Marvel Comics movies update

[soupcan]

I'd never seen anyone wearing red pants until that picture of Edgy.

[Guest AG/DC]

Shut up. You wouldn't like me when I'm angry.

[Guest The Second Spitter]

AG/DC wrote: I agree that a fake looking Hulk is an underwhelming movie. With all the pumped up guys out there, I don't know why they don't take the TV show's notion of shooting a bodybuilder and using trick photography to make him look bigger, except doing it much much better.

They should have followed the lead of the Thing from the F4 movies, and made a Hulk suit. They were going to do the Thing as CGI, but apparently the actor, Michael Chiklis, insisted for the suit. The CGI in the first Hulk film was horrid.

[Benjamin Grimm]

Really? I hadn't heard that.

I think I would have preferred the Thing as a CGI. I was surprised when they went with a costume.

[Elster88]

I have no idea if this is even a comic book movie, let alone a Marvel comic book movie. But I just saw a preview for Hancock (Will Smith). Two disclaimers: One, I get overly excited for cool previews, even though they aren't correlated with movie quality. Two, I have have a huge man-crush on Will Smith.


I am fired up for this movie after that preview (July 2).

[nymr83]

i dont think its comic-book related, i am legend really stunk, though i blame the script, smith did the best he could. most of his movies have been above average if not good. i'll probably see that one.

Iron Man coming may 2nd. Unlike The X-Men, Spiderman, and Daredevil I was not much of an Iron Man reader as a kid so I doubt the inconsistencies with the comic will annoy me in quite the same way they did with those movies.

[Guest The Second Spitter]

Nymr83 wrote: I was not much of an Iron Man reader as a kid so I doubt the inconsistencies with the comic will annoy me in quite the same way they did with those movies.

What are the supposed inconsistencies?

[Benjamin Grimm]

Well, they've changed his 1960's Viet Nam origin. I think instead it's in Afghanistan, although I'm not sure of that.

[stevejrogers]

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Well, they've changed his 1960's Viet Nam origin. I think instead it's in Afghanistan, although I'm not sure of that.

Thats more of an update though, as opposed to making Peter Parker's webbing organic instead of a technological creation.

[Benjamin Grimm]

True.

I don't get worked up over such things. The important thing is to be true to the characters and the spirit of the stories.

[Guest The Second Spitter]

I didn't have a problem with the organic webshooter. As Raimi pointed out, it was more credible than to have a HS kid develop a mechanical shooter.

I was mildly irked by the portrayal of Dr Doom in the first F4 movie; I think that went beyond the "spirit" of the comic book.

[Benjamin Grimm]

They got Doom completely wrong. And they botched Reed as well.

That movie would have been much better if it was made by people who knew and understood the characters. It clearly wasn't. (They did a great job with the Thing, though.)

[Guest The Second Spitter]

Benjamin Grimm wrote: They got Doom completely wrong. And they botched Reed as well. That movie would have been much better if it was made by people who knew and understood the characters. It clearly wasn't. (They did a great job with the Thing, though.)

What did they do wrong with Reed?

The Thing was saved by the fact Chikilis was such a huge fan (pun intended). Chikilis said "it was like a dream coming true" (or words to similar effect) when he was cast to the part. And I told you the story about the suit.

I thought Johnny kicked A.

[Benjamin Grimm]

Reed was bumbling and confused, almost a nutty professor.

He should be smart and confident, a guy who always knows the answer right away, and acts quickly.

I wrote more about this in our discussion of the original movie, but I can't find it.

[stevejrogers]

Benjamin Grimm wrote: You're right, they're pretty much pretending the first Hulk movie didn't happen.

I've heard that this is also somewhat of a "sequel" to the Bill Bixby/Lou Ferringo TV show in the same vein that Superman Returns follows Richard Donner's Superman II.

Though the TV show had little to do with the Marvel 616 universe and the movie is going to have references and appearances galore of Hulk's comic cast.

Not to mention the pesky problem that Banner in the show was "David" not "Bruce"

[Benjamin Grimm]

SteveJRogers wrote: Not to mention the pesky problem that Banner in the show was "David" not "Bruce"

That's easy enough to ignore.

Marvel 616? I'm not familiar with that. What does that mean?

[Guest The Second Spitter]

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Marvel 616? I'm not familiar with that. What does that mean?

It's a reference to the primary continuity in the Marvel universe, which is said to take place on "Earth 616". It excludes stuff like the "Ultimate" and "What if" titles.

[Benjamin Grimm]

Why do they call it "616"?

[Guest The Second Spitter]

I don't think it has any special meaning -- the guy who came up with it picked the number at random probably because it sounded cool or something.

[Guest AG/DC]

The idea was that, if there were infinite (or large numbers) of parallel universes, as comic book publishers suggest in expalining their mulitple continuities and inconsistencies), why do they speak about Earth 5 and such, as if there are only nine or so. So he wanted a large (or larger) number, and sixes are sexy.

Edited April 28, 2008 by Guest

[metsmarathon]

an infinite number of universes, and they only go three digits deep? sheesh...

[Benjamin Grimm]

I'll have to wiki Marvel 616 to get the scoop. I'm not paying as close attention to the Marvel Universe(s) as I once did, and this term has, up until now, completely eluded me.

[Benjamin Grimm]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marvel_616

It seems (from this article, at least) that the 616 term is pretty obscure, at least within the stories themselves.

Now I'm less surprised that I never heard of it.

[stevejrogers]

Benjamin Grimm wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marvel_616 It seems (from this article, at least) that the 616 term is pretty obscure, at least within the stories themselves. Now I'm less surprised that I never heard of it.

Heh, I've just seen it referenced in various Marvel comic forums as part of the "lingo" describing the Marvel Universe's "current" continum. I didn't realize just HOW obscure the reference was though!

Ehh guess it's just the way fans refer to stories that happen in the main timeline or something.

[Guest The Second Spitter]

metsmarathon wrote: an infinite number of universes, and they only go three digits deep? sheesh...

The Ultimate titles take place on Earth-1610 - not that this is much better.

[Valadius]

The Avengers has been announced for summer 2011. A Captain America movie will be released a few months before it.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Here's something you Marvelheads might enjoy. Or not.
______________________________

Iron Man 2: The Painfully Inevitable Sequel, Coming Soon


So by now everyone on the face of the planet, even those who are blind or can�t afford to eat, have seen Iron Man.

With an opening weekend box office tally of $100 million, the list of records that Iron Man has broken is either stupendous or utterly, utterly dull depending on if you�re a massive spod or not. And if you are, then the news that Iron Man 2 is coming out in April 2010 will probably make your balls catch on fire.

What? You�d already guessed that based on the fact that the plot of Iron Man deliberately set up a sequel and that the entire Iron Man cast has signed on for a sequel and that Iron Man�s a comic book movie and only really hopeless comic book movies about Ben Affleck being all blind and shit don�t get turned into sequels? Oh, suit yourselves.

So let�s look at the figures - Iron Man has had the most successful movie opening of the year and the second biggest non-sequel movie opening of all time. Worldwide, Iron Man has made almost $200 million in five days. Compare that to the $4 million that was the worldwide lifetime takings of Robert Downey Jr�s last film Charlie Bartlett and you can see just how huge it is.

And that means one thing - Iron Man 2 is a complete inevitability. People would go and see Iron Man 2 if it got terrible reviews. People would go and see Iron Man 2 if it was about a farty pig. People would go and see Iron Man 2 if it starred Jim Carrey. People would go and see Iron Man 2 if it looked like this.

Which is why someone at Marvel has managed to find the time in their newly-loaded schedule of shoving fistfuls of caviar up their bottom, punching homeless men in exchange for $50 and ordering the poshest Thai bride in the catalogue to confirm Iron Man 2, even giving it a date. The Associated Press reports:

This weekend was just the beginning of Hollywood�s Iron age. Marvel Studios announced Monday it will release �Iron Man 2″ on April 30, 2010, following the success of the first in the comic-book franchise, which pulled in $104.2 million domestically since opening last Thursday and $201 million worldwide. Four other films based on Marvel superheroes also were announced: �Thor,� due out June 4, 2010; �The First Avenger: Captain America,� May 6, 2011; �The Avengers,� July 2011; and �Ant-Man.�

April 30? What are you thinking, Marvel? Don�t you know that�s Akon�s birthday? As if people are really going to go and see the sequel to one of the most popular movies ever on the night that they traditionally stand around crying in their darkened bedsits humming Smack That and wishing they were married to Akon regardless of their gender. Why didn�t you think it through, Marvel?

Anyway, look at all of those other movies that Marvel has planned. Exciting, huh - especially The Avengers. Who�d be able to resist the charms of a film that not only stars Iron Man, but the bound-to-be-disappointing Incredible Hulk, an off-puttingly patriotic Smurf and a long-haired tit with a hammer? Yay!

But for now let�s just focus on the gigantic success that is Iron Man and look forward to Iron Man 2. Because it�s only after one vastly successful sequel that the fans will get what they want - a confusing, overlong third movie that features various needless scenes of Robert Downey Jr cooking omelettes, dancing the twist and getting infected by an alien that gives him weird emo haircuts.

[Benjamin Grimm]

I don't get it.

Oh, I get the attitude, but I don't know what a "massive spod" is, nor do I know who Akon is. (But I gather that his/her birthday is on April 30.)

[batmagadanleadoff]

Benjamin Grimm wrote: I don't get it. Oh, I get the attitude, but I don't know what a "massive spod" is, nor do I know who Akon is. (But I gather that his/her birthday is on April 30.)

I actually googled "spod" before I posted the article. Didn't come up with nothin'. British humor. Whatever.

[Valadius]

I have to admit, I have not seen Iron Man yet. I've been too busy with finals to go.