WatchmenComicMovie.com Forum

That's not even what I was talking about, but that's a good example too.

I meant Edward Norton being replaced with Mark Ruffalo. I don't know if the fact that you didn't even remember it proves its effectiveness or what, but there it is.

_________________
"The world is a fine place and worth fighting for." I agree with the second part.

"There's a cello in your house now."

Yeah.

_________________
We're all actors, Laurie. I'm just an actor who read the script.

I have to admit that while I think Cheadle is miles ahead of Howard in acting, I also really disliked him in the role. Though I'll also be honest and say I'm just gonna support a black person in a "leading" role and not comment further haha.

_________________
I've only had one dream in my life with kids in it that didn't involve me gnawing my feet off, and it had to do with kids doing my laundry.

I hunted down the scene as well, and the voice you hear is just a guy speaking to tall, purple, and macabre.

_________________
@RealSlimCAvery

Didn´t Disney buy the distributing rights to all elements of the Avengers?

Oh, and Paramount didn´t distribute the Avengers. It seems that after buying the rights from all the previous companies(Paramount and Universal) Disney wanted to avoid the backlash from the Marvel buy and lincensed the use of Paramount logos.

Yeah, I know, weird...





The point is that there are as been multiple iterations of Batman even before Nolan´s movies, even some of them being truly shit(I´m looking at you Schumacher) and you don´t see people saying "Ah,not a another Batman movie", and in the grander scale "Ah,not another DC movie".

As to the second paragraph, first and foremost, yes, I would be ok with every single actor being replaced. They won´t have the look and prowess for the roles forever. On top of that, some will probably want to move on(Bale style), to do something diferent. As to the death bit that´s the strongest reason to replace an actor.Just ask the guys behind Harry Potter.
If they don´t want to fufill their contracts just say so in a timely fashion so that a replacement can procured. I´ve saved scheduling conflicts for last because that´s your only "bad"argument". If you look at it, theses guys built their schedule to acomodate these movies...

The Bond part was refering to a continuous refreshing of talent. That´s why I put the Bond bit first, and then the rest.

I posted it before,gonna post it again:


http://www.slashfilm.com/robert-downey- ... an-marvel/

That being said, I´m with Ziller in the sense that they can´t go indefently. The question that should be asked is if the whole "building upon past events many movies behind" can start hurting the strenth of the IP, and when the audience as a whole will feel saturated by this product. Thing is, there nothing out there,with this size and with it´s particularities,to compare.





The dude that´s talking is the guy with the hood,and he appears in the regular movie. It seems that he´s played by Alexis Denisof.

Just based on his dialogue he seems to be a commander of sorts reporting to his superior on the defeat.

Also- That line about courting Death.... orgasmic.

_________________
@RealSlimCAvery

Nah, he´s a middleman.

Rui, I felt saturated at iron man 2. I left a post some many pages back saying as much, and its true. It can't go forever, its just too much, and the same way rock band and guitar hero died, so too will the superhero movie. On one hand marvel may be smart to capitalize off the current popularity. On the other hand, they may be killing it even more quickly.

Also, do you live in ny?

_________________
I've only had one dream in my life with kids in it that didn't involve me gnawing my feet off, and it had to do with kids doing my laundry.

It´s the shit movies that "kill" genres, so I wouldn´t say that they are actively helping the superhero fad reach saturation point. That being said, one/two movies a year in the same universe can erode the brand, but it would be worse if there were anual Iron Man movies I guess...


To the last part, I´m gonna post this:

Location: Portugal

Just for some context before people start saying that I´m spanish

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portugal

I know, right?


Did you just compare a sub-genre of films to music video games?

_________________
"The world is a fine place and worth fighting for." I agree with the second part.

"There's a cello in your house now."

http://www.deadline.com/2012/04/marvels ... um=twitter


That´s how Big Daddy Feige likes it

Ah, okay.



It was just... just so perfect.

_________________
@RealSlimCAvery

Did you just compare a sub-genre of films to music video games?[/quote]

But he's got a point. Of course we're talking about different genres here, but people became tired of the "music-game" genre because it was just too much. The fad past and there wasn't enough interest to support it. I still do believe that, regardless of quality, the superhero film will go the way of the western. And looking at how Marvel seems adamant on adapting as many comic-book franchises as possible, it sounds like they're simply striking while the iron is hot instead of properly forming a strategy of how to keep these franchises going. The real test occurs when Marvel Studios starts slowly moving away from the top tier heroes and attempts to gain interests in films like "Ant-man," "Guardians of the galaxy" and "The Inhumans," and it's there where they're more likely to fall flat on their faces.

I do still believe that if they wanted to they could agressively seek out other properties and get them back under one roof first.
I'd pay good money to see a Blade reboot. An X-Men reboot. A Fantastic Four reboot.
They could have cross overs.
Hell, what about a Civil War?
If the new Spidey is under the Marvel movie universe, I'd pay through the fucking nose to see that.
Him and the Tony Stark bit.
Fuck yeah.

I do believe Marvel needs to cover events not just specific characters.
But I would like for them to get all their properties under their own roof.
They can do it too. Shell out the money. They'll make it back. Guaranteed.

_________________
My Blog of Movie Reviews and Such

I'll be right back. I gotta go see a man about a mule.

Idk. When does blowback come into play? I'm the type of person for whom image and brand play a lot, and when I get the sense marvel is going to great lengths to shove their product down my throat and make every movie ever possible so they can do civil war... Or *whatever*... Just because they think they can make money? I'll immediately begin to be turned off by their product. I guess its related to oversaturation, but in this case I'm referring less to fatigue and more to a legit disdain for a company that obviously thinks they can make every movie ever and that I'll run out and spend my hard earned money lining their pockets. And the pretense that it's because they want to entertain me.

Basically how long before what happened to Disney happens to Marvel, should they pursue your suggested course of action?

How long before there's a marvel studios themepark?

_________________
I've only had one dream in my life with kids in it that didn't involve me gnawing my feet off, and it had to do with kids doing my laundry.

I'd like to see Marvel try building a superhero franchise that starts as a movie and then becomes a comic book, instead of doing it the other way around.

Hell, I'd love to see Marvel try making a film in any other genre. Not that they've been doing a bad job with superhero films, but limiting themselves only to adaptations of Marvel comics and only to one genre of films seems like a short-sighted waste of all the money, fan goodwill, and creative talent that they're building up.

After The Avengers makes a shit-ton of money (and we all know it will), Marvel will be in a place where it can afford to take a few creative risks. Risks that could potentially pay off with new multi-media franchises if they play their cards right. I'd very much enjoy seeing what that would look like.

_________________
This is truly a madhouse. And I'm the lunatic running it. I've spent three years wondering if I should be proud or ashamed.

I doubt you'll ever see this. Remember Marvel is a part of Disney who owns many studios who do myriad genres, they aren't going to take the Marvel brand name which is comics (mostly superheroes) and have them do non-comic properties.



Stuff liek civil war is just unfilmable. It's too massive in scope for a 2 hour movie, even a 3 hour movie would seem too cramped. To truly do civil war we're talking a mini series or trilogy and that's a lot of time and money for one story.



Really? You've never heard of this?

_________________
@RealSlimCAvery

The day Mal learned movies are made to make money and his innocence was lost forever.

_________________
"The world is a fine place and worth fighting for." I agree with the second part.

"There's a cello in your house now."

If you just go by the Millar and Niven books, then you can have a two-hour movie with some time jumps here and there, we usually think of Civil War as a long, drawn-out event because unlike other events, it actually had a large scope and it could be appreciated from the different viewpoints presented in different tie-ins.



HAHAHAHAHAHA !

I'm sorry Curi, keep dreaming high, if we can't even get an animated movie of a character that isn't an avenger or an X-Men, then we sure as shit won't get a new "risk character" introduced in a live-action film.

_________________

What I would like to see is Marvel produce films that aren't strictly superhero films. The superhero genre doesn't encompass the comic-book medium, so why should that be the case for cinema? Or hell, use it to promote creativity and ideas that would be severely limited in a comic-book format.

Of course, Marvel would neither consider both of our opinions because they have a proven formula that works and guarantees them a boat-load of cash. And they'll use it until they manage to run it into the fucking ground.