Movie Hype
New Releases, Oscar-Winners and Obscure Movies!

Movie Hype » Discussions

by   
Comic Book Movies... Hype, Rumors, and More!

Here's where the Movie Hype community members can discuss all comic book movies of the past, present, and future. Want to find out the latest rumors about cast, crew, directors, and story lines? Look no further.

Reply to this discussion

Reply must be less then null characters
Showing 101-120 of 132
by    Posted october 08, 2011
Avengers movie Photo gallery...

http://screenrant.com/galleries/the-avengers-pics/


Looks like I was right again....it is based more on the Ultimates storyline.
by    Posted october 08, 2011
You know how I have mixed feelings when it comes to Zack Snyder, but I do hope that we will actually get a good Superman film. It's been so long since we've had one of those. My only concern, and those photos only worsen that concern, is that the films will follow too closely the look and style of the Nolan Batman films. Those shots of Henry as a scruffy Clark make him look exactly like Bruce Wayne when he was homeless and in the Asian prison. Perhaps too similar...

As for The Avengers, I haven't seen a Marvel film since "Iron Man" that I really liked and I hate the generic look of these new films from them. I think as soon as they re-focus and go back to the basics of the Golden Age and Silver Age comics, the better.
by    Posted october 08, 2011
yeah I dunno where Snyder is going. As for Avengers being golden age and silver age..no. I don't want those sily stories touching the level of maturity the comics have reached. I say if they are going to adapt Ultimates, they should go all the way....darker, meaner more realistic.
by    Posted october 08, 2011
They can easily update those stories to make them modern, but the core of the Marvel comics story lines comes from that era. The best Spider-Man and X-Men stories are definitely from the '60s and on up through the '80s and they could easily be adjusted for contemporary movie goers. The problem is that Marvel isn't doing enough to create new characters, so they just rehash the old ones, and while they may be able to make them edgier and more sophisticated, they often lose track of what made those characters classic to begin with.
by    Posted october 08, 2011
Nope the best X-Men stories hail from the 70's-80's with Claremont and Byrne at the helm. Spider-man stories from the 70's and 80's also....sorry, the 60's ones were so silly and the theories and logic behind them will not hold up to scrutiny these days. Nope, go for darker, meaner and noble heroes. More realistic.
by    Posted october 08, 2011
No, but I'm talking about updating the silly '60s sci-fi stuff and retaining the origins (or at least most of them) and then go with the plot lines from the '80s and '90s. And yes, Claremont and Byrne made X-Men spectacular.
by    Posted october 08, 2011
Nah. I think the changes to Spidey's origin made more sense. I mean, it was established that it would cost $ 10,000 to make a webbing cartridge set, so what? Parker is dirt poor, he is going to keep stealing resources in the lab? I love the organic webbing bit. Forget about the 60's comics....they're silly and should be only held for nostalgia. They are laughable. (this coming from someone who did read those stories up to current issues these days)
by    Posted october 08, 2011
check this out: DARK KNIGHT RISES:

by    Posted october 08, 2011
I would completely disagree. The original Spider-Man was fairly accurate and faithful to the comics of the '60s and '70s. The main issue that I and numerous fans had with it, other than the organic web shooters, was that Mary Jane replaced Gwen Stacy. But back to the web shooters, the organic ones are far more unrealistic for multiple reasons. First of all, Peter Parker doesn't possess the room in his body for the amount of web strands that he shoots out during the first film alone, never mind the scenes in the sequels in which he creates numerous gigantic webs. Secondly, spiders produce webs from their thorax, so if Peter Parker was going to shoot webs, he would be excreting them from his pelvis, which would never work in a film or in comics unless you're going for a silly and very R-rated version. No genetic mutation between Peter and any spider would enable him to produce webbing from his wrist... unless that spider was genetically engineered to spliced with a human being, which the one in the film was not. Thirdly, even if you create some sort of miracle exemption that allowed for Parker to shoot webbing from his wrist, there is no explanation as to why he would need to adopt the classic finger pose that he does in order to shoot it and even more importantly, he would not be able to pull the webbing back into his wrist after it was shot out since it would now be contaminated with harmful bacteria that would cause infection once it was returned to his body. And finally, Peter's creation of the web shooters is an imperative example of his intellect at work and goes to show that he is an intelligent character in addition to having superpowers.
Thus, the web shooters in Raimi's film are far more unrealistic than those in the comics and defy not only real science, but real logic and don't do justice to the character.
As for finding a neat and logical modern explanation for the mechanical web shooters, I would also point out that Peter could have created them with the money he made in show business in the early comics, though in the film this portion of his origin story was abridged to a single wrestling match. For example, if Peter had taken one year off between high school and college, he could have easily used his powers in wrestling matches, circus sideshows, and to fight crime, all the while earning and saving enough money to create the web shooters.
by    Posted october 08, 2011
Ok, so that means the alien costume cannot have room for webs too. You should read the Spidey storyline THE OTHER where Parker's body had evolved to generate webs and everything. Now as for having huge webs, you think a cartridge can hold that much? It doesn't matter, I know Warren found out Parker was Spidey when he caught him make webbing in the 70's....but again, where does he get the money? I know BRAND NEW DAY had him scraping for cash to make some....but it wasn't credible. Remember $ 10,000 to make a cartridge...and yeah, you think  wouldn't any extra money he makes should go to Aunt May?They were struggling...

as for explaining organic webs, it is gene splicing. so it is easily explained.
by    Posted october 09, 2011
The gene splicing explanation still doesn't hold up under any scientific scrutiny since the new genetic modifications would have had to been made specifically for Peter Parker's DNA and it wasn't. Even then, that would mean that the genetically altered spider was designed for creating a new species of human-arachnid hybrids, which is beyond silly, and if such a thing were to occur it would be the result of truly "mad science" gone amok and would not have therefore been something that the public would have been informed of or exposed to. There are so many, many plot holes in that whole explanation that it really just falls apart. And again, Peter could have made literally up to a million dollars between show business and his photography, so affording the cartridges isn't out of the question. I'd also point out that Peter wears multiple cartridges on each wrist and that the cartridges are pressurized to contain the most webbing possible. His body would be incapable of this pressurization. Also, with the mechanical web shooters, he could retract the webbing strands back into the cartridges and thus re-use it, so it wouldn't be like he was losing money every single time he shot them. Again, it's far more plausible than the organic web shooters by about 90%.
by    Posted october 09, 2011
Dude, does radiation make sense? Remember the storyline where Parker sprouted 4 new arms and even spun webs from his back? Ok, now tell me if genetics manipulation wouldn't make more sense. The first origin was a cautionary tale about nuclear weapons, and the new one applied to the possible abominations in biology. Again, Parker is poor. And he is NOT the type to play that stalking photographer; it would ruin his character. Parker is a man of immsense moral fiber and responsibility. All I can say is you should read THE OTHER storyline (they explained how he made organic webs), writers in Marvel knew the web shooters became non-viable and then they went back in BRAND NEW DAY. It shows you how Quesada knows about editing, but this is a discussion for another day. I say the organic webbing makes more sense and I forget the lame stories from the 60's.
by    Posted october 10, 2011
First of all, I would completely disagree that they are lame, or silly, or stupid. Some of the best stories from the '60s can be found in "Dr. Strange", "Silver Surfer" and "Spider-Man". To put forth the assertion that the stories of this period are any of those things based upon a modern reaction to them is a failure to grasp the mindset of the period. That the origins of the time don't stand up to scientific scrutiny is irrelevent, since the point of these characters is what drives them to become superheroes psychologically and what happens once they become superheroes; not how they became superheroes. If you take the attitude that the origin of a superhero's powers is dependent upon a realistic scientific explanation, then all superheroes would be viewed as unrealistic and childish fantasies of an undeveloped mind. That's the attitude of the Frederic Werthams of the world and one that I'd be surprised that you'd even entertain.
Besides, we weren't debating whether a radioactive spider was more or less believable and/or scientifically valid as a genetically engineered spider. We were discussing whether or not organic web shooters were in conjunction with either of the proposed origins and whether or not they serve the story and characters well. The final nails in the coffin for the organic web shooters can be found in this: Forensics. If Spider-Man was capable of shooting webs created by his own physiognomy then he would be leaving his unique altered DNA everywhere and even the most rank amateur forensic scientists would be able to track down where the webbing came from. If the webbing were created out of certain man-made and natural chemical components readily available to the public, then the forensics lab could not as easily trace it back to its creator. If Spider-Man shot out webbing that was produced by his own body, he would probably be caught and arrested within a matter of months.
And for the suggestion that Peter is of too high moral fiber, this is simply selective memory. Peter showed an early egotistical, selfish streak which lead to his misuse of his powers in wrestling and show business to begin with. This was for his personal gain so that insecure Peter Parker could be popular by having money. So long as it happened before Uncle Ben died and he learned "...with great power there must also come great responsibility," then there is no reason that Peter would not have used his powers and his intelligence in order to establish himself financially.
I would also point out that Peter's further mutation in which he grew four more arms isn't entirely improbable considering that regardless of whether he was bitten by a radioactive or a genetically altered spider. This transformation is entirely dependent upon a specific set of conditions and could have resulted from his natural DNA adapting to be more like that of a spider over a set of time, or it could be the result of hormonal changes, or even caused by specific kinds of radiation that might increase his metabolism and cause a metabolic mutation which would cause his arachnid DNA to attempt to stabilize him by causing him to go through a physiological change.
Plus, this story arc was from the '70s, not the '60s.
by    Posted october 10, 2011
Ok you brought up valid points. But organic webbing is still the way to go. I just don't want to discuss it with you any longer since both have weaknesses in theory. As for Parker's moral fiber....I can tell you haven't read his comics since his first appearance which I have, about 98 % of the comics.
by    Posted october 10, 2011
I'd say that I've read about 75% of all Spidey comics published from 1962-1989 or thereabouts. I own about 200 or so vintage issues from the late '60s through the '80s and then I have some collections in book format and a CD-Rom of early issues.
by    Posted october 12, 2011
If you have, then how come you seem to say things abouyt Parker's moral fiber based on thing before Ben's death. True, he has made mistakes out of desperation. But after his growth, he became the symbol of 'power and responsibility'. Judge him for the man he is now rather than what he was as a teen in the past.

As for the arms and other genetics, you do realize this is based on pseudo-comic book genetics, so I have no idea why you went to all the details. All I am saying, from a character standpoint, organic webs are the way to go.

also, I'd like to add that while most people see Steve Ditko as the best Spidey artist, I don't. The guy can barely do perspective and always have silly breakdowns and layouts. Good for what it was at the time, but so dated. Kirby is the "King" because up to this day, his influences is being felt.
by    Posted october 13, 2011
Will, we're not talking about Peter Parker today, we're talking about him when he first got his powers and how the origin story could be retold to more realistically.
As for Ditko, I do like his work, but mainly his work in the late '60s on Dr. Strange. On the early Spider-Man stories his art was inconsistent and felt rushed. Sometimes he created brilliant images and there's no doubt he had a strong grasp on visual narrative, but his understanding of anatomy and dimension was lacking. Kirby (who did the first cover featuring Spider-Man for Amazing Fantasy, Issue #1, which is for me the greatest image of Spidey to this day) had been in the business for much, much longer by the time that the '60s rolled around and therefore he was much more evolved as an artist and he had greater self-discipline. So, we're in agreement there that Kirby was better, but I do like Ditko as well. But during the '60s if there was one artist who towered above all others, it was Steranko!
by    Posted october 13, 2011
I was referring to Parker after Ben's death (whether recent or before). All I am saying is that radiation would not hold up (like I said it was ONLY used to make a commentary on nuclear weapons as with the Hulk; so gene splicing would be the more viable origin these days) and recently that origin story was given more close evaluation with the rise of Morlun and Ezekiel (one of the best Spidey stories I have ever read) and it marked a question if it was the radioactive spider that gave him his powers or not. "The Spider or the Bite". But honestly, I like the origin story developed in the futuristic SPIDERMAN (around the 90's) the best.

Yeah, Steranko was good in poses and layouts/breakdowns. But if you look closely, his facial expressions and most of his male characters look alike. Also, when it came to action scenes, he did show his lack of knowledge to perspective and sometimes even the movement in human anatomy. But, he was real good for his day. However, my all time fave comic artist (overall) will have to be George Perez.
by    Posted october 14, 2011
Joel Schumacher Says Val Kilmer Was the Best Batman; Studio Killed His Version of 'The Dark Knight'
By: Derrick Deane on October 13, 2011 at 3:59PM Comments (14)

During an interview with IFC to promote his new movie Trespass starring Nicolas Cage and Nicole Kidman, the discussion turned to director Joel Schumacher’s Batman movies. The director touched on a number of topics, ranging from the failure of Batman and Robin, his envy toward Christopher Nolan and who he thought the best Batman is/was.
We’ll get to that last part in a bit, but first, Schumacher places part of the blame for Batman and Robin’s failure on the studio saying that, "Everyone made so much money with Batman Forever, it was always, 'more, more, more.'"
 
Schumacher says he broke a personal rule of never doing a sequel to anything adding that people had wanted him to do sequels to St. Elmo’s Fire, Flatliners, Lost Boys and a few other of his movies. He said that he always knew that if you get lucky, walk away but at the time he was working onA Time to Kill and the studio had been very generous to him and much was expected from him by toy manufacturers and the Warner Bros. stores.
 
He does share blame for the final product though, which became known as the movie that killed the Batman franchise until Christopher Nolan resurrected it with his Dark Knight movies.
 
Had he gotten his way, Schumacher says that his second Batman movie would have been more in the vein of The Dark Knight.
 
"I wanted to reinvent the franchise with Val Kilmer as Batman. We brought in Robin and I wanted to make The Dark Knight desperately, but the studio didn’t want that and it’s their money and they’re my bosses."
 
That been said, Schumacher did vouch for Kilmer, saying he was the best Batman.
 
"I thought he looked great in the costume and I though he brought depth to the role. I thought the relationship between Val and Nicole Kidman was very sexy. Jim Carrey, of course, was the perfect Riddler. And then I had the great Tommy Lee Jones and a lot of other great people in that movie."
 
What do you think of Schumacher’s take on the best Batman and what would his version of The Dark Knight has been like?

....I found this article in fandango....
by    Posted october 14, 2011
Well, Val Kilmer was better than George Clooney. LOL! But nobody comes near Kevin Conroy or Christian Bale.
Prev 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 Next
© 2014 Lunch.com, LLC All Rights Reserved
Lunch.com - Relevant reviews by real people.
Movie Hype is part of the Lunch.com Network - Get this on your site
()
This is you!
Ranked #
Last login
Member since
reviews
comments
ratings
questions
compliments
lists