stevejrogers

Frayed Knot wrote: I agree that the snappy dialogue was especially good. I figure that was Sorkin's doing. I've seen far too many Sports Night, West Wing and Studio 60 episodes to the point where I'm finding that form of dialogue a bit off putting in the "who the hell talks like that in real life unless you were Sorkin or Tarantino?"

American Pie. I believe McLean actually owns the trademark to the phrase or something, because he wound up with a credit!

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: We got an Iron Man, we got a Thor, we got a War Machine, we got a Hulk, we got a Captain Amurrica that looks a lot like the Human Torch, we got a Black Widow (ooookay). Now we got a Hawkeye, it seems. I'm okay with the choice. But no Doc Pym/Ant-Man/Giant-Man? No Wasp? What gives? From what I've heard Nathan Fillion is reportedly tabbed to be Hank when Ant-Man comes out in 2012, shortly (ummm, no pun intended) before Avengers comes out. No clue whom is to be Janet. And no clue if the marital abuse is to be a focus of the film!

No shit Val. Its just idiotic to think that someone can't be two different comic book characters JUST because of "crossover" potential. Also, if Disney and Warner were able to pull off Bugs and Mickey in Roger Rabbit, who is to say we can't have Avengers/JLA at some point in the future in a live action movie.

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Wait... how can the Human Torch play Captain America??? I hope you're being sarcastic there. Ryan Reynolds is playing both Deadpool (Has Fox set a timetable for it yet, or are they waiting for Reynolds to wrap his GL commitments?) and Green Lantern Hal Jordan. Heard a podcaster say he doesn't like this because it means there could never be a Deadpool/GL crossover! To say nothing about why Deadpool and Green Lantern would ever be interacting in a movie, but I wonder if that guy even realizes that the technology that can have the same actor on the same shot playing multiple characters is a few decades old at this point!

Ceetar wrote: Arguably, I don't care about any of the awards because they never reflect the decisions most people make when they go to see a movie. So, you'd be in favor of Transformers 2: The Revenge Of The Fallen to have been nominated because it made the second most money in the calendar year 2009?

Is there any way that Disney can break the contract?

Latest news is that Fox is planning to "reboot" the Fantastic Four series. Apparently they hold the rights to the characters "in perpetuity" as long as they keep making films. So their options are: 1. Lose the characters 2. Make a third movie in the current series, which has had mediocre (at best) quality and less than mediocre reception. 3. Reboot, as was done with the Hulk. New cast, new interpretation, new... whatever. I think this is good news. I'm still hoping to see my favorite characters get the treatment they deserve. I was afraid that the two recent movies doomed my hopes for at least a generation. Now... maybe not. Same deal as they have with the X-Men franchise, hence why Wolverine's movie was called "X-Men Origins" I wouldn't quite call this "good news" though. While the FF, Doctor Doom and others aren't essential to to the Avenger stories, I wonder what characters are "officially" Fantastic Four properties? For example, what if Marvel Studios had a hankering to use the Skrulls, or Inhumans in a film? Both of those races got their starts in the Fantastic Four universe. Or even Namor! Is Namor considered part of the FF "family" of characters? This also has the potential of seeing some Roger Corman style rush jobs as well because they HAVE to get a movie made under whatever deadline that the contract says.

Nymr83 wrote: RealityChuck wrote: And Bond is a real prick. He uses his best friend -- the only one who was willing to go out on a limb for him -- as a human shield. Is that how Bond says "thanks"? and thats not the Bond I know, Brosnan's character or Clooney's aren't doing something like that. Clooney? I could see Dalton doing that.

Houston, we may have a problem... Disney buys Marvel Comics for 4 Billion Disney owns the characters now, but I don't think they own the film rights. I see big legal battle coming. This is pretty much all because of the DVD legal mess of the 1990s cartoons (X-Men, Spider-Man, Iron Man, Fantastic Four and Hulk).

Just wondering. No biggie.

Frayed Knot wrote: Already a couple of small historical inaccuracies have been pointed out by various sources. - Dillinger is told that the Cubs vs the Yanx is the game he's hearing on the radio ... except that the movie takes place in 1933 & 34 and the only Cubs-Yanx WS was '32. - and he's shown watching 'Porky Pig' cartoons although PP didn't debut until '35 Another biggie is the fact that the taking down of Pretty Boy Floyd was a significant catch for Melvin Purvis that it got him the job to run the Dillinger case. Problem is, Floyd was killed a few months after Dillinger was!

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: and the liberties the screenwriters took with real-life history don't do all that much to further/heighten things, dramatically.) One liberty that I have know clue why they took was the fact that they removed "The Lady In Red" from the story. Oh the person is still there, but instead of red, she is wearing a "light orange" dress, as opposed to red.

metsmarathon wrote: i just saw iron man over the weekend. i think all of my problems with the movie are related to technical / technological issues that are mostly related to my experience as a weapons engineer. i think the biggest thing is how he was able to fly from malibu to afghanistan and back on presumably one tank of gas. that's pretty fucking impressive. i'll gloss over the bulletproofiness of his suit, which is too thin to protect against a direct hit, but should suffice for glancing blows against smaller cal weapons. but really, what self-respecting terrorist organization doesn't own a single RPG, against which iron man should have no defense whatsoever? that shit'll pop a hole through his shell like a hot skewer through butter! also, all that ordnance bouncing around in that cave, and no stray bullets make it to his very exposed eye sockets? ok, sure. whatever. somebody already mentioned why a weapons manufacturer would be selling clearly marked weapons to terrorists, but my question is, how stupid does a weapons manufacturer have to be to DIRECTLY sell illegal arms to terrorists? i mean, damn, at least prop up a clandestine arms dealer! and finally, stark's gotta do a little better job developing insensitive munitions. i mean, a little blast from a flame thrower glances on the outer casing of a missile and it goes friggin' high order, taking with it an entire stockpile of ammo? c'mon! he's gotta do better than that... but on the whole, i rather liked it. definitely one of the better superhero movies i've seen, by a whole lot. of course, i stopped my dvd before the end of the credits, and its already on its way back to netflix. what'd i miss? We are going into believability in a world where a guy has the attributes of a Spider? Granted Spidey isn't going to be any where near the Marvel Studio productions, sadly actually, but still, I'm not sure if getting carried away in "Oh this is complete bull shit" is the right way to go when talking about comic book films!

Benjamin Grimm wrote: It was way back in Avengers number 4, and at that point World War II was less than 20 years in the past. Captain America was frozen in a block of ice that was, unknowingly, dislodged by the Sub-Mariner. If I remember correctly, he threw the ice to the surface in one of his rages against the surface man. The block of ice happened to drift past the Avengers as they were on a boat somewhere. Should also be noted that this, and Bucky's death at the same time, was a major retcon on Stan Lee's part in order to bring the old character into the new Silver Age of Marvel. The Golden Age Cap & Bucky never really had an "ending" as the book was canceled without any kind of farewell, then Cap returned as I guess a narrator of sorts of a horror book for a few issues, and was quickly moved to the comic character dustbin. Until Avengers # 4.

Benjamin Grimm wrote: The Avengers could discover him in that floating block of ice. The Captain America movie should be a World War II movie. I very much approve. I was about to say. Either he is found at the post credit tag, or at the start of the Avengers film

Uh-oh. I guess my punishment is to watch the entire second season of TNG?

soupcan wrote: I saw it yesterday and liked it (3.5 stars), but I'm really a casual fan. Although I am familiar with the Shatner, Nimoy series I prefer TNG over than the original. Why was Kirk eating an apple during that scene significant? The Kobayashi Maru is a key plot element in The Wrath of Kahn. The start of the movie has Saavick, Kristie Alley, taking the test, and failing. We learn during the film that Kirk is the only person to ever beat the test, with a unique final solution. When Kirk, Saavick and McCoy beam on board the station where Carol Marcus and David Marcus have a Genesis prototype garden, filled with fresh on the vine fruit, Saavick finally has the conversation with Kirk about how Kirk ultimately beat the test. As Kirk is biting into an apple he explains that he did in fact cheat because he "hates to lose."

GI Joe is a Marvel property? In the beginning it was. Well this is going to be based on the GI Joe: A Real American Hero line of toys that included a cartoon and comic book series. The product was part of the '80s trinity with Transformers and He-Man; The toy line ran from 1982-1994. The cartoon ran from roughly 1983 through 1986 and Marvel Comics produced the comic books from 1982-1994, spanning 155 issues. Interestingly the comic book adventures did not end there! Dark Horse picked it up in 1996 for a brief run, the property then went to Benchpress in 1999 but the company folded before publishing anything, then Devil's Due, with the imprint of Image Comics, picked it up in 2001, ironically putting their first issue out on 9/12/2001. Heh, if ever there was a day where real GI Joes were needed huh? Well Devil's Due had a good run that ended last year, and now IDW has picked up the mantle with a fresh start this past October. For more on the Joes' comic book history, check out this podcast by a comic book historian, Michael Bailey called "Views From The Longbox." About a month ago he had a two part podcast on the history of GI Joe comics: Part One Part Two All that said though, like The Watchmen and DC, since it doesn't fit into the proper Marvel Universe, I kind of find it hard to actually call it a Marvel Movie.

Vic Sage wrote: And the music cues were REALLY annoying. Why does everyone try to evoke 60s anti-war themes with the same 5 or 6 60s classics? It was so cliched and "on the nose", that it was laughable. Something symphonic, or electronic like the brief use of Glass's KOYANNISQATSI, would've been more appropriate. Eh, All Along The Watchtower kind of works in with the title, and there aren't too many songs I would pick over The Times They Are A Changing for that title sequence montage. Problem I had was that the sequence was longer than the song so they had to loop back several verses, a little too much. Maybe just overlay an instrumental version after the last verse of song and come back with a "...for the times they are a changing" as the montage ends. I agree though, they are overused. I want to say Scorsese probably helped that become the vogue thing to do with the way he uses classic hits as the soundtracks to his films.

The Batman vs Dracula (2005) � animated video / Rino Romano - strange, Italian horror film version of the character That is a movie spinoff of the second most recent attempt at an ongoing Batman animated series, titled The Batman. Which ran from, IIRC 2004 through this past year. No relation to the B:TAS/Batman Beyond/JL (as well as Superman) series which were all produced by Bruce Timm, that was a complete reboot by a new production team. Ditto the new attempt at an animated Batman, called Batman: The Brave & The Bold, taking it's name, and format, from a long running DC comic book series entitled "The Brave And The Bold" in which Batman would often team up with another hero. This started airing this past Fall.

AG/DC wrote: Why is John Favreau in the film and then inexplicably gone? Good question. The character, Happy Hogan, is a pretty decent player among Iron Man's supporting cast, or was until he was killed off recently.

AG/DC wrote: Episode one of this was full of deliberate misinformation --- using British propaganda of the time as much as McCullough's work as source material. It's kind of lousy that McCullough signed off. Examples?

Frayed Knot wrote: - Like do all these follow some sort of timeline/plotline or are the Keaton ones totally seperate deals from the Bale ones which are seperate from whoever else might have played him? The Burton/Schumaker films are completely unrelated, this is a new Batman Film-verse. I haven't seen it yet, but I'll assume that you'd need to see Begins only to get the gist of where this Batman is coming from, and his relationship with a couple of the returning characters.

Was planning on seeing it on the big IMAX screen, but it seems to be sold out this weekend! Ah well, hopefully there will be open spots during the week.