Agreed. Jessica Alba is hot, and has been outstanding in many roles, but didn't convery Sue Storm.  Similarly, I guess Ryan Reynolds is supposed to be all that, but I can't see him as Hal Jordan.  Guy who played Thor was perfect though, as was Robert Downey jr. as Iron Man.  I think one of the things that made The Dark Knight Returns so outstanding wasn't so much Christian Bale in the bat suit, but the casting of the supporting roles, not just Heath Ledger's chillingly inspired Joker, but Gary Oldman as James Gordon, Morgan Freeman as Lucius Fox, etc.  I *would* like to see a little more attention paid to casting the female roles, and not just going for random name actresses. Anne Hathaway as Catwoman? Really?  And Kate Bosworth as Lois Lane? Did NOT work at all!  On the other hand, Famke Jansen (whom I've always had a fondness for) was perfect as Jean Grey.  All the X-Women worked well, come to think of it.  But many times it just seems as though the people casting just randomly selected "current hot name" and stuck 'em in the costume.

 
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.

Weird Westerns are nifty, and Jonah Hex in the purest form is kind of the epitome of the sub genre.  It's funny that it has been around for years, about as long as the pulps, but is finally getting more attention with the whole Steampunk movement.  Lansdale wrote the reboot that came out...*thinks*... maybe in the nineties, and is fairly definitive.  Oddly, even though they took place on a more cosmic level, the Grimjack stores had a lot of the same kind of feel. (A Grimjack movie could be SO COOL!)  I've not read the new Jonah Hex series that started about five years or so ago - didn't hear to much good about it, and limited budget.

I think I read that with DC's relaunch there is going to be a supernatural western anthology book, and I'll likely take a look at that.


joey fuckup said:

I was always intrigued with Jonah Hex comics, but only because I could never find them when I was a kid! Supernatural westerns would have been something I could have gotten into, considering I loved those old horror titles like "Creepy", "Eerie", "House Of Mystery", "Swamp Thing", and others. Speaking of Swamp Thing, I still have an attachment of sorts to the original film by Wes Craven. I love the combo of comic book film meets drive-in cheese. I haven't had a care to watch the sequel, and I didn't care for the live-action series. I will say that a Swamp Thing film has been in "development hell" for a while now, but with the right effects and budget, it could be pulled off effectively (unlike the original version, haha). That character was always more of a cult figure, so I'm not sure a studio would front the budget needed to do a good movie. Look at what happened to "Man-Thing"...

Aldyth Beltane said:

Hey, thanks for the thoughtful response.  I share your opinions about Spider-Man 3, plus retconning Uncle Ben's death was a bit too pat, as was the ending where everyone is suddenly all lovey-dovey again.  If it had been truer to Raimi's original vision it could have been a much better film.  I'm not particularly excited about this 4th movie reboot.  I should mention at this time that I stopped reading the "regular" Marvel Spider-Man titles years ago, but still completely dig Brian Michael Bendis' Ultimate Spider-Man, as it has so much of the spirit of the old comics, and about as much heart as any title out there.

 

Don't waste your time or money on Jonah Hex.  If you liked the comics at all you will be near angry with disappointment, and if you never read the comics, you'll just be bored.  The first ten minutes are promising, then it just...wilts. eh.

 

Watchmen, I unabashedly love, even though there are likely many reasons I shouldn't.  When you see it, see the director's cut, as those extra 23 minutes make a huge difference in the continuity and exposition.  Well, the clarity anyway.  And Jackie Earle Haley brings it as Rorschach - even if you hate everything else about it, he is riveting.

 

The FF movies - the first one was fun, definitely.  I guess I just expected more form Rise of the Silver Surfer.

 

An Alias (the comic, not the TV series) movie could be astounding.  But probably too dark for most audiences.

 

Speaking of - Kick Ass was pretty great/dark fun - if for no other reason, the excellent use of soundtrack music during the fight scenes!  I will never hear "The Banana Splits Theme Song" the same way!

Katherine Heigl as Sue Storm would have been great, Rod! Never thought of her, and I love Elizabeth Banks, would have been interesting to see either one of them in that role. Speaking of the Spiderman reboot, I am pretty sure the Lizard is going to be the villain, based off behind-the-scenes still shots of a one-armed man talking to Peter Parker. The actor cast as Peter Parker looks more like what you would expect as opposed to Toby. Don't get me wrong, Toby did great as Spiderman, but I never would have envisioned him in the role. It will be interesting to see if audiences are going to be sold on a whole new saga of the wall-crawler...
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.

I was always intrigued with Jonah Hex comics, but only because I could never find them when I was a kid! Supernatural westerns would have been something I could have gotten into, considering I loved those old horror titles like "Creepy", "Eerie", "House Of Mystery", "Swamp Thing", and others. Speaking of Swamp Thing, I still have an attachment of sorts to the original film by Wes Craven. I love the combo of comic book film meets drive-in cheese. I haven't had a care to watch the sequel, and I didn't care for the live-action series. I will say that a Swamp Thing film has been in "development hell" for a while now, but with the right effects and budget, it could be pulled off effectively (unlike the original version, haha). That character was always more of a cult figure, so I'm not sure a studio would front the budget needed to do a good movie. Look at what happened to "Man-Thing"...

Aldyth Beltane said:

Hey, thanks for the thoughtful response.  I share your opinions about Spider-Man 3, plus retconning Uncle Ben's death was a bit too pat, as was the ending where everyone is suddenly all lovey-dovey again.  If it had been truer to Raimi's original vision it could have been a much better film.  I'm not particularly excited about this 4th movie reboot.  I should mention at this time that I stopped reading the "regular" Marvel Spider-Man titles years ago, but still completely dig Brian Michael Bendis' Ultimate Spider-Man, as it has so much of the spirit of the old comics, and about as much heart as any title out there.

 

Don't waste your time or money on Jonah Hex.  If you liked the comics at all you will be near angry with disappointment, and if you never read the comics, you'll just be bored.  The first ten minutes are promising, then it just...wilts. eh.

 

Watchmen, I unabashedly love, even though there are likely many reasons I shouldn't.  When you see it, see the director's cut, as those extra 23 minutes make a huge difference in the continuity and exposition.  Well, the clarity anyway.  And Jackie Earle Haley brings it as Rorschach - even if you hate everything else about it, he is riveting.

 

The FF movies - the first one was fun, definitely.  I guess I just expected more form Rise of the Silver Surfer.

 

An Alias (the comic, not the TV series) movie could be astounding.  But probably too dark for most audiences.

 

Speaking of - Kick Ass was pretty great/dark fun - if for no other reason, the excellent use of soundtrack music during the fight scenes!  I will never hear "The Banana Splits Theme Song" the same way!

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.

Hey, thanks for the thoughtful response.  I share your opinions about Spider-Man 3, plus retconning Uncle Ben's death was a bit too pat, as was the ending where everyone is suddenly all lovey-dovey again.  If it had been truer to Raimi's original vision it could have been a much better film.  I'm not particularly excited about this 4th movie reboot.  I should mention at this time that I stopped reading the "regular" Marvel Spider-Man titles years ago, but still completely dig Brian Michael Bendis' Ultimate Spider-Man, as it has so much of the spirit of the old comics, and about as much heart as any title out there.

Don't waste your time or money on Jonah Hex.  If you liked the comics at all you will be near angry with disappointment, and if you never read the comics, you'll just be bored.  The first ten minutes are promising, then it just...wilts. eh.

Watchmen, I unabashedly love, even though there are likely many reasons I shouldn't.  When you see it, see the director's cut, as those extra 23 minutes make a huge difference in the continuity and exposition.  Well, the clarity anyway.  And Jackie Earle Haley brings it as Rorschach - even if you hate everything else about it, he is riveting.

The FF movies - the first one was fun, definitely.  I guess I just expected more form Rise of the Silver Surfer.

An Alias (the comic, not the TV series) movie could be astounding.  But probably too dark for most audiences.

Speaking of - Kick Ass was pretty great/dark fun - if for no other reason, the excellent use of soundtrack music during the fight scenes!  I will never hear "The Banana Splits Theme Song" the same way!

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.

Oh, dude, how could I have forgotten the Iron Man movies? I didn't want to like them at all, but I couldn't help myself! Didn't read many of his comics, though.

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.

Yeah, that looks pretty bad...I could see that flying (no pun intended) in the '70's..

Nero said:

I'm actually refering to the live action JLA tv movie from 1997, which features lower tier team members like Atom, Flash, Green Lantern, Fire, Ice and an overweight Martian Manhunter. There's a page on Wikipedia about it that has a pic of the team that should bring you out in a cold sweat (it does me anyway). I caught it on UK tv one time, but a swift perusal of the Wiki page tells me that this film has never aired on US tv, so it's no doubt a closely guarded secret. Take a peek at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice_League_of_America_(TV_film)

joey fuckup said:

Are you talking about the two movies that came out in the '70's? I saw trailers for both of them on You Tube and I think it was either Sid & Marty Krofft or Hanna Barberra that did it. If that's what you're talking about, and you loved its cheesiness, you can buy them on dvd I think.

I tried to watch "The Shadow" on the Sci-Fi Channel and just couldn't finish it.
Nero said:

Anybody seen the Justice League of America tv movie? It's fascinating in its terribleness. One film that I do remember being better than I expected it to be was The Shadow, with Alec Baldwin. Memory does play terrible tricks, though, and I saw it quite a long time ago....

I think it was.  It was mentioned in one of the comic magazines I have when a movie was first mentioned.

joey fuckup said:

Yeah, I liked the idea of webs coming from Peter's wrists, supposedly that was an idea that James Cameron came up with first when he had optioned the film first.

Rockin Rod Strychnine said:

I feel the only reason that a lot of changes that are made to something like Spider-Man is that there is 40 years of history that just can't be waded through for a 2 hour movie, and the director and producer are just going to do the best they can.  If TV could spend the amounts of money that motion picture studios could, Spider-Man would work better as a series but changes are still enevitable and somehow for TV, the changes are always worse.  I think the X-Men trilogy was OK except for some plot points in the third that were kind of extreme.

 

Also I think making webs come out of Peter's wrists was an excellent idea.  I know he's a science whiz but to have every aspect of a spider except producing webs never did make sense to me.

Wow! That is pretty bad, even for 1997.  Smallville may have ventured way off from the comics but it least it didn't feel cheesy as THAT.

Nero said:

I'm actually refering to the live action JLA tv movie from 1997, which features lower tier team members like Atom, Flash, Green Lantern, Fire, Ice and an overweight Martian Manhunter. There's a page on Wikipedia about it that has a pic of the team that should bring you out in a cold sweat (it does me anyway). I caught it on UK tv one time, but a swift perusal of the Wiki page tells me that this film has never aired on US tv, so it's no doubt a closely guarded secret. Take a peek at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice_League_of_America_(TV_film)

joey fuckup said:

Are you talking about the two movies that came out in the '70's? I saw trailers for both of them on You Tube and I think it was either Sid & Marty Krofft or Hanna Barberra that did it. If that's what you're talking about, and you loved its cheesiness, you can buy them on dvd I think.

I tried to watch "The Shadow" on the Sci-Fi Channel and just couldn't finish it.
Nero said:

Anybody seen the Justice League of America tv movie? It's fascinating in its terribleness. One film that I do remember being better than I expected it to be was The Shadow, with Alec Baldwin. Memory does play terrible tricks, though, and I saw it quite a long time ago....

Yeah, I liked the idea of webs coming from Peter's wrists, supposedly that was an idea that James Cameron came up with first when he had optioned the film first.

Rockin Rod Strychnine said:

I feel the only reason that a lot of changes that are made to something like Spider-Man is that there is 40 years of history that just can't be waded through for a 2 hour movie, and the director and producer are just going to do the best they can.  If TV could spend the amounts of money that motion picture studios could, Spider-Man would work better as a series but changes are still enevitable and somehow for TV, the changes are always worse.  I think the X-Men trilogy was OK except for some plot points in the third that were kind of extreme.

 

Also I think making webs come out of Peter's wrists was an excellent idea.  I know he's a science whiz but to have every aspect of a spider except producing webs never did make sense to me.

I'm actually refering to the live action JLA tv movie from 1997, which features lower tier team members like Atom, Flash, Green Lantern, Fire, Ice and an overweight Martian Manhunter. There's a page on Wikipedia about it that has a pic of the team that should bring you out in a cold sweat (it does me anyway). I caught it on UK tv one time, but a swift perusal of the Wiki page tells me that this film has never aired on US tv, so it's no doubt a closely guarded secret. Take a peek at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice_League_of_America_(TV_film)

joey fuckup said:

Are you talking about the two movies that came out in the '70's? I saw trailers for both of them on You Tube and I think it was either Sid & Marty Krofft or Hanna Barberra that did it. If that's what you're talking about, and you loved its cheesiness, you can buy them on dvd I think.

I tried to watch "The Shadow" on the Sci-Fi Channel and just couldn't finish it.
Nero said:

Anybody seen the Justice League of America tv movie? It's fascinating in its terribleness. One film that I do remember being better than I expected it to be was The Shadow, with Alec Baldwin. Memory does play terrible tricks, though, and I saw it quite a long time ago....

X-men First Class was donkey balls.  Don't see it.

I feel the only reason that a lot of changes that are made to something like Spider-Man is that there is 40 years of history that just can't be waded through for a 2 hour movie, and the director and producer are just going to do the best they can.  If TV could spend the amounts of money that motion picture studios could, Spider-Man would work better as a series but changes are still enevitable and somehow for TV, the changes are always worse.  I think the X-Men trilogy was OK except for some plot points in the third that were kind of extreme.

Also I think making webs come out of Peter's wrists was an excellent idea.  I know he's a science whiz but to have every aspect of a spider except producing webs never did make sense to me.

Wow, popular topic! I love X-Men comics, but after seeing the first movie version, I started hating comic book movies in general. These directors don't seem to care about the fans at all. Did the changes they made to Spider-Man somehow make him more interesting or better suited to film? I certainly don't think so. I'm pretty much done with them in general, though I was impressed with Kick-Ass, which I'd never heard of until the film. That was a hella fun movie.

I loved Christopher Nolan's version of Batman, and I'm hoping his third go 'round doesn't suck. I understand Anne Hathaway is cast as Catwoman, plus they're bringing in the character Bane, who I know nothing about. I thought Batman was a cool superhero when I was a kid, but I honestly didn't read the comics because I was more partial to Marvel Comics. I haven't seen "The Watchmen" yet, and have always wanted to read the graphic novel (one day, I guess), but I've heard mixed responses on it, so maybe one day I'll get around to seeing it.
ixnayray said:

The only one's i've liked were The Watchmen, Batman Begins, The Dark Knight and The Hulk [Ang Lee]. These are the only ones i've seen where the director didn't treat the audience like they were idiots.

Are you talking about the two movies that came out in the '70's? I saw trailers for both of them on You Tube and I think it was either Sid & Marty Krofft or Hanna Barberra that did it. If that's what you're talking about, and you loved its cheesiness, you can buy them on dvd I think.

I tried to watch "The Shadow" on the Sci-Fi Channel and just couldn't finish it.
Nero said:

Anybody seen the Justice League of America tv movie? It's fascinating in its terribleness. One film that I do remember being better than I expected it to be was The Shadow, with Alec Baldwin. Memory does play terrible tricks, though, and I saw it quite a long time ago....

Yeah, I need to see that one, though I hated the effects for the Hulk and the Abomination. I much preferred ILM's version of the Hulk in Ang Lee's version. Even if it wasn't totally believable, it fit because Lee's vision was completely "comic book turned live action" all the way...

Rockin Rod Strychnine said:

I think you'd kind of like the Edward Norton verison, but it is a bit of a cop out that it isn't a true sequel.  I actually saw that first and I like the guy they chose for General Ross in that one (though Sam Elliott does a fine job in the first).

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.

The only one's i've liked were The Watchmen, Batman Begins, The Dark Knight and The Hulk [Ang Lee]. These are the only ones i've seen where the director didn't treat the audience like they were idiots.

Anybody seen the Justice League of America tv movie? It's fascinating in its terribleness. One film that I do remember being better than I expected it to be was The Shadow, with Alec Baldwin. Memory does play terrible tricks, though, and I saw it quite a long time ago....

Pinball - I dig it. I don't hit the arcade enough, but I play as many as I can until I run out of quarters. All things pinball in Austin: http://www.austinpinball.com/

This one's kinda funky, hope you like it!  http://www.vimto.co.uk/games/pinball/

Come on: I know you guys are out there.

Favorite machines? 

Best pinball beverage?

Do you listen to music while you play?

What are the pinball hotspots in your turf?

We've got Shorty's, the Seattle Pinball Museum, and Dorky's in the PNW.  Those are the popular ones, but the Tiger Lounge is probably my favorite! A few guys put out a cool zine called "Skillshot" regularly up here too.  It's got a map of the Seattle pins and some articles. 

I played Tron today and feel in love with it.  Addam's Family never gets old, The Shadow is a blast, Monster Bash and Attack from Mars are also greats in my book.

Surf music and a soda are great for pinball!  Just gotta A) make the music is loud enough and B) find a way for the venue to play it on the PA if you can.