|
404GoonNotFound posted:Carol Danvers is going to be played by Tim Roth?
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2013 02:54
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 13, 2024 18:19 |
|
|
Uncle Boogeyman posted:It makes me real sad that the touchstone for Michael Rooker is now The Walking Dead and not Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer. Hell, I'd even take Mallrats over Walking Dead.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 9, 2014 20:57
|
|
|
theflyingorc posted:I'm still maintaining that a standalone Black Widow film just wouldn't work because of who the character is.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 16, 2014 05:23
|
|
|
I'm not that familiar with Captain America comics, what's the significance of Serpent Society?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 29, 2014 01:52
|
|
|
Hakkesshu posted:Also taking ANY cues from Brian Reed's garbage run would do more damage than anything.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2014 05:13
|
|
|
If I shouldn't be reeding Brian Reed's run (which is what got me hooked on the character), what should I be reading instead? I've read the newer Captain Marvel stuff, or at least what's been released in TPBs so far.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2014 16:44
|
|
|
I'm not gonna lie, the "Hairy baby!" line in the BH6 trailer cracks me the gently caress up, and now I call my cat a hairy baby. Is the scene still funny in the full movie?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 9, 2014 00:38
|
|
|
If I remember right, AtMoM didn't happen because Prometheus came out and the studio backing Del Toro said "well this is awfully similar" and got cold feet. Del Toro still wants to do it, he just needs to find another studio to back the project.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2014 21:52
|
|
|
CelticPredator posted:I can't wait to hear Brian Tyler's score for this moment.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2015 10:18
|
|
|
Deadpool posted:That Fantastic Four trailer is the first one that's really sold me on the movie, not coincidentally it's the first one to really push the family angle which is the most important part of the Fantastic Four. Now I'm really looking forward to it. The initial trailers had me intrigued, but this new one just felt overly serious but with some goofy design decisions that kept me from taking it seriously.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 15, 2015 02:17
|
|
|
zoux posted:Yeah it's too bad they couldn't have cast a nine foot tall 1000 lb actor for the role.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 16, 2015 18:23
|
|
|
zoux posted:I can't believe that of every comic book character put on screen that the one with the most 1:1 faithful to the comics costume is Jim Lee Psylocke. Edit-- also you're forgetting The Rocketeer. 
|
|
#
¿
Jul 17, 2015 04:29
|
|
|
bobkatt013 posted:What about Marv and everyone else in Sin City?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 17, 2015 04:45
|
|
|
J2DK posted:I think some of the deaging in that film was directly ripped from Terminator 1, though.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 17, 2015 14:11
|
|
|
Ant Man ruled. Hands down best scene: "That's one messed up looking dog!" Holy poo poo 
|
|
#
¿
Jul 18, 2015 23:48
|
|
|
I was willing to overlook Sears and IHOP because those places also got totally loving demolished.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 19, 2015 23:51
|
|
|
Ignite Memories posted:This would have to happen at a very specific time in the marvel cinematic universe to be effective in any way, and i'm not sure they're going to reach that point while he's still alive.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 20, 2015 23:45
|
|
|
Opopanax posted:BSS Movie Thread: This will probably be the one that sinks Marvel
|
|
#
¿
Jul 22, 2015 19:47
|
|
|
Sion posted:There is no loving way Warner would let a magazine make its own cover art when it's to promote their tentpole release.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 27, 2015 18:13
|
|
|
SirDan3k posted:The FF comics have been spinning their wheels for a while, except for the hiatus from "I'll write the FF like they never been seen fractured and fighting!" that Hickman provided. Not knowing what to do with them isn't a Fox or Hollywood only problem.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 9, 2015 09:12
|
|
|
Senor Candle posted:The Fantastic Four haven't had a good movie. That's the only difference. Movies deviate from what made them popular, are less popular as a result. Hmmm... I think there's a correlation here. Perhaps, if the movies understood the source material and what makes it popular, and then emulated that instead of trying to fix what isn't broken, they could possibly make a movie that people enjoy. ....Naaah that's crazy talk.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 9, 2015 19:36
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:Wait. So any time a movie deviates from the source material and is more popular, that means the source material is the thing that was broken? Is that the argument you're making here? But when the source material *works*, and the filmmakers deviate from it for no comprehensible reason, that's when things go wrong. Examples include the latest FF movie, Galactus and Doom in the prior FF movies, Deadpool in the Wolverine origins movie, etc. Comic book movies don't need to be slavishly beholden to the source material, but they do need to recognize what made the source material good and popular, and not just change poo poo willy nilly.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 9, 2015 20:34
|
|
|
muscles like this? posted:Its probably going to be less people not caring about Deadpool the character and more the fact that Ryan Reynolds is box office poison.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 9, 2015 21:02
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:That is exactly what I'm saying. "It deviates from the source material and that is bad" is silly as an argument to make. Aspects of the source material obviously work, and those same aspects are yet to be translated to the movies in any capacity (especially in the case of Dr Doom). Maybe, just maybe, if the movies recognized that, they'd end up not being poo poo? This isn't rocket science. I'm not even a fan of the FF comics and I can recognize this.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 9, 2015 23:49
|
|
|
Light Gun Man posted:I don't think I even want a Marvel FF movie but I do want Marvel to have them back so they can do poo poo like have Reed be a science guy supporting character or have Doom as a villain or have Star Lord kick Galactus in the balls or whatever.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2015 02:17
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:Why would recognizing that make the films good? Is the film bad because Dr. Doom isn't right? Is that why people dislike the film? If the original source material is good, and the bad movies keep being bad without even bothering to attempt to adapt what made the original source material good, it stands to reason that if they gave the good source material a shot that they might end up with a good movie. I can't believe I have to explain this, or that it's somehow a controversial opinion???  And yes, a common complaint I've seen is that part of why people dislike the movie (and the Jessica Alba ones) because of how Doom and Galactus were handled.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2015 08:31
|
|
|
BrianWilly posted:Heh...ImpAtom's simply chosen that particular hill to die on and probably won't ever budge on it. The mere notion that there might possibly be some inherent value in any source material, something that might detract from the quality of the work if you remove it from any adaptations, is pretty much anathema to him for some reason. When fans of the FF comics are saying that there's certain things in the comics (be it style and tone choices, character traits, etc) that made the original comics enjoyable to a wide audience, and then the movies abandon those things and end up being bad, it's pretty clear that there's a correlation. The Incredibles is proof that this is true, and it's not even an FF movie.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2015 11:20
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:No you didn't. That's the thing you don't seem to get. You just said "the comics did this." Doing it that way doesn't actually mean they would do it well. Do you think the writers and director were not trying to make the Fantastic Four appear as a team in the current version? Why do you think they'd suddenly do it well if they were closer to the canon? He asked an important question earlier that you didn't answer: if you're going to drastically change things to the degree that it misses the point of the original work, or barely resembles it, why bother adapting it at all? Can it even be considered an adaptation? As an example, look at Alan Moore's 'From Hell'. The graphic novel is an in depth character study of Jack the Ripper and his descent into madness in Victorian England. Meanwhile, the movie "adaptation" is a whodunit murder mystery about Jack the Ripper. They are drastically different, and I like them both. But I'm really, really hesitant to call the movie an adaptation because the only thing it has in common with the source material is the general subject and the title. Or the 'Doom' movie, based on the video game. As a generic sci-fi monster movie, it's pretty fun. As a *Doom* movie, though, it's total poo poo.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2015 02:48
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:Because an existing IP has name recognition value. That's it. That is literally the entire reason for any of these things to exist. Adaptations don't have to be 1:1 exact copies, they inherently can't be. But the best adaptations are the ones that recognize what made the source material good/interesting/compelling, and find a way to translate those aspects from one medium to another and still tell a good story. Acting like all adaptations are merely coasting on brand recognition is incredibly cynical and myopic, and I'd argue that those sorts of things fail as adaptations even if they end up being interesting in their own right (such as From Hell, as mentioned). And as an Alien fan, there's a world of difference between adaptations and spin-off materials.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2015 03:07
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:I also think adaptations can be interesting if they actually are willing to acknowledge that merely adapting is pointless. ImpAtom posted:Do I think that an adaptation has inherent merit to 'spreading to a wider audience.' No, because they can't do that. Like, by definition they can (and have) done this. They've done it for centuries. Medieval theatre is a really well-known example. Shakespeare wrote plays based on other things, with the express intention of them being performed for a potentially illiterate audience who wouldn't have had exposure to it otherwise. For a lot of people, the draw of an adaptation is the faithful translation of a source material from one medium to another. My father is unwilling to sit down and read the Watchmen graphic novel like I have, but he's fine with sitting and watching the movie, and in that way he and I have bridged a cultural gap via an (imperfectly) shared experience.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 12, 2015 04:35
|
|
|
Happy Noodle Boy posted:If not them were going to end up with Sackhoff or Torv and you're all going to have them more. If we're doing comic book movie casting, Emily Blunt for Red Sonja. Apparently they actually are in fact working on a script for a new Red Sonja movie, and I'm pretty happy with that news. If Emily Blunt won't do it, Rachel Nichols or Amber Heard are good choices too.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 17, 2015 04:36
|
|
|
Whizbang posted:Kathryn is too expensive. Can we get a wig and some padding on Judd? Why is she too expensive? And how expensive are we talking here? Aren't we talking about a movie studio that regularly pays Robert Downey Jr whatever he asks? And has put a lot of big name actors in literally every movie they've done? She surely can't be more expensive than all that.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 17, 2015 05:07
|
|
|
Aphrodite posted:Pretty sure he was just using that as setup for the joke, man. 
|
|
#
¿
Aug 18, 2015 05:09
|
|
|
teagone posted:I'm well aware that's concept art. The images are pretty 1:1 as to how Gal looks as WW though.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 9, 2015 22:51
|
|
|
zoux posted:The thing is is that women aren't really built like they are drawn in the comics. Anyone who thinks Gal Gadot looks "muscular", quite possibly has never actually seen a fit or muscular woman. She's not supermodel twig thin, which is a step in the right direction, but there's still a wide gap between Gal Gadot's current build and "a fitness model". Rebecca Ferguson in Mission Impossible 5, Emily Blunt in Edge of Tomorrow, that's borderline actually "fit and muscular" and almost pushing the envelope for a lead actress in a big Hollywood movie. Gal Gadot on the current photos we've seen, not even close. Xenomrph fucked around with this message at 22:42 on Oct 22, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Oct 22, 2015 22:08
|
|
|
Aphrodite posted:You may have seen those movies in the wrong aspect ratio. I don't get it
Xenomrph fucked around with this message at 22:34 on Oct 22, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Oct 22, 2015 22:27
|
|
|
Unmature posted:You can run 7 thousand miles an hour?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 22, 2015 22:28
|
|
|
Unmature posted:Nah.  If I go back and edit my post, will you lighten up and/remove the stick from your butt? Edit- edited, just for you 
Xenomrph fucked around with this message at 22:48 on Oct 22, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Oct 22, 2015 22:41
|
|
|
SirDan3k posted:Considering male actors are now getting cgi muscle touch ups when shirtless you could give an actress digital biceps. I can see the argument that Wonder Woman being built isn't an intrinsic part of the character, but it's absolutely something I personally look for in depictions of the character. I love the artwork in the Azarrello (spelling?) run because it makes her look formidable whether she had superpowers or not. Wonder Woman is just one of those characters where if she isn't pretty built, it just doesn't look right to me.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 22, 2015 23:39
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 13, 2024 18:19 |
|
|
teagone posted:They're not excuses because the way Gal Gadot is built in Batman v Superman is similar to how Wonder Woman has been depicted in the comics. Yes, I understand that some would prefer the actress to maybe have more definition and be a bit bulkier, I'm not saying that doesn't make sense. I don't think anyone is. What doesn't make sense is people making GBS threads on Gal Gadot's physical appearance when in fact she bears a huge resemblance to multiple iterations of the character. Also, Superman's character hasn't ever really been prominently depicted with a Zach Braff build in the comics, movies, or tv shows. It's a personal preference thing, and one group or another is going to end up disappointed because their preferred interpretation of the character isn't the one ending up on screen. I personally can't see Wonder Woman as anything other than "Amazonian", and having her any other way looks wrong and does the character a disservice in my opinion, whether that depiction is part of The Officially Licensed DC Approved Canon (tm) or not.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 23, 2015 00:08
|
|