Never be stuck for a song title or band name this is meant to be an online video game name generator but it works great for garage/punk etc...

I got-

Hitlers Matador Strike Force

Day Of The Sailor Detective

The German Banana From Hell

The Glory Of The Caveman Detective

http://videogamena.me/ 

I take Alka-Seltzer because it has a pain reliever, caffeine, and antacid for the sour stomach.  Gatorade is a good chaser since helps replenish your precious bodily fluids.

This one traumatized the kids of the 70's in no small way!

This one from "Creature From the Haunted Sea" (1961) may just be my fave. Check him out:

So what does everyone use for stopping or preventing the spread of rust on your rods? I've used POR-15 but was wondering if there's anything better out there.

Discuss.

Titanic, I will NEVER watch that. The trailer already sends me running.

CJ7 (A movie for retarded kids)  http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0940709/ is the worst movie I have ever seen... I've only seen about 10-15 mins of it.

Has anyone seen 30 DAYS OF NIGHT? Based on the Comics by Steve Niles from IDW.

I am no gore fan and not into the new kind of Horror movies (new, that means everything later then the 1959 ;) but that thing really topped it off. Great tone, the cast works great, I wouldn't have ever thought Josh Hartnett would pin down that lead character so well. Melissa George was great to, infact everyone was.

I think it even exceeds the comic in it's directness and brutality. That said it does't fail to bring an emotional layer and tense feel to it. The vampires are no romantic undead melancholics, but rather beasts seeing humans as inferior prey. Yet, they play smart and terrible tricks on the town of Barrow, their latest hunting grounds.

Let's say it just struck me as a complete thing, rather then a rip off remake of the comic, or a cash in on the once again popular horror/gore genre.

There's a part two, but I haven't seen it and it looks like more or less lackluster compared to the first one.

Also, what about the newish DC based flicks like THE LOSERS and R.E.D.? I hadn't even read those books, so it was kind of a surprise to see them being Comic book movies. They of course take some liberties when it comes to the original stories, but what the hey.

Don't get me wrong, both are pretty cheesy action flicks, but I have to say they delivered when it comes to the action and laffs. The LOSERS even a bit more than R.E.D.

Angelina Jolie as Elektra, I can dig that.

FF was a weird great Comic in the beginning, I would love seeing that aspect being brought out more - in all the Marvel movies actually. But seein' where those characters have been taken since then and what is popular and what is cannon with the kids nowadays, that's not gonna happen. Also Marvel needs to restore financially, so they will not take any ART-HOUSE risks + with Disney on the gears now, we'll not see that. Those actress choices for Sue sound good!

I wonder if there is like a WHAT IF?! Marvel that does it all right, Jack Kirby is King and the Comics are as great as they ever were.

Rockin Rod Strychnine said:

There are people that studios THINK are marketable such as Megan Fox and there are people who are totally marketable that could totally sell tickets and still keep a good comic book film on the up side except they don't want to get stuck in a comic book movie.  Elektra could have been awesome if someone had approached Angelina Jolie (I'm totally serious) and you know what?  I would have totally excepted Brad Pitt or even Leonardo Decaprio as Johnny Blaze, the Ghost Rider(I'd have leaned more toward Brad Pitt though).  I liked the Fantastic Four movies as well but I think Katherine Heigl or Elizabeth Banks would have made better Sue Storms.  Jessica Alba is still a bit girly, and the blonde hair against tan skin just didn't work.

Spider-Man 3 WAS indeed a disappointment and am glad I waited to watch it on DVD.  I wasn't just disappointed in Sandman being conflicted. I was disappointed that they had to tie him into Ben Parker's death.  And yeah, the Lizard would have been an excellent choice instead of Venom (or even Sandman for that matter).  I didn't mind the intro of Gwen so much but to be made a stalking victim of Eddie Brock was a dumb idea (just as much as making Topher Grace Eddie Brock.  Everybody who knows their Spider-Man knows that LANCE BANNON was Parker's competitor when taking photos).  Being an interest of Harry Osborne would have made more sense.  All in all, they should have kept everything simple like the first two.  You always get the feeling that the only reason they try and stuff so many villains into a film is they don't think they are going to make a follow up.

joey fuckup said:

I agree, Aldyth, that the third Spiderman movie just wasn't that grand. A sad finish to a series that is now getting another re-vamp. My issue with the part three was the mistake of shoving too many plot points into one film. I wouldn't have brought in Gwen Stacy or Venom (his origin is too complex, and it was just too random the way it was handled in the movie), and Sandman should not have been a conflicted villain. I would have kept the Harry Osborne plot thread in, and yes, had him help Peter in the end against a rampaging Sandman, but Venom was just a waste. I heard a rumor that Marvel pushed their influence on Sam Raimi because they felt having him in the movie would sell more tickets. Whatever. Personally, I would have had Spiderman rescue JJ Jameson's son in outer space (like in the comics), where he would have had the special suit, and him reject it blah blah blah, but saved that for say part 5? It was such a waste to have introduced Dr. Connors if he wasn't going to become the Lizard! That should have been part 3! Apparently Marvel tried to interfere with Raimi's vision too much, and when he set out to do part 4, his heart wasn't in it anymore. So now they're filming a new Spiderman, retelling his story again, which I'm assuming is to fit in with this newest wave of the "Marvel Mosaic" as I like to call it.

And I'll admit, I liked the Fantastic Four movies, mainly because the director nailed the sort of goofiness that went on the comics. I hated "Elektra", loved "Daredevil", but never gave "Superman Returns" a chance. Just couldn't buy into the whole "This is part 3 to the Christopher Reeve films" selling point...Never have gotten around to "Jonah Hex" or "the Watchmen"...

Aldyth Beltane said:

This is a great question for discussion!  And a very timely one given all the summer releases of comic book based movies.  I'm a huge comic book fan, and I love that we now have the technology to do the effects well and make them look good on film.  Though what ultimately will make or break a comic adaptation is the acting and storytelling, just like in an actual comic it is the characters and story which makes or breaks a book as much as the art.

 

That said, I react on a case by case basis.  I adored the first 2 X-Men movies (though had some nit-picks with Magneto's characterization in the first one) and the first two Spider-Man movies.  The third of each completely lost it.  I was not too fond of the Fantastic Four flicks, or Daredevil and hated Elektra.  The Batman movies have always been fun, even if the first few weren't brilliant.  The Dark Knight Returns was utterly amazing.  They NAILED the characters, and Maggie G didn't even bother me too much.  The newest Superman was dreadful, bad casting, bad story, boring, tedious and kinda stupid.

Thor was an extremely gorgeous movie, and I enjoyed it, especially the cameos by other Avengers, but there wasn't a lot of "there" there.  That said, Thor wasn't a comic I ever read much, so I didn't have a clear point of reference.

The first Iron Man movie was glorious, and the acting was spot on, as was the story telling.  The second was not nearly as good, but it set up for The Avengers movie well.

 

I may be in the minority here, but I thoroughly loved both Sin City and Watchmen.  Yes, I know there were significant changes to Watchmen, and many purists take issue with that, and I *do* understand. but given the epic scope of the material, Hollywood did a far better job than many expected, and than they could have.  The actors nailed the characters, and overall it had the atmosphere, feel, and spirit of the book down perfectly.  Sin City was like watching the comic unfold on film, and I loved it!

 

Jonah Hex had so much potential to be good, and fun, and instead it was a wreckage.  If they had gotten Joe Lansdale to write the screenplay, and maybe lost Megan Fox, it would have made a huge difference.

 

I could probably write on about this for pages, and in tedious detail, so I'll stop now.

Likin' that!

My dream Magneto would have been a grey Sean Connery, RED OCTOBER like... the Eyebrows you know. That man can brood! Kinda crafted after the viscious Jim Lee Magneto in the 90's when he tore out Wolverines Adamantium.

Sin City, love that - no question. Watchmen is what it is, I think a Davin Fincher or David Lynch could have taken that to different lenghts when it comes to the visual scope and tone. I see the blown up superhero thing carrying into the movie, but for me, the tone of the Comic was more the one of a novel than a KRACK POW Jack Kirby story of morals and defeat and all that. The Dave Gibbons art says it all.

Jonah Hex, oh man! That's another thing, that Josh whatever dude, ok, but what was up whit that whole thing? Not even terrible in a good way. Lansdale should have gotten his mits in - too true.

Aldyth Beltane said:

This is a great question for discussion!  And a very timely one given all the summer releases of comic book based movies.  I'm a huge comic book fan, and I love that we now have the technology to do the effects well and make them look good on film.  Though what ultimately will make or break a comic adaptation is the acting and storytelling, just like in an actual comic it is the characters and story which makes or breaks a book as much as the art.

 

That said, I react on a case by case basis.  I adored the first 2 X-Men movies (though had some nit-picks with Magneto's characterization in the first one) and the first two Spider-Man movies.  The third of each completely lost it.  I was not too fond of the Fantastic Four flicks, or Daredevil and hated Elektra.  The Batman movies have always been fun, even if the first few weren't brilliant.  The Dark Knight Returns was utterly amazing.  They NAILED the characters, and Maggie G didn't even bother me too much.  The newest Superman was dreadful, bad casting, bad story, boring, tedious and kinda stupid.

Thor was an extremely gorgeous movie, and I enjoyed it, especially the cameos by other Avengers, but there wasn't a lot of "there" there.  That said, Thor wasn't a comic I ever read much, so I didn't have a clear point of reference.

The first Iron Man movie was glorious, and the acting was spot on, as was the story telling.  The second was not nearly as good, but it set up for The Avengers movie well.

 

I may be in the minority here, but I thoroughly loved both Sin City and Watchmen.  Yes, I know there were significant changes to Watchmen, and many purists take issue with that, and I *do* understand. but given the epic scope of the material, Hollywood did a far better job than many expected, and than they could have.  The actors nailed the characters, and overall it had the atmosphere, feel, and spirit of the book down perfectly.  Sin City was like watching the comic unfold on film, and I loved it!

 

Jonah Hex had so much potential to be good, and fun, and instead it was a wreckage.  If they had gotten Joe Lansdale to write the screenplay, and maybe lost Megan Fox, it would have made a huge difference.

 

I could probably write on about this for pages, and in tedious detail, so I'll stop now.

Ryan Reynolds, the man to walk both universes.

joey fuckup said:

Interesting, though I wouldn't know what to think of him doing a "box office" friendly superhero movie. I'm not saying he couldn't pull it off, it just wouldn't seem to be his genre. I'm curious to know if "Deadpool" is an alive project, and will Ryan Reynolds play him? Would there even be a need for that now? I'm guessing they could have somebody else play him since he's disfigured and all...

josta59 said:

Yeah, speaking of dark, did you know Robert Rodriguez signed on briefly to direct Deadpool? I was so excited. Though I'm much more interested in his original stories than in Sin City, so I don't know what I would've thought of his Deadpool.

It would have been a choice more true to the original material and one of course more BADASS!

Imagine the rider via the Blade director, that would have been Boss! Get's me excited just to hear it. Whatever new GR movie comes out should dwell in darkness, I mean the 90's Mark Texeira run had some pretty dark little moments in there, with all that weird New York crime shit going on (that was the Dan Ketch Rider of course).

joey fuckup said:

If "Ghost Rider" was to be reworked/revamped, I think it would be interesting to see it apart from the Marvel films, and set it during the comic's initial run, the '70's. Those comics had such a drive-in movie feel with its share of bikers, demons, and paranormal villains, that to do it as a horror/biker flick would give it a whole different attitude. I do know that David Goyer (Blade films) had initially been on board to do "Ghost Rider" and had planned to make it a very dark film in the horror genre, even thinking in terms of an "R" rating. However, Marvel wasn't too keen on that idea, especially when they knew that more tickets could be sold if they went for a "PG-13" rating. Nicholas Cage was also for a more "kid-friendly" version, saying that making the film too dark was the wrong direction (WTF?). Interesting that the guy that directed "Daredevil" did "Ghost Rider", but I think Marvel leaned heavily on him to make it more palatable so it would gross more bucks. Ya gotta sell those toys!

I totally dug that HULK movie as well!

+ What's up with all the remakes and re-ding dongs of recent movie series like Spiderman an Batman?? They are starting over with Spiderman after they started over already and made three movies?

I can see that that's part of the new Marvel movie universe thing with the same actors (mostly the Shield dudes showing up everywhere as an integral part) being in there. I was hesistant at first if they were gonna go thru with it, but it looks to be great and the movies were fun, so...

joey fuckup said:

I am probably the only person I know that liked that first "Hulk" film that Ang Lee did. I guess I just dug it as a "comic lovers art film"? I really liked the way the origin was tweaked, and that "David" Banner (from the TV series) was the father, and "Bruce" was the son. I thought it was also interesting how David became the Absorbing Man and they fought to the death at the end. Sam Elliott was perfect as Gen. Ross and I loved the face off in the desert. I haven't seen the revamped Hulk movie with Ed Norton, but I know it's part of the "Marvel Mosaic" as I like to call it, and that Marvel likes to act like the Ang Lee version never existed. And saying that the newer film isn't a sequel is a cop-out in my opinion. Obviously it is, they just wanted to distance the films and sweep the first one under the rug...I plan on watching "The Incredible Hulk" one day, when I'm bored I guess...
Rockin Rod Strychnine said:

I use to get a magazine during the early 90s called Comic Scene that had a portion of it refered to as Comic Screen which tried to hype all the movies (live or animated) that were being planned but you could tell these movies were only one or two steps above 70s TV movies.  Even the Eric Bana Hulk movie was 100 times better than what would have come out if they hadn't been shelved.

I was all over Ghost Rider, seen it five times or so, just to see that flamin' skull take out the baddies is Kickin'! + They had the original rider story put into it that was badass too. I mean seeing that old cowboy on his hellhorse all fleshed out in movieglory? Too cool!

It was total Trash for sure, the enemies had no punch or substance and seemed rather like trash material for the Rider to progress thru the movie. But you know, it has this wacky tone to it... ah I can't put my finger on it - I just love it. And yeah Nicolas Cage, not so excited about that either, but it somehow worked well for me!

I also think that way about the whole SFX thing.

Rockin Rod Strychnine said:

I like most of the new movies I've seen this past decade (I would have liked Ghost Rider as well if they had had some one besides Nicholas Cage as the character).  In many ways they aren't as fun as the stuff from the 40's - 80's but they seem much truer to the comics than they ever have before, and the effects and stunts are much better executed now than they ever could have been done in the past.  It makes you wish that comic book movies could have waited until the technology was perfected instead of hurrying to make it onto the big or small screen, but then again, it's the corniness of the past that makes those older movies fun.

 

That totally pins it down for me! I enjoy seeing that kind of Material mopping up the big screen, every company tries to make a Comic Book movie to cash in, but it's kind of cool to see it happen either way.

Ken said:

I take them on a case by case basis and try to have low expectations so I'm never too disappointed. Most of these movies need at least some changes to be made in appearance and story to accommodate the format of a movie as opposed to a serial book, so I kind of take that for granted.

I think my main pet peeve with comic book movies is that they're often tone deaf to the nuances of the characters or stories. The Watchmen movie for instance, has these long drawn out special effects laden fight scenes when one of the points of the original mini series is that most of these guys are just normal schmucks who like to play dress up. And all of the Batman movies seem to ignore the detective aspect of the character in favor of highlighting his gadgets.

This year's show was bigger than ever, despite some inclement weather!  Looking forward to next years event too,maybe I'll see you there!

Count Von Tuthrie said:

I've had my eye on this shindig for the past few years, even got me a t-shirt with the poster print :P. One of these day s I gotta check it out for myself. Good on you all for creating and/or supporting such an event!

 

musical talent or not charles mansons huge influence on pop culture cannot be disputed. personally i think the guy can sing like an angel.

cant believe we all got sucked so what does that say about us!

HEY, HEY!  Easy, now.

Call it a matter of opinion, but his music isn't "groundbreaking", nor is it THAT influential. So he contributed material to the Beach Boys? Given what we all know about him, it's really sickening to think this nutjob would be glorified in such a manner. There are far greater musicians that should be honored on there, not him. This will only reinforce to his "followers" out there, that he was great, he was right, blah blah blah..."Greatly contributed"??? I personally think his "contributions" to art would be considered minimal at best. And saying that his music was stolen doesn't get my sympathy vote, neither. People fascinated by the case more than likely collected his tunes as a "curioso", an oddball relic attached to a demented individual. Just as a sidenote, I do have one of his albums in my itunes...

BTW, I can't drink at the moment, because I found out recently that I'm a diabetic, and I can't drink because of the medication I'm on (If you're wondering, I'm taking Metformin).  Not too big of a problem for me, because I'm not a big drinker to begin with, but my addiction to sweets finally caught up with me, and now I'm struggling to cut down.

Silent Hill, man...Silent HIll...

That ARMY OF DARKNESS game has me wrapped around its undead little finger, although it's not scary at all...just as fun as all get the F out!

Here's my hat in the ring...

http://garagepunk.ning.com/photo/photo/listForContributor?screenName=05pykpqj2t4ur