|
Post by The Shad on Apr 29, 2010 20:23:50 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Alex on Apr 29, 2010 20:28:39 GMT
DC were bandying about ideas for that before Superman Returns came about and a lack of commitment and pussying around killed it a good twice, at least.
If they actually pull it off, I'll be impressed - but, let's face it, no-one really gives a [censored] about the JLA. They've always been second fiddle to the Avengers on the grounds of far superior characterisation and a reason for these characters to actually be working together in a team. As far as the JLA goes, it's effectively Superman and his group of friends that he lets do things from time to time so they feel like they're contributing. When you place a Gary Stu in a team situation, the team itself just becomes background characters themselves.
|
|
|
Post by Erinaceus Europaeus on Apr 30, 2010 10:39:17 GMT
DC were bandying about ideas for that before Superman Returns came about and a lack of commitment and pussying around killed it a good twice, at least. If they actually pull it off, I'll be impressed - but, let's face it, no-one really gives a [censored] about the JLA. They've always been second fiddle to the Avengers on the grounds of far superior characterisation and a reason for these characters to actually be working together in a team. As far as the JLA goes, it's effectively Superman and his group of friends that he lets do things from time to time so they feel like they're contributing. When you place a Gary Stu in a team situation, the team itself just becomes background characters themselves. It's so interesting. When Disney buys Marvel, Warner rebrands DC as DCE. And now this. And, if it's not Superman over-prioritized, it'd be every other character trying to outdo each other by showing that they have bigger [censored]. Aside from IMBA Superman, we have the super-smart Batman that is the Mary Sue of Batman: Brave & Bold, the Green Lantern Hal Jordan who is considered "the greatest of green lanterns" (even though he joined the Corps REAL late), Flash as having the ability to do all sorts of cool [censored] with speed (inclusive of the speedforce), and I can go on ad nauseam. Granted, Marvel Comics does have Thor, but I do remember that Thor eventually was more involved with Asgardian affairs then mortal affairs. The same pretty much applied to every IMBA kind of character in Marvel, inclusive of the Eternals. Of course, they slip up the scale from time to time, but the general concept and background of the characters.... well yeah. DC's no contest, and the crisis events of DC do not have the same effect a Marvel event has. The only thing I feel that DC can go for is 'deep' material. I haven't read Kick-Ass yet, but I know it's a very different ball game from Watchmen, and one is more regarded than the other. DC's Vertigo stuff is generally great, and the Dark Knight (as well as the original Burton Batman movies) surpassed the seriousness of most Marvel movies. Yup, it's that very old game of Marvel vs. DC.
|
|
|
Post by Baron Canier on Apr 30, 2010 10:45:21 GMT
A JLA film is unlikely to ever get off the ground because DC are terrible at marketing anyone who isn't Superman or Batman, and even then Superman seems to have dropped down a peg in recent years.
|
|
|
Post by Erinaceus Europaeus on Apr 30, 2010 10:56:30 GMT
A JLA film is unlikely to ever get off the ground because DC are terrible at marketing anyone who isn't Superman or Batman, and even then Superman seems to have dropped down a peg in recent years. The way I see it, DC has only ever truly succeeded at marketing Batman consistently. And even then, they had problems like the Schumacher movies, and I can roughly say that the continuous modern portrayal of Batman as a dark character is a far cry from the more postive portrayals during the Golden Age and the Adam West serial. Then there's Captain Marvel..... he WAS a big character. Before DC bought him. Now few people actually know him. And I seriously can't imagine a serious JLA movie, let alone a JLA movie that can be taken seriously.... unless it is Kingdom Come. And even then, who would direct that ? I'd like to think Zack Snyder, but his Watchmen wasn't that great (though I personally think it was good). Christopher Nolan ? His focus on the avant-garde and realism would not do justice to that sort of movie. Again, I'd vote for Snyder, but it would only be a matter of visuals and style. But yeah..... Kingdom Come would be the only sort of JLA movie that I would watch and enjoy thoroughly.
|
|
|
Post by The Shad on Apr 30, 2010 12:48:27 GMT
WALL OF TEXT Aside from IMBA Superman, we have the super-smart Batman that is the Mary Sue of Batman: Brave & Bold, Except a common criticism is how stupid he is. His intelligence varies from episode to episode. But I see what you're saying. Its "Batman can beat anybody" writ large. At times it works and at times it doesn't. Also, most of the overpowered heroes fight guys of similar power levels. Actually, one of the more common plotpoints was him being torn between Earth and Asgard. And now Asgard is located in Oklahoma. And the US army is invading. Or something. Not especially so. Events with both companies don't really change a whole lot. Secret Invasion brought back Mockingbird, and set up Dark Reign. Dark Reign seemed like a major shake-up, but was, ultimately, a wasted opportunity. There was an article which compared Osborn's reign to Fury's and Starks, ( located here). Dissassembled did cause a shake-up, but only to the Avengers. It didn't REALLY impact on anyone else. Civil War did have an impact (the Initiative, registration, Tony becoming Director of SHIELD), but not as much as it could have. Spidey got around with relative ease, despite being unregistered. COIE had a MASSIVE impact, as did Infinite Crisis (for better or worse). Final Crisis didn't have that big an impact (beyond the "death" of Batman, and the other bat-books) unless you want to start listening to the Hypercrisis guys. And that way lies madness. I've been terrified of mirrors since I first listened to those guys. Blackest Night brought back a [censored]ton of characters (again, for better or worse), but nothing else, really. First, you can't really compare Watchmen to Kickass. There isn't really any common ground except heroes in the real-world. A better example would be Squadron Supreme (by Mark Gruenwald) or Supreme Power by JMS. Gruenwald's Squadron was actually the reason Watchmen got written. It pushed the boundaries of what could be done with a superhero comic, and paved the way for Watchmen, The Dark Knight Returns, and so on. Its not as good as those works, because they were a lot freer than SS. Supreme Power is, essentially, Ultimate Squadron Supreme/Ultimate JLA, and the first two volumes very good. Haven't read the following volumes, keep meaning to. Agreed. Define serious. Not to be knocking Burton's Batman at all (I [censored]ing love 'em), but Spider-Man (for example) isn't a serious/dark character. There are dark moments, certainly, but its not a dark character. The X-Men films were pretty serious, and Daredevil ([censored] the haters, I loved it). Also, on TDK... Believe me, I loved that film. There are numerous embarassing posts where I went overboard in my praise. On a completely personal level, it doesn't hold up to repeat viewings, the dialogue is atrocious, and there are plotholes everywhere. Still very good though. Unfortunately, yeah. The way I see it, DC has only ever truly succeeded at marketing Batman consistently. True. He's a lot easier to sell. He's human, he's rich, he appeals to numerous groups. Kids want gadgets and punchan, men want gadgets, dames and punchan, and women for the handsome actors playing him (seriously, Adam West was... sigh) which were the fault of the execs. Schumancher wanted to make a gritty crime film, based on Year One (what Batman Begins was ultimately based on) and they nixed it. Golden Age Batman shot people. He racked up a bodycount. Golden Age Superman was a badass. Then a new editor came in and said "Heroes don't kill," and here we are. The Adam West series saved Batman. All those silly stories from the Silver Age we all point and laugh at today? They were just as much a joke then as they are now. Batman was going under. Then along came this more realistic portrayal (and yes, it WAS more realistic than any incarnation before then) and saved it. That plus Bruce Lee showed up and beat up Robin. And Yvonne Craig... sigh.
|
|
|
Post by Alex on Apr 30, 2010 17:24:53 GMT
Marvel Comics does have Thor, but I do remember that Thor eventually was more involved with Asgardian affairs then mortal affairs. The Ultimates handled (to begin with) Thor's character a lot better than the regular 616 lot ever did. The balance of his Godly powers against the bubbling undercurrent of rumours that he was just an insane bloke with hugely powerful weapon was a brilliant trade-off that gave Thor a great humanising quality and prevented him from outright domination of everything. (Though there was also the fact that for the first two volumes of the Ultimates, Thor barely appeared outside of the climactic battles). Of course, they went and [censored]ing ruined that in the second half of Ultimates 2 - and put complete rest to any strengths or likeability the character had by turning him into more annoying clone of his mainstream character. However, when the intrigue and mystery was still there, the character was all the better for it. It has me rather hoping that the Thor movie will end with hints that the entire plot was all a delusion in Donald Blake's mind - but hints at the plot I've seen so far don't seem to support that possibility.
|
|
|
Post by Alex on Apr 30, 2010 19:06:05 GMT
Speaking of Thor: The costume's a bit weird without any context to the world around him, but I figure it'll probably look alright in action. It's certainly not as garish as it could have been - though a more simplistic Ultimates style costume would have been preferable....
|
|
|
Post by Erinaceus Europaeus on May 1, 2010 3:54:28 GMT
Wall of text is fun, wall of text is fun.... Not especially so. Events with both companies don't really change a whole lot. Secret Invasion brought back Mockingbird, and set up Dark Reign. Dark Reign seemed like a major shake-up, but was, ultimately, a wasted opportunity. There was an article which compared Osborn's reign to Fury's and Starks, ( located here). Dissassembled did cause a shake-up, but only to the Avengers. It didn't REALLY impact on anyone else. Civil War did have an impact (the Initiative, registration, Tony becoming Director of SHIELD), but not as much as it could have. Spidey got around with relative ease, despite being unregistered. COIE had a MASSIVE impact, as did Infinite Crisis (for better or worse). Final Crisis didn't have that big an impact (beyond the "death" of Batman, and the other bat-books) unless you want to start listening to the Hypercrisis guys. And that way lies madness. I've been terrified of mirrors since I first listened to those guys. Blackest Night brought back a [censored]ton of characters (again, for better or worse), but nothing else, really. I suppose what I meant to say was that I find the Crisis events, by large to be flawed (but again, I have not yet read Zero Hour and Final Crisis) I did read COIE, twice in fact, and the one thing that bothered me was that there was a literal dump of characters from time to time, and you don't really engage with then. Even the supposed emotional loss from seeing millions of universes destroyed just didn't have an impact of me. The whole thing, as I realised, was just an excuse for DC to get rid of things that they considered superfluous, like the Multiverse, Supergirl, numerous Kryptonians, and so on, as well as an excuse to reboot the storyline from the ground-up. Now, Marvel is guilty of the same kind of retconning, but they don't usually pull of something like a 'Crisis' event to pull off that sort of thing. Though, that being said, I really do want to read the earlier events of Secret War, the Phoenix Saga and Onslaught (yes, Onslaught), before I can really compare. Back to DC. Sure, COIE had some nice moments (namely the loss of Barry Allen and Wally West replacing him), but that's about it. And it seems ironic that DC went back to the old system (albeit somewhat changed) when they did Infinite Crisis, and turned some of the heroes of COIE into really, really bad villains (Superboy-Prime comes to mind) That being said, I did like 52, but mainly because they had a chance to introduce the Great Ten, something which Marvel has yet to do (as in, introduce a consistent and interesting team from China) Funny you mentioned Squadron Supreme.... I felt the contrast wasn't apt at the time I posted because Squadron Supreme was intended as a parody of DC characters by Marvel, to the extent that such characters could be inserted into a Marvel universe. ANd I find it funny that the Suadron Supreme comic I read a while back was, indeed, Supreme Power, while I hoped for an SS comic that had some relevance to 616. That being said, I would like to see the Gruenwald miniseries to see how it inspired Watchmen. I picked Kick-Ass, because, unlike Squadron Supreme which had its own eventual cosmic ties to 616 and the other universes, Watchmen and Kick-Ass were meant to be self-contained. A DC version of Squadron Supreme would be a DC comic set in the 'Watchmen' universe of 52, not the actual Watchmen universe. But of course, they're worlds apart, and like I said earlier: There's a general difference between Batman movies and pretty much every other superhero movie. Part of it is obvious: Batman has no powers. But the other part is that superhero movies, by default, never mention other superheroes in their universe (with the sole exception of the current Avengers series) So, what you then have with Batman movies is basically proto-Watchmen. Batman (1990) and Batman Begins had that sense of what would happen if a man started to dress up in tights and being a vigilante. In the case of the former, we had Burton's usual sombre story-telling, in the latter, we have Nolan whose repetoire of films is usually serious. Then, in both Batman Returns and The Dark Knight, we get the hints of what happens when a public comes to be jaded with the Batman, as well as the presence of a villain that defied public opinion, in the former, the 'gentleman' Penguin, and the latter, the chaotic Heath Ledger Joker. And each film had a different issue to consider: in the former, the issues of ugliness and freakery, in the latter, of anarchy and honour. Mind you, this is a very simplistic criticism done at this point, but, in the case of the Burton and Nolan Batman movies, the hero, in being a mere masked vigilante with no powers, combined with the innately darker nature of the storytelling, has effectively rendered these movies as proto-Watchmen. They did Snyder's job already. My main gripe with it, if anything, is that it was a Batman movie. No really. I didn't like it as a Batman movie. I liked, no, loved it as a criticism of masked vigilante movies, and I love it as a movie on its own, but I didn't like it as a 'Batman' movie. IIRC, Batman was considered to be the best superhero in some polls... and thats an achievement for a man with no superpowers. Agreed there. They are also responsible for the travesy that is Catwoman. Having seen that movie, I believe the direction they were going for was a movie about 'catwomen', but the very bad action, the laughable secret weapon (cosmetics ? really ?).... yeah. I want back the two hours of my life. It's funny you mentioned, because that Silver Age Batman (though I suppose it was the Golden Age version mainly) was what inspired the Batman of Kingdom Come. Talking about Adam West, I always imagined Alex Ross's older Batman to be an Adam West Batman that went dark ever since Magog showed up. But, that's just my reading, and Ross was really working with post-COIE DC universe future. And I sure would like to read that Silver Age story, "The Flash of Two Worlds". I might laugh at that one. Might. Admittedly, it is debatable. But, considering how they keep trying to show each character is stronger than each other in the comics, and with SUperman being innately more powerful than the rest and Batman being smarter than the rest... I think we have some trouble there. It's a point that has been discussed earlier in this thread. Well.... I don't care about sequels I enjoyed Watchmen, and part of the fun of that movie was that it didn't need or have a sequel. I'd say the same about Spiderman 1 & 2, X-Men 1 & 2, and so on. Well... if you're critiquing Snyder's treatment of characters (and it is a valid criticism), I'd like to note that Miller did give Snyder his blessing in making an adaptation of The Dark Knight Returns (of course, because of 300, but I suppose Watchmen partially fueled it) I'll take your word on it. After all, despite my own opinions, I'm still pretty new to DC & Marvel comics as is, having started reading seriously only recently. Lawl..... Yeah, I oughta ! Marvel Comics does have Thor, but I do remember that Thor eventually was more involved with Asgardian affairs then mortal affairs. The Ultimates handled (to begin with) Thor's character a lot better than the regular 616 lot ever did. The balance of his Godly powers against the bubbling undercurrent of rumours that he was just an insane bloke with hugely powerful weapon was a brilliant trade-off that gave Thor a great humanising quality and prevented him from outright domination of everything. (Though there was also the fact that for the first two volumes of the Ultimates, Thor barely appeared outside of the climactic battles). Of course, they went and [censored]ing ruined that in the second half of Ultimates 2 - and put complete rest to any strengths or likeability the character had by turning him into more annoying clone of his mainstream character. However, when the intrigue and mystery was still there, the character was all the better for it. Y'know, I think that would apply to a lot of the other Ultimate characters, if not now, at least much later. The Ultimate line has a done much better job than 616, but, like everything that ages, it won't be long before the retconning starts again. I also wonder if it was fan pressure to recognise Ultimate Thor as a god that led to that (but again, just a hunch. I could be wrong, they could've planned it from the start) And.... GAH. I wnated it to be a surprise ! You spoiled thine eyes !
|
|
|
Post by The Shad on May 1, 2010 11:05:33 GMT
Well.... I don't care about sequels I enjoyed Watchmen, and part of the fun of that movie was that it didn't need or have a sequel. I'd say the same about Spiderman 1 & 2, X-Men 1 & 2, and so on. I'm not saying there should be sequels. There are some great sequels, and there are some shocking ones, but execs want sequels. They're not gonna sink 100 million (or more) on a film and not expect a franchise out of it.
|
|
|
Post by Alex on May 1, 2010 17:16:55 GMT
And.... GAH. I wnated it to be a surprise ! You spoiled thine eyes ! Sorry, but let's be fair here - unless you wanted to crawl under a rock until after the movie came out, you were going to see it at some point in any one of the millions of promotional materials.
|
|
|
Post by Erinaceus Europaeus on May 2, 2010 3:09:54 GMT
Well.... I don't care about sequels I enjoyed Watchmen, and part of the fun of that movie was that it didn't need or have a sequel. I'd say the same about Spiderman 1 & 2, X-Men 1 & 2, and so on. I'm not saying there should be sequels. There are some great sequels, and there are some shocking ones, but execs want sequels. They're not gonna sink 100 million (or more) on a film and not expect a franchise out of it. Agreed there, but suffice to say is that execs would be willing to invest money in a Kingdom Come movie as much as a Watchmen movie. As much as Watchmen did moderately well at box office, it was one of their better solo comic works, along with Kingdom Come. Plus, a Kingdom Come movie would have characters that audiences would be familiar with (assuming the movie makers reduced the amount of involved characters) ~ Back to the topic..... I really do wish we had some bigger spoiler tags for images But that Thor looks interesting Wonder what his Mjolnir would look like.
|
|
|
Post by The Shad on May 2, 2010 10:05:52 GMT
But that Thor looks interesting Wonder what his Mjolnir would look like. It appears after the credits of Iron Man 2. Click here.-edit Bad guy here.
|
|
|
Post by The Shad on Jun 4, 2010 10:06:50 GMT
Concept art.
|
|
|
Post by Alex on Jun 5, 2010 11:53:13 GMT
I really quite like the Captain America one. It's definitely inspired by the Ultimates version - it even has the weird strappy bottom to his mask/helmet/thing that he has in Ultimates 2 - though it's clearly not WWII era Cap, which is confusing 'cos that's what the majority of the Cap film will be.
I think they've been wise to tone down the American flag concepts on the costume, too. It's a difficult enough pill to swallow for the rest of the world to be sold this square-jawed conservative ultimate American figure as a hero for not only his own movie - but amongst a team of other, some more prominent (and a lot less prominent) characters. By toning down the red/white/blue and stars on the costume from both the 616 and Ultimate costumes they've hit a nice balance that definitely makes him more open to a worldwide audience.
Thor's design is alright - but I'd still have preferred his Ultimates design rather than his capey 616 one. Let's hope, at least, that he doesn't talk like his 616 incarnation anyway.
|
|
|
Post by The Stiv™ on Jun 5, 2010 12:35:25 GMT
I've heard that's meant to be his WWII costume, but I can't see it.
|
|
Pitt
Script Hume
Ungrateful Sonic Saxophonist
If Lando dies, I'll destroy your planet!
Posts: 7,007
|
Post by Pitt on Jun 5, 2010 12:47:47 GMT
Go read some of Morrison's run. Especially Rock of Ages. Mark Waid's stories (Tower of Babel, the one with the Queen of Fables and so on) were also enjoyable. The trouble with the Justice League is that it is essentially a group that all of the major superheroes happen to be on. Obviously, this can be handled well (Grant Morrison's stories, for example) but compared to the Avengers or the Fantastic Four they seem like less of a team and more of a superhero meeting, somehow (I'm not really sure how to phrase that). I think that Marvel traditionally does a better job with super-teams (but DC gets the best big crossover stories, even if there is an oversaturation of them at the moment). I think they've been wise to tone down the American flag concepts on the costume, too. It's a difficult enough pill to swallow for the rest of the world to be sold this square-jawed conservative ultimate American figure as a hero for not only his own movie - but amongst a team of other, some more prominent (and a lot less prominent) characters. By toning down the red/white/blue and stars on the costume from both the 616 and Ultimate costumes they've hit a nice balance that definitely makes him more open to a worldwide audience. It'll be interesting to see if they go for his Ultimate characterisation (1940s superhero with old fashioned attitudes) or the 616 version (the guy who seems to adapt his attitude to whatever the writer likes).
|
|
|
Post by Alex on Jun 5, 2010 15:31:58 GMT
|
|
|
Post by The Stiv™ on Jul 16, 2010 0:42:52 GMT
So I'm sure you've all heard by now that Edward Norton will not be returning as Bruce Banner. It's a massive blow to me as he's one of my favourite actors but it looks like there's no chance at all of him being recast. David Tennant has been mentioned to take over from him though, which would somewhat cushion the blow for me.
|
|
|
Post by ShayMay on Jul 16, 2010 0:56:11 GMT
David Tennant. As the Incredible Hulk. Will wonders never cease?
|
|
|
Post by Alex on Jul 16, 2010 1:03:18 GMT
It's not that credible a rumour, really. He was mentioned among a few other random names, including Nathan Fillion - who's been linked with playing Hank Pym/Ant-Man so far, so he doesn't seem very likely either. Much more credible is that Mark Ruffalo will be Banner, as he's reportedly very close to signing the deal.
|
|
|
Post by The Shad on Jul 16, 2010 8:59:06 GMT
David Duchovney as Banner!
|
|
|
Post by Arch_one_zero_one on Jul 23, 2010 13:33:14 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Alex on Jul 23, 2010 17:18:16 GMT
No, he's not. IGN was referring to the fact that Joss Whedon and Abrams were on the panel together, which was generally just Q&A between the two on general stuff.
So fear not people, the movie won't be full of pointless lens flares and 'mysteries' that get resolved in a wholly unsatisfactory way!
|
|
|
Post by Arch_one_zero_one on Jul 23, 2010 21:34:39 GMT
Ah, yeah, that makes more sense, reading it back.
|
|