I'm not 100% sure, but I think Stallone was involved in bringing it to the big screen. I may be wrong on that, but wasn't this around the same time he was in "Demolition Man"? I believe he was trying to jump-start his action movie career again by playing these roles. Maybe he came across a Judge Dredd comic and thought "Hey, that's my next hero role"...? Speaking of bad comic book films, wasn't there a really cheesy, low-budget take on "Vampirella"? And wasn't "Barb Wire" a comic book too?

Mardy Pune said:

Ha ha, that made me laugh for some reason. I'm not sure why 2000AD never really "made it" in America, the format/layout may have been to challenging for traditional comic buying public. But it was probably some comic book code bullshit or something though. I still don't understand why Hollywood went and made a film about him considering most of their market wouldn't have a clue who he is.

Rockin Rod Strychnine said:

Judge Dredd isn't really a well known character except in England or if you're really a hard core comic buff.  I'll say one positive thing about Stallone in the role.  He had the chin for it when he wore the helmet.  But that movie had none of the bite that the comic does.  Robocop actually had more in common with the Judge Dredd comic than the Judge Dredd movie.

Ha ha, that made me laugh for some reason. I'm not sure why 2000AD never really "made it" in America, the format/layout may have been to challenging for traditional comic buying public. But it was probably some comic book code bullshit or something though. I still don't understand why Hollywood went and made a film about him considering most of their market wouldn't have a clue who he is.

Rockin Rod Strychnine said:

Judge Dredd isn't really a well known character except in England or if you're really a hard core comic buff.  I'll say one positive thing about Stallone in the role.  He had the chin for it when he wore the helmet.  But that movie had none of the bite that the comic does.  Robocop actually had more in common with the Judge Dredd comic than the Judge Dredd movie.

Yeah, Rod, that second link is what I was talking about. Thanks for digging this up! The character's comic book bio is much more interesting than the floppy film itself!

Steel should have gone straight to video.  I never saw it because of Shaq and also he wasn't one of DC's biggest characters.  The original Steel was kind of a Captain America rip off combined with Wolverine, in that he had an indestructable body and a steel skeleton.  Here's some other info on him http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commander_Steel

That's all I really know.

 

Oh wait.  Maybe this is what you were refering to?  I really have NO knowledge of this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steel_(John_Henry_Irons)

I figured "Judge Dredd" was going to be a stinker, much like "Steel", you know the DC comics character that was played by the Shaq? I think that character was spun off the Superman comics, wasn't he? Weren't they set in Metropolis? I never watched the movie, or knew much about him...

Judge Dredd isn't really a well known character except in England or if you're really a hard core comic buff.  I'll say one positive thing about Stallone in the role.  He had the chin for it when he wore the helmet.  But that movie had none of the bite that the comic does.  Robocop actually had more in common with the Judge Dredd comic than the Judge Dredd movie.

I was never familiar with that character, or even knew it was a comic until I had read the review on it. It just looked bad, with Sylvester Stallone, too...Never gave it a chance. Your review just now reinforces my decision to never watch it, haha!

Mardy Pune said:

As far as I'm concerned the worst comic book movie ever made was the Judge Dredd movie with Sylvester Stallone playing Dredd. Holy shit that movie was bad. It wrote the book on how not to make a comic book adaption! It makes me angry just thinking about it! The only redeeming feature of the movie was a brief appearance by Ian Dury.

As far as I'm concerned the worst comic book movie ever made was the Judge Dredd movie with Sylvester Stallone playing Dredd. Holy shit that movie was bad. It wrote the book on how not to make a comic book adaption! It makes me angry just thinking about it! The only redeeming feature of the movie was a brief appearance by Ian Dury.

Actually, this Superman will be a complete reboot/retelling (surprise!), and I can't remember who all has been cast, but I do know Kevin Costner will be J. Kent. General Zod will be the villain, so I'm assuming, given if the film is a success (Christopher Nolan is a producer), Lex Luthor will show up in the second film. And no, this new treatment will have nothing to do with "Smallville".
Rockin Rod Strychnine said:

Yes, once you bring Robin in to the picture, it's a guarantee that the series is going to get cheesy.  Even Bob Kane's original series got light hearted once he created him.  Since the 80's, DC has tried mkaing him a serious character even to the point where Batman is practically nasty to him and thinking him a pain in the neck.  So now there's a third villain in the movie?

It sounds certain that next year's Superman won't have anything to do with Smallville (which I did watch all 10 years) but hopefully it won't be a continuation of the Christopher Reeve pictures either.

I didn't exactly hate the Constantine film, but I was really scratching my head when Keanu Reeves was cast. I was familiar with the character from the Swamp Thing comics, and really felt the film should have been more spot on, and at least maybe hinted at a Swamp Thing movie. Supposedly a sequel was in the works, but it obviously never happened. Having Keanu cast in the part is just another example of a studio chasing a bankable actor. Let's maybe hope a Constantine re-boot is in the works! (Along with a tie-over into Swamp Thing)

Aldyth Beltane said:

Oh dear lord. That Constantine movie. That one made me furious, as I was a Constantine fan from the beginning.  Paul Bettany would have made a perfect Constantine. Not just having a more close appearance, and actually *being* British, but, if you ever saw Gangster No. 1, you'll know what I mean.

 

I think you are exactly right about Warner being less concerned about preserving the mythos/continuity of the characters than Marvel, at least where the mainstream heroes are concerned, and that is why overall Marvel seems to have made the better comic-related films.  Word is also that Warner is putting a lot of pressure on DC to "earn" which is the reason for the reboot/revamp/renumbering of their titles in September. Here we go again.

 

That said, the Justice Society eps of Smallville were well done, and highlights of that season, though definitely derivative.

joey fuckup said:

Yeah, DC is obviously not caring about having any of their characters/film franchises having any sort of continuity or relation to each other. It's all so disjointed! "Catwoman", "Constantine", "Superman Returns"...I haven't seen "Green Lantern" but I'm sure it has no relation at all to the Batman films. And I've also heard the rumor that they want to do a Justice League movie? And you might as well forget anything "Smallville" tried to do, especially introducing DC characters/situations. I used to watch that series, but lost interest because I was tired of the writers running out of ideas. There were episodes where they clearly stole plot points from "Buffy the Vampire Slayer", "Saw", and hell, even "The Watchmen" (supposedly that plot thread had to do with the "original" Justice Society, and I had stopped watching long before then). Even some of the villains on there (that weren't already DC characters), were pale composits of some of the Marvel villains. But I'm getting off course here, I said I was steering clear of TV series.
Aldyth Beltane said:

Oh yeah!  Toby McGuire was Perfect as Peter Parker!  And for that matter, all the casting for the first two Spider-Man movies worked and was evocative of the comics. Noticing a pattern of Marvel adaptations being better at casting than DC.  Hmmm.

I don't know which I want to forget more or faster - Halle Berry's Catwoman, or Michelle Pfieffer's!  What an embarrassment! I do hope that now that the movies have taken a more serious tone, the character can be more Milleresque, or even if they wanted to go lighter, give her a Paul Dini kind of spin.  Actually, if they did it right your idea would work well, and would at least give Bruce Wayne a romantic dynamic (b/c she would encounter BW at one of those parties) with some heat.  I can see it working.

Rockin Rod Strychnine said:

Now that you mentioned Jean Grey, the person who played her (Famke Jansen?  I didn't know her name before now), she'd make an excellent Catwoman more for her alter ego, Selina Kyle.  Catwoman needs to be done classy, not corny like how Michelle Pfeifer did the role.  I don't think anybody really knows Catwoman's other identity due to how the 60s show presented her with NO identity and Tim Burton just making her a nobody librarian who gets ....smothered to death by cats?  In BATMAN YEAR ONE by Frank Miller, the back story of making her a prostitute who branches out by breaking and entering was created, even though in the 40s, she was a highly skilled cat burgler (she even wore a mask that looked like a cat's head).  My feeling is, her back story should be kind of a twist on Frank Miller's rendition making her a highly expensive escort who only goes to the best parties, giving her a chance to case the places she's going to rob next.  Probably wouldn't make a very exciting movie though.  Anne Hathaway does sound like a stretch, but Heath Ledger sounded like a bit of a stretch as the Joker so who knows?

 

If you had a chance to read any of the first Spider-Man stories, Toby McGuire actually made a lot of sense in the role of Peter Parker.

Aldyth Beltane said:

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.

Yes, once you bring Robin in to the picture, it's a guarantee that the series is going to get cheesy.  Even Bob Kane's original series got light hearted once he created him.  Since the 80's, DC has tried mkaing him a serious character even to the point where Batman is practically nasty to him and thinking him a pain in the neck.  So now there's a third villain in the movie?

It sounds certain that next year's Superman won't have anything to do with Smallville (which I did watch all 10 years) but hopefully it won't be a continuation of the Christopher Reeve pictures either.

Oh dear lord. That Constantine movie. That one made me furious, as I was a Constantine fan from the beginning.  Paul Bettany would have made a perfect Constantine. Not just having a more close appearance, and actually *being* British, but, if you ever saw Gangster No. 1, you'll know what I mean.

 

I think you are exactly right about Warner being less concerned about preserving the mythos/continuity of the characters than Marvel, at least where the mainstream heroes are concerned, and that is why overall Marvel seems to have made the better comic-related films.  Word is also that Warner is putting a lot of pressure on DC to "earn" which is the reason for the reboot/revamp/renumbering of their titles in September. Here we go again.

 

That said, the Justice Society eps of Smallville were well done, and highlights of that season, though definitely derivative.

joey fuckup said:

Yeah, DC is obviously not caring about having any of their characters/film franchises having any sort of continuity or relation to each other. It's all so disjointed! "Catwoman", "Constantine", "Superman Returns"...I haven't seen "Green Lantern" but I'm sure it has no relation at all to the Batman films. And I've also heard the rumor that they want to do a Justice League movie? And you might as well forget anything "Smallville" tried to do, especially introducing DC characters/situations. I used to watch that series, but lost interest because I was tired of the writers running out of ideas. There were episodes where they clearly stole plot points from "Buffy the Vampire Slayer", "Saw", and hell, even "The Watchmen" (supposedly that plot thread had to do with the "original" Justice Society, and I had stopped watching long before then). Even some of the villains on there (that weren't already DC characters), were pale composits of some of the Marvel villains. But I'm getting off course here, I said I was steering clear of TV series.
Aldyth Beltane said:

Oh yeah!  Toby McGuire was Perfect as Peter Parker!  And for that matter, all the casting for the first two Spider-Man movies worked and was evocative of the comics. Noticing a pattern of Marvel adaptations being better at casting than DC.  Hmmm.

I don't know which I want to forget more or faster - Halle Berry's Catwoman, or Michelle Pfieffer's!  What an embarrassment! I do hope that now that the movies have taken a more serious tone, the character can be more Milleresque, or even if they wanted to go lighter, give her a Paul Dini kind of spin.  Actually, if they did it right your idea would work well, and would at least give Bruce Wayne a romantic dynamic (b/c she would encounter BW at one of those parties) with some heat.  I can see it working.

Rockin Rod Strychnine said:

Now that you mentioned Jean Grey, the person who played her (Famke Jansen?  I didn't know her name before now), she'd make an excellent Catwoman more for her alter ego, Selina Kyle.  Catwoman needs to be done classy, not corny like how Michelle Pfeifer did the role.  I don't think anybody really knows Catwoman's other identity due to how the 60s show presented her with NO identity and Tim Burton just making her a nobody librarian who gets ....smothered to death by cats?  In BATMAN YEAR ONE by Frank Miller, the back story of making her a prostitute who branches out by breaking and entering was created, even though in the 40s, she was a highly skilled cat burgler (she even wore a mask that looked like a cat's head).  My feeling is, her back story should be kind of a twist on Frank Miller's rendition making her a highly expensive escort who only goes to the best parties, giving her a chance to case the places she's going to rob next.  Probably wouldn't make a very exciting movie though.  Anne Hathaway does sound like a stretch, but Heath Ledger sounded like a bit of a stretch as the Joker so who knows?

 

If you had a chance to read any of the first Spider-Man stories, Toby McGuire actually made a lot of sense in the role of Peter Parker.

Aldyth Beltane said:

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.

Yeah, DC is obviously not caring about having any of their characters/film franchises having any sort of continuity or relation to each other. It's all so disjointed! "Catwoman", "Constantine", "Superman Returns"...I haven't seen "Green Lantern" but I'm sure it has no relation at all to the Batman films. And I've also heard the rumor that they want to do a Justice League movie? And you might as well forget anything "Smallville" tried to do, especially introducing DC characters/situations. I used to watch that series, but lost interest because I was tired of the writers running out of ideas. There were episodes where they clearly stole plot points from "Buffy the Vampire Slayer", "Saw", and hell, even "The Watchmen" (supposedly that plot thread had to do with the "original" Justice Society, and I had stopped watching long before then). Even some of the villains on there (that weren't already DC characters), were pale composits of some of the Marvel villains. But I'm getting off course here, I said I was steering clear of TV series.
Aldyth Beltane said:

Oh yeah!  Toby McGuire was Perfect as Peter Parker!  And for that matter, all the casting for the first two Spider-Man movies worked and was evocative of the comics. Noticing a pattern of Marvel adaptations being better at casting than DC.  Hmmm.

I don't know which I want to forget more or faster - Halle Berry's Catwoman, or Michelle Pfieffer's!  What an embarrassment! I do hope that now that the movies have taken a more serious tone, the character can be more Milleresque, or even if they wanted to go lighter, give her a Paul Dini kind of spin.  Actually, if they did it right your idea would work well, and would at least give Bruce Wayne a romantic dynamic (b/c she would encounter BW at one of those parties) with some heat.  I can see it working.

Rockin Rod Strychnine said:

Now that you mentioned Jean Grey, the person who played her (Famke Jansen?  I didn't know her name before now), she'd make an excellent Catwoman more for her alter ego, Selina Kyle.  Catwoman needs to be done classy, not corny like how Michelle Pfeifer did the role.  I don't think anybody really knows Catwoman's other identity due to how the 60s show presented her with NO identity and Tim Burton just making her a nobody librarian who gets ....smothered to death by cats?  In BATMAN YEAR ONE by Frank Miller, the back story of making her a prostitute who branches out by breaking and entering was created, even though in the 40s, she was a highly skilled cat burgler (she even wore a mask that looked like a cat's head).  My feeling is, her back story should be kind of a twist on Frank Miller's rendition making her a highly expensive escort who only goes to the best parties, giving her a chance to case the places she's going to rob next.  Probably wouldn't make a very exciting movie though.  Anne Hathaway does sound like a stretch, but Heath Ledger sounded like a bit of a stretch as the Joker so who knows?

 

If you had a chance to read any of the first Spider-Man stories, Toby McGuire actually made a lot of sense in the role of Peter Parker.

Aldyth Beltane said:

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.

I was baffled at "Catwoman". The origin, the casting, everything. Obviously DC didn't care what was done with it. I'm just not too sure if bringing the character into the new Batman films is a very good idea. Nolan has already said that Robin would never be a part of his franchise. So, it makes me wonder slightly where he's going here...
Rockin Rod Strychnine said:

Now that you mentioned Jean Grey, the person who played her (Famke Jansen?  I didn't know her name before now), she'd make an excellent Catwoman more for her alter ego, Selina Kyle.  Catwoman needs to be done classy, not corny like how Michelle Pfeifer did the role.  I don't think anybody really knows Catwoman's other identity due to how the 60s show presented her with NO identity and Tim Burton just making her a nobody librarian who gets ....smothered to death by cats?  In BATMAN YEAR ONE by Frank Miller, the back story of making her a prostitute who branches out by breaking and entering was created, even though in the 40s, she was a highly skilled cat burgler (she even wore a mask that looked like a cat's head).  My feeling is, her back story should be kind of a twist on Frank Miller's rendition making her a highly expensive escort who only goes to the best parties, giving her a chance to case the places she's going to rob next.  Probably wouldn't make a very exciting movie though.  Anne Hathaway does sound like a stretch, but Heath Ledger sounded like a bit of a stretch as the Joker so who knows?

 

If you had a chance to read any of the first Spider-Man stories, Toby McGuire actually made a lot of sense in the role of Peter Parker.

Aldyth Beltane said:

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.

I'm wondering if Anne Hathaway can pull off a Catwoman, because I just can't see it. Guess I'll have to wait 'til the movie comes out. I personally would rather have seen the Penguin brought in as the next villain, with possibly the Riddler. It was rumored at one time that Phillip Seymour Hoffman (not sure if I spelled his name right) was being considered for the Penguin, and Johnny Depp as the Riddler. Rumors, I know, but it could be interesting. I'm just afraid that the third Batman movie could go down like the third Spiderman movie. Already there's Catwoman, Bane, and the "Holiday Killer", who I know nothing about. I can only think that Christopher Nolan has a superb story drawn up that won't take the franchise into Joel Shumaker territory...

Aldyth Beltane said:

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.

Oh yeah!  Toby McGuire was Perfect as Peter Parker!  And for that matter, all the casting for the first two Spider-Man movies worked and was evocative of the comics. Noticing a pattern of Marvel adaptations being better at casting than DC.  Hmmm.

I don't know which I want to forget more or faster - Halle Berry's Catwoman, or Michelle Pfieffer's!  What an embarrassment! I do hope that now that the movies have taken a more serious tone, the character can be more Milleresque, or even if they wanted to go lighter, give her a Paul Dini kind of spin.  Actually, if they did it right your idea would work well, and would at least give Bruce Wayne a romantic dynamic (b/c she would encounter BW at one of those parties) with some heat.  I can see it working.

Rockin Rod Strychnine said:

Now that you mentioned Jean Grey, the person who played her (Famke Jansen?  I didn't know her name before now), she'd make an excellent Catwoman more for her alter ego, Selina Kyle.  Catwoman needs to be done classy, not corny like how Michelle Pfeifer did the role.  I don't think anybody really knows Catwoman's other identity due to how the 60s show presented her with NO identity and Tim Burton just making her a nobody librarian who gets ....smothered to death by cats?  In BATMAN YEAR ONE by Frank Miller, the back story of making her a prostitute who branches out by breaking and entering was created, even though in the 40s, she was a highly skilled cat burgler (she even wore a mask that looked like a cat's head).  My feeling is, her back story should be kind of a twist on Frank Miller's rendition making her a highly expensive escort who only goes to the best parties, giving her a chance to case the places she's going to rob next.  Probably wouldn't make a very exciting movie though.  Anne Hathaway does sound like a stretch, but Heath Ledger sounded like a bit of a stretch as the Joker so who knows?

 

If you had a chance to read any of the first Spider-Man stories, Toby McGuire actually made a lot of sense in the role of Peter Parker.

Aldyth Beltane said:

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.

Now that you mentioned Jean Grey, the person who played her (Famke Jansen?  I didn't know her name before now), she'd make an excellent Catwoman more for her alter ego, Selina Kyle.  Catwoman needs to be done classy, not corny like how Michelle Pfeifer did the role.  I don't think anybody really knows Catwoman's other identity due to how the 60s show presented her with NO identity and Tim Burton just making her a nobody librarian who gets ....smothered to death by cats?  In BATMAN YEAR ONE by Frank Miller, the back story of making her a prostitute who branches out by breaking and entering was created, even though in the 40s, she was a highly skilled cat burgler (she even wore a mask that looked like a cat's head).  My feeling is, her back story should be kind of a twist on Frank Miller's rendition making her a highly expensive escort who only goes to the best parties, giving her a chance to case the places she's going to rob next.  Probably wouldn't make a very exciting movie though.  Anne Hathaway does sound like a stretch, but Heath Ledger sounded like a bit of a stretch as the Joker so who knows?

 

If you had a chance to read any of the first Spider-Man stories, Toby McGuire actually made a lot of sense in the role of Peter Parker.

Aldyth Beltane said:

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.

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.