguese to the kid in the first few minutes."
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2014 02:14
|
|
|
That's the best dad.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2014 02:26
|
|
|
Mister Roboto posted:I know this is anime but I'm posting it here because it's awesome and relevant to comicbook nerds. When I was 6 my parents wouldn't even buy me a Nintendo.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2014 02:29
|
|
Literally The Worst posted:Straight up if you don't think "Garth Ennis reminisces about reading FLESH!" is the best arc in comics, smh. The very first FLESH! series was so unfairly good that everything else I read from early 2000 AD looked like crap in comparison. It hit that perfect balance of genuine awesomeness and heartless over the top satire and gore that makes Robocop such a memorable film. They did at least one direct sequel to it but it was soooo boring.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2014 03:33
|
|
|
Dark_Tzitzimine posted:I was talking about the whole media input from the two companies. I follow with interest anything coming from DC (cartoons, live action series, games, movies, comics) but outside Spiderman nothing from Marvel has piqued my interest. I'm really pumped by ASM2 though. It's really weird that I was pretty much in that same position like a year ago. That makes me think, have you ever read the Daredevil series by Bendis? That's what really got me into Marvel.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2014 03:35
|
|
|
Skwirl posted:I meant people in general, not you specifically. I agree a period neo-noir (noir has a very loose definition, but almost always refers to movies filmed pre-60s, anything filmed after drawing on that ouvre is neo-noir) golden age Sandman film is a great idea, but no one would watch it, or Warner Brothers would destroy it in the process of making it, and still no one would watch it. I've always wanted a Sandman Mystery Theatre movie or series, either that or a Vic Sage Question series based mostly on his Justice League Unlimited "creepy conspiracy theorist detective" portrayal, but something that could tie into his background as a crusading journalist as well. I'm a sucker for pulp heroes who fight the good fight in suits and trench coats and fedoras, and Sandman with his World War I-style gas mask or Question with his faceless mask would both have very dramatic looks (and hooks).
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2014 04:27
|
|
|
Big Bad Voodoo Lou posted:I've always wanted a Sandman Mystery Theatre movie or series, either that or a Vic Sage Question series based mostly on his Justice League Unlimited "creepy conspiracy theorist detective" portrayal, but something that could tie into his background as a crusading journalist as well. I'm a sucker for pulp heroes who fight the good fight in suits and trench coats and fedoras, and Sandman with his World War I-style gas mask or Question with his faceless mask would both have very dramatic looks (and hooks). As much as I love the Question in the JL cartoons, I would prefer to have Denny O' Neil's Question on screen instead (or even better, a TV show). One thing I figure about DC characters versus Marvel is that you can do some interesting TV stuff with DC characters.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2014 04:58
|
|
|
Skwirl posted:Green Lantern was a failure. What makes you think nobody would watch it? Simply removing 'Summer Action Blockbuster' from the equation actually seems ridiculously effective at disguising whether a movie is comic-inspired or not for the regular public, at which point all they care about is whether the movie looks interesting. There's a fairly established niche for highly stylised comic movies such as 300, Sin City, and Scott Pilgrim that all seemed to do pretty well, or even just straight comics movies that aren't superhero based, like Ghost World. I think there's a big reason DC's gotten so much traction on television series like Arrow and Smallville by simply removing the cape from their superheroes, and it's because it forces them out of their standard Superhuman Punches Things: Love Interest package.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2014 05:00
|
|
) golden age Sandman film is a great idea, but no one would watch it, or Warner Brothers would destroy it in the process of making it, and still no one would watch it.
|
Lurdiak posted:The very first FLESH! series was so unfairly good that everything else I read from early 2000 AD looked like crap in comparison. It hit that perfect balance of genuine awesomeness and heartless over the top satire and gore that makes Robocop such a memorable film. They did at least one direct sequel to it but it was soooo boring. And yet ironically it was the very first story to be replaced by something else too. Tell me with a straight face you have an idea more manly than "Time traveling cowboys go back to the prehistoric age to harvest dinosaur meat, but the dinosaurs decide to strike back in a battle to the death". Oh, you wanted dinosaurs and cowboys? Here, have six months of some military schmoes hunting a killer polar bear instead. (Shako was dull as dirt) I'm among the many goons here that's been going back on a 2000AD kick in case you couldn't tell. I'm only about a year in, but my comic OCD forces me to read them in order.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2014 05:29
|
|
|
CapnAndy posted:I've consistently maintained that Green Lantern is two good movies stitched together into a Frankensteinian abomination. Sorry, but the only good thing in GL was the production design. Whoever was responsible for the 50's SF aesthetic updated with more current view deserved a lot more credit than they got. I have high hopes for the Constantine television series. I am fully prepared to have them completely dashed.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2014 05:43
|
|
|
Ghostlight posted:Well, yes, my point was WB would destroy it in the process because it doesn't fit their idea of what a comics movie is, and that idea is perfectly encapsulated in why Green Lantern (among many others) was such a terrible failure. Scott Pilgrim also failed, badly. 31 million domestic and another 16 international on a 60 million dollar production budget according to Box Office Mojo. That's probably close to what would happen with a Sandman Mystery Theater movie. You could go the Arrow/Smallville route, but a large part of the success of those shows is being on The CW and having hot dudes not wearing shirts, not something I see happening for Golden Age Sandman.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2014 06:28
|
|
|
You are just hyper-focused on that Sandman example.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2014 07:00
|
|
|
Ghostlight posted:Well, I guess I should read Hitman. I'd go see a Golden Age Sandman movie more than once if it was any good, and I feel like there's zero chance of it happening. Particularly if Joseph Gordon Levitt gets the Vertigo Sandman film off the ground.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2014 12:52
|
|
|
I think Marvel has plenty of characters who would translate to TV pretty well, and, hey, they're doing just that with Netflix. That Agents of SHIELD is not good is hopefully not really a good indicator of future quality.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2014 13:15
|
|
|
Endless Mike posted:I think Marvel has plenty of characters who would translate to TV pretty well, and, hey, they're doing just that with Netflix. That Agents of SHIELD is not good is hopefully not really a good indicator of future quality. Agents of SHIELD is impressively boring. The most frustrating thing for me (in the 5 episodes I watched) is that every single episode was "go get the mcguffin", and wasn't about superheroes at all! In all honesty, the plot of every episode I saw except for the pilot would have worked EXACTLY as well if I had been watching Chuck. I like Chuck, it was a fun show, but that isn't what I want out of a SHIELD show even a little bit - especially since Chuck's cast was more interesting in every single way (except Agent Coulson is pretty good).
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2014 16:14
|
|
|
theflyingorc posted:Agents of SHIELD is impressively boring. Well, okay, finding the show boring is perfectly sane, but the show was never, and is never, going to be about superheroes. I mean just the fact that it's called Agents of SHIELD says all you need to know. They haven't done a good job of making the show exciting on its own, but I don't think its chosen topic is the problem.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2014 16:19
|
|
|
Hakkesshu posted:Well, okay, finding the show boring is perfectly sane, but the show was never, and is never, going to be about superheroes. I mean just the fact that it's called Agents of SHIELD says all you need to know. They should have made it like Powers, where there are always superpeople involved in whatever they're dealing with, even if they're not the on-screen focus of attention.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2014 16:21
|
|
|
prefect posted:They should have made it like Powers, where there are always superpeople involved in whatever they're dealing with, even if they're not the on-screen focus of attention.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2014 16:38
|
|
|
theflyingorc posted:Agents of SHIELD is impressively boring. I watched the pilot, went, "Geez, that was bad. But it's a pilot. Bad pilots happen. Let me see how next week plays out and if I see any potential at all, I'll stick with it for a while." Then the second episode happened and I decided to get out while the getting was good. Everything I've heard tells me I made the right choice.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2014 16:44
|
|
|
Hakkesshu posted:Well, okay, finding the show boring is perfectly sane, but the show was never, and is never, going to be about superheroes. I mean just the fact that it's called Agents of SHIELD says all you need to know. Well, the gimmick is "agents in a world with superheroes" is the opening. Using the name to defend it is a little weird, given its tenuous relation to anything SHIELD-based in the comics, as well. I don't even mind all that, though. What I did mind was it being just being dull. I don't think it's a total travesty, but I did find it disappointing and dropped off around episode eight or nine.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2014 16:45
|
|
|
Hakkesshu posted:Well, okay, finding the show boring is perfectly sane, but the show was never, and is never, going to be about superheroes. I mean just the fact that it's called Agents of SHIELD says all you need to know. Hell, Eureka felt more like it took place in the Marvel universe than most of the episodes of SHIELD I've watched.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2014 17:16
|
|
|
One thing I think DC has gotten right and Marvel hasn't in regards to the way they approach TV is Marvel is doing a whole shared universe thing which I find hinders their output. You can't have certain characters show up because of movies, and audiences already associate this character with this actor, and you can't tell a Thor story that is completely divorced from Thor (the character: the movie). With DC we have Arrow which is using a bunch of DC characters but putting it's own spin on it (pretty sure Ras is going to show up in next season but that is a hunch and I doubt it will be Liam Neeson's Ras). They have Fox developing a Commissioner Gordon show and while the early rumours don't sound good it is still independent of a movie universe. What I am trying to say is that Mavel is creating its own continuity for its live action media output and that can be a hindrance, while DC is doing the exact opposite and it frees them up to be a little more creative.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2014 17:28
|
|
|
Alien Rope Burn posted:Well, the gimmick is "agents in a world with superheroes" is the opening. Using the name to defend it is a little weird, given its tenuous relation to anything SHIELD-based in the comics, as well. I don't even mind all that, though. What I did mind was it being just being dull. I don't think it's a total travesty, but I did find it disappointing and dropped off around episode eight or nine.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2014 18:32
|
|
Madkal posted:One thing I think DC has gotten right and Marvel hasn't in regards to the way they approach TV is Marvel is doing a whole shared universe thing which I find hinders their output. You can't have certain characters show up because of movies, and audiences already associate this character with this actor, and you can't tell a Thor story that is completely divorced from Thor (the character: the movie). With DC we have Arrow which is using a bunch of DC characters but putting it's own spin on it (pretty sure Ras is going to show up in next season but that is a hunch and I doubt it will be Liam Neeson's Ras). They have Fox developing a Commissioner Gordon show and while the early rumours don't sound good it is still independent of a movie universe. Eh, there's nothing stopping them from picking up bits and pieces from the movies. The Mandarin guy isn't gonna be asking for RDJ level salaries, for example. Smallville had essentially free reign over the entirety of Superman's mythos and was just as boring as Agents of Shield (if not more), and certainly wasn't as good as people are saying Arrow is. It's just a matter of the people running the show being terrible.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2014 18:47
|
|
|
Lurdiak posted:The Mandarin guy isn't gonna be asking for RDJ level salaries, for example. Do you mean Ben Kingsley? Sir Ben Kingsley? Because he might not command RDJ salaries, but I can't imagine he works for scale.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2014 18:51
|
|
|
Lurdiak posted:The Mandarin guy isn't gonna be asking for RDJ level salaries, for example. quote:In a career spanning over 40 years, he has won an Oscar, Grammy, BAFTA, two Golden Globes and Screen Actors Guild awards.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2014 19:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 18:04 |
|
|
Sarchasm posted:Do you mean Ben Kingsley? Sir Ben Kingsley? Because he might not command RDJ salaries, but I can't imagine he works for scale. Based on his filmography I would guess he's OK working for cheap.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2014 19:16
|
|
