Page 2 of 2 « First 12
Results 26 to 29 of 29
  1. #26
    Nathan.'s Avatar
    Status
    Nathan. is offline
    Gender
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    46,929
    Post Thanks / Like
    Status of user that was once
    here but is now somewhere.
    Where is he? Who knows. Find
    out next time....
     



    Re: Marvel - The next batch of movies for Avengers 2

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Spicer View Post
    Liking the logos!

    I really hope Bruce Banner cameos in many of them. Mark Ruffalo was amazing.
    Mark Ruffalo was good, but for some reason I disappointed when they didn't have Edward Norton star as Bruce Banner.
     
         

  2. #27
    ǝsɔoɹdııns Escorpiius's Avatar
    Status
    Escorpiius is offline
    Gender
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    ****ing Burnin' Paradise
    Posts
    8,293
    Post Thanks / Like
    "I'm suprised you know
    such useless things. This is
    the first time since birth
    that I've admired you. By the
    way, will you be eating that
    cake?”
     



    Re: Marvel - The next batch of movies for Avengers 2

    Quote Originally Posted by Xylon View Post
    Im completely against spidey in avengers 2 >_> the movies already screwed up the stories big time. We have a dead Jean Grey and Scott summers, a dead Charles Xavier. We had a Mary Jane Watson as Peter's first girlfriend instead of Gwen Stacey and Gwens death initiated the changes in spider mans life. Half the reason why Iron Man faced success was because there weren't any significant changes in the story, the most important ones you could point out is that a Vigilant group of Afghan's kidnapped tony instead of chinese people. And that his last suit's name was Crimson Dynamo which was never really Tony's suit but instead used over and over again by various villains including Anton Vanko and antagonist of Iron Man 2. Iron man was made years after the rest, and followed the main plots so it still has great potential.
    Im sort of glad Sony has the rights now, because sony had the resources and guts to initiate a reboot where Marvel would have just made a Spider Man 4 with hints of Nick Fury or Wolverine this time ~_~ Marvel clearly struggles in raising capital, since he made all the vital stories with the plan of ending the franchise soon. Reason why the death of important characters, reason why story lines were altered <to remove hints and lose ends which were actually related to the later story> .
    Correct the past stories first, i'd say give Warner Brothers the rights to X-men now they'll do better.
    What the hell are you talking and mismatching things?

    Sony had Spiderman rights since 2000s and the Sam Raimi's trilogy and the reboot are all productions of Sony. Why are claiming that Sony has the guts to initiate a proper reboot where they were also behind the travesty of Spiderman3. In fact, praising Sony's sticking to original comics is far-fetched. True, they did that well with the new reboot of Amazing Spiderman but still, these are the same distributors who gave us Spiderman' trilogy. X-Men and Fantastic Four's movie rights are owned by Fox; somewhat the same situation as Spiderman with Sony. Compared to Marvel [Iron Man (2008), The Incredible Hulk (2008), Iron Man 2 (2010), Thor (2011), Captain America: The First Avenger (2011), and The Avengers (2012)], I sincerely think Marvel Studios' movies has been truer than Sony/Fox superheroes movies.

    You say, Marvel struggles and fails but the fact is that Marvel movies have been pretty true to themselves. We need to clear it off that when I'm talking about Marvel produced-movies, I'm talking about the films distributed by Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) which got associations with Walt Disney, Paramount Pictures (Viacom) and Universal Pictures.

    I do agree with you that the movies messed up big time with many storylines; especially F4, Spiderman 3 and X-Men 3. That being said, it's wrong to accuse Marvel Studios of screwing their movies' adaptations. Yes, there are some glitches in Capt. America, Iron Man ect.. but overall, it has stay true to most part of the storyline. You say that Marvel altered storyline but that's not really case if you ask me. They weren't behind X-Men or Spiderman or Fantastic Four ect...or rather, they barely had any implications in its storyline execution. It was a 'I Sell the comics right, I Count my money, you Make movie' situation with Sony/Fox. This haste in selling the rights was mainly because Marvel Studios were going bankrupt in 1998. The Viacom association actually was the true birth of Marvel Comics into cinema. Unfortunately, many opportunities have been lost in precipitation (and bankruptcy fear) by then.

    I do also agree with you that Iron Man has been a game-changer but not to forget that Iron Man were the first production of MCU and that itself, shows a difference. My point of view remains that Marvel Studios' track record (as stated above) has been very good and that they sold Spiderman or X-Men or F-4 rights way too fast.

    Had they been able to do the deal with Paramount Pictures earlier, they could have provided us, cinema-folks, a complete new world of superheroes. Imagine MCU being able to do movies on Spiderman, X-Men, Fantastic Four, Ghost Rider, Hellboy, Daredevil, Elektra ect.. I'm not even sure if they still got rights on Blade or The Punisher.

    Spiderman and many other characters from it, are a big part of Avengers comics and for me, it'll remain a missed cinematic opportunity, if we never see Spidey with the remaining Avengers. Sure, I liked the reboot of Spiderman but still, it might has been equally as good in the hands of MCU.
     
         

  3. #28
    Evil Boy Genius
    Status
    Jack Spicer is offline
    Gender
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    DWMA
    Posts
    17,506
    Post Thanks / Like
    ~Making my way downtown~
     



    Re: Marvel - The next batch of movies for Avengers 2

    Quote Originally Posted by Escorpiius View Post
    What the hell are you talking and mismatching things?

    Sony had Spiderman rights since 2000s and the Sam Raimi's trilogy and the reboot are all productions of Sony. Why are claiming that Sony has the guts to initiate a proper reboot where they were also behind the travesty of Spiderman3. In fact, praising Sony's sticking to original comics is far-fetched. True, they did that well with the new reboot of Amazing Spiderman but still, these are the same distributors who gave us Spiderman' trilogy. X-Men and Fantastic Four's movie rights are owned by Fox; somewhat the same situation as Spiderman with Sony. Compared to Marvel [Iron Man (2008), The Incredible Hulk (2008), Iron Man 2 (2010), Thor (2011), Captain America: The First Avenger (2011), and The Avengers (2012)], I sincerely think Marvel Studios' movies has been truer than Sony/Fox superheroes movies.

    You say, Marvel struggles and fails but the fact is that Marvel movies have been pretty true to themselves. We need to clear it off that when I'm talking about Marvel produced-movies, I'm talking about the films distributed by Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) which got associations with Walt Disney, Paramount Pictures (Viacom) and Universal Pictures.

    I do agree with you that the movies messed up big time with many storylines; especially F4, Spiderman 3 and X-Men 3. That being said, it's wrong to accuse Marvel Studios of screwing their movies' adaptations. Yes, there are some glitches in Capt. America, Iron Man ect.. but overall, it has stay true to most part of the storyline. You say that Marvel altered storyline but that's not really case if you ask me. They weren't behind X-Men or Spiderman or Fantastic Four ect...or rather, they barely had any implications in its storyline execution. It was a 'I Sell the comics right, I Count my money, you Make movie' situation with Sony/Fox. This haste in selling the rights was mainly because Marvel Studios were going bankrupt in 1998. The Viacom association actually was the true birth of Marvel Comics into cinema. Unfortunately, many opportunities have been lost in precipitation (and bankruptcy fear) by then.

    I do also agree with you that Iron Man has been a game-changer but not to forget that Iron Man were the first production of MCU and that itself, shows a difference. My point of view remains that Marvel Studios' track record (as stated above) has been very good and that they sold Spiderman or X-Men or F-4 rights way too fast.

    Had they been able to do the deal with Paramount Pictures earlier, they could have provided us, cinema-folks, a complete new world of superheroes. Imagine MCU being able to do movies on Spiderman, X-Men, Fantastic Four, Ghost Rider, Hellboy, Daredevil, Elektra ect.. I'm not even sure if they still got rights on Blade or The Punisher.

    Spiderman and many other characters from it, are a big part of Avengers comics and for me, it'll remain a missed cinematic opportunity, if we never see Spidey with the remaining Avengers. Sure, I liked the reboot of Spiderman but still, it might has been equally as good in the hands of MCU.
    This^

    Speaking of Daredevil, I'm so happy Marvel has his movie rights back.
     
         

  4. #29
    ǝsɔoɹdııns Escorpiius's Avatar
    Status
    Escorpiius is offline
    Gender
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    ****ing Burnin' Paradise
    Posts
    8,293
    Post Thanks / Like
    "I'm suprised you know
    such useless things. This is
    the first time since birth
    that I've admired you. By the
    way, will you be eating that
    cake?”
     



    Re: Marvel - The next batch of movies for Avengers 2

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Spicer View Post
    This^

    Speaking of Daredevil, I'm so happy Marvel has his movie rights back.
    It's not completely official. It was said that Marvel will get its rights from Fox, if Fox can't start their reboot (which indeed seem to be the case).

    20th Century Fox are one of the greatest movie production companies but somewhat, I feel that they tend to choose too many already-known (or say 'mainstream') actors in their movies. I personally do like when newer (lesser known) talents are opted for Superhero movie (except if your director is named Christopher Nolan) It makes a movie fresher and since the actor is pretty new to you, you can take him as his character more seriously.

    I mean, they really wanted to make Daredevil reboot but to say the truth, Jason Statham as Daredevil and Vin Diesel as Kingpin will be just another money-spinner movie but probably something that won't be true to the comics. The new personnel at Marvel have been stirring their casting and storyline very well since Iron Man. I'd be glad if they do get Daredevil rights back and they are able to do a movie.

    Just a question though: Do the rights of Elektra revert back along with Daredevil or not?

    Btw, Marvel put a similar condition to Fox for Fantastic Four and Silver Surfer. Make a reboot till 2015 or rights get reverted back. Though, from what I've heard, Fox are moving a bit more seriously with Fantastic Four. Marvel should have said 2013

    It's rumored that Marvel want to release a Defenders movie someday. Needless to say, the rights of Silver Surfer and Galactus are essential for that; as they already got Doctor Strange movie rights from Dimension movies.

    Marvel Studios have big plans and that's why almost all of their movies will stay true to their comics. If a Defenders movie comes true, then perhaps we could see an Avengers 3; based on the Civil War with certain Avengers and some members of Defenders joining hand. We'll be having Extremis Arc with Iron Man 3; so why not Civil War?

    Speaking of Civil War and Avengers, one of the reason I'm most pissed that Marvel doesn't have Spiderman rights, is because they can't include Osborn then. That sucks I'd love to see him in Iron Patriot suit or face with Robert Downey Jr. That'll be freakin' epic. Sony are just using Spiderman and its franchise power as a money-cow. Sure, they can make movie that'll be true to the comics but Sony can't have so many storylines doors open as Marvel got.
     
         

Page 2 of 2 « First 12

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •