http://www.superherohype.com/news/topnews.php?id=7165

Marvel Studios Sets Four More Release Dates!
Source: Marvel Entertainment
May 5, 2008


Marvel Entertainment released their first quarter report to its shareholders this morning to coincide with the announcement about the success this past weekend of Marvel Studios' first production Iron Man, which grossed an estimated $104.2 million domestically and over $201 million worldwide. The announcement included an update of Marvel Studios' feature film slate with the already-rumored Iron Man 2 announced for a release on April 30, 2010, followed by three more movies for the summers of '10 and '11. Matthew Vaughn's Thor is set for a release on June 4, 2010, and The First Avenger: Captain America (the working title) will kick off the summer of 2011 on May 6, followed by the highly-anticipated and foreshadowed The Avengers scheduled for July 2011. (Edgar Wright's Ant-Man is also listed as being in development with no release date set.)

In a conference call this morning, Marvel Studios' David Maisel said that Iron Man 2 will be used to introduce Thor. Regarding more "Hulk" movies, Maisel said "We definitely plan on continuing." He added that development continues on Spider-Man 4. "I can't give any other updates other than to say it's in development and everybody's excited about 'Spider-Man 4,'" he said.

With that in mind, one can start expecting a lot more announcements in the coming months about creative teams and casting for those movies including who might direct the Captain America and Avengers movies. (Whomever plays Steve Rogers AKA Captain America presumably will be making two movies at once.)





http://www.avatarsdb.com/avatars/I_gotcha.gif
http://fuck-your.blogspot.com
http://www.myspace.com/insightclopediabrown
http://www.myspace.com/dumhi
http://www.youtube.com/group/okayplayer
http://www.last.fm/user/Dawgeatah

having thor come out in the next Iron Man movie sounds really interesting too.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=epic+win

A win so great,so awesome that it is EPIC

Avengers could quite possibly be the greatest thing ever.

http://i213.photobucket.com/albums/cc173/FrankLongo/odbjr.gif

------------
Jay Dilla - Pay Jay
O.C. - Word..Life

that we would hear some shit on Monday is the movie kept doing well over the weekend.

I didn't think we would get the whole load at once. WOW.

Just think of all the Marvel joints. Even the FLOPS, that have put money in his pockets...

minks fed with lobster that are fed with kobe beef.

that were fed Steve Ditko

.

Apparently, they had provided an entire village with milk and everyone became insane after drinking Skrull-milk, it's awesome!

Marvel owns the rights to these characters not Stan Lee
__________________________________
http://reunionradio.blogspot.com/
May Artist of the Month: Alexander O'Neal

the guy is Thurston J. Howell, III

the last one sucked, i'm tired of MJW, I hate her character and Spiderman is a bitch. He's not my kind of superman.

Like the old Marvel Teamup books. A Daredivil- Spidey movie could be cool.
__________________________________
http://reunionradio.blogspot.com/
May Artist of the Month: Alexander O'Neal

sure, it's great for nerd boners, but it's probably too much spandex at the same time for the general public.

Also it may depend on the lineup

!sig!

"I don't even listen to rap anymore. I just ask people in my neighborhood how their day went and then beatbox over it!"
-Some Crazy Dude

and the characters more or less shared a unified origin ("they're mutants!")

Avengers? Justice League? dunno... just seems like too much cape at one time, too many disparate characters for the casual viewer to keep up with.

...Cap, Thor and Iron Man team up to stop The hulk

-------------------
"Fuck yo couch, nigga!" - Tom Cruise

http://melanism.com
http://preptimeposse.blogspot.com
http://myblogisanopenbook.blogspot.com
http://www.myspace.com/melanism
http://www.last.fm/user/Melanism/

Ultimates didn't invent that shit.

That could lead way to Planet Hulk.

We all complained that the problem w/the 1st hulk is that it had no action, he had nothing to fight.

Wouldn't this be a remedy for that?

You think it's too much hero/CGI?

Could really understand. That's a pretty deep story, especially with the Hulk having all this intellect, and also there's no Banner in that hulk, the human element is completely gone and that's part of what the studios want. They want that human element to the Hulk, which is what we as comic book folks find boring about these movies.

We know what the hulk should be doing, but instead they spend 1.5 hours on Banner, and 15 minutes on the Hulk.

... that's why the Avengers exist.




http://www.avatarsdb.com/avatars/I_gotcha.gif
http://fuck-your.blogspot.com
http://www.myspace.com/insightclopediabrown
http://www.myspace.com/dumhi
http://www.youtube.com/group/okayplayer
http://www.last.fm/user/Dawgeatah

And they will throw Ant-Man in there for good fun too.

!sig!

"I don't even listen to rap anymore. I just ask people in my neighborhood how their day went and then beatbox over it!"
-Some Crazy Dude

mark my words...

they already basically did this for the cartoon movie...Marvel might be down wit takin elements of the story tho...

Thought it was good, if they make the live action version half that good. I think folks would be satisfied.

RDJ is gonna be old as shit playing tony stark by the time the last iron man rolls out.

edit: nevermind, i was reading the article wrong. i thought they were planning 3 more iron man's.

... douchebag. I want them to just make him like the Norse God he is. Traditional Viking garb and alladat.




http://www.avatarsdb.com/avatars/I_gotcha.gif
http://fuck-your.blogspot.com
http://www.myspace.com/insightclopediabrown
http://www.myspace.com/dumhi
http://www.youtube.com/group/okayplayer
http://www.last.fm/user/Dawgeatah

http://tinyurl.com/ysks7l

Similar costume, but updated and more "techy" . Nobody's sure if he's really a Norse God or just a guy with superpowers and massive delusions. Kind of a radical politically. I think that would be more fun and fitting for a summer blockbuster.

Keep it original.

>Keep it original.

The original is a Captain Marvel rip-of (c) Afkap. The Ultimate version has some psychological complexity going on.

>Ultimate version has some psychological complexity going on.

I'd rather not see Thor period but if you gotta do it do it this way
__________________________________
http://reunionradio.blogspot.com/
May Artist of the Month: Alexander O'Neal

Shame they didn't do Spider-Man and X-Men in house, but hindsight is 20/20. They had no way of knowing those movies would be so huge.

If Iron Man is any indication of the level of quality we can expect from Marvel Studios, I say keep cranking out those hits.

That movie's gonna be awesome.

And it's obvious...they're setting up for Avengers in 2012 or 2013. Marvel knows that if Spiderman 4 does happen that it'll probably be the last one. And they probably can't get too much more mileage out of X-Men outside of Wolverine. Setting up the Avengers is the next step.

I'd personally like them to try a couple of unconventional characters in the future (and NOT give them to Mark Steven Johnson). Strikeforce: Morituri would be a dope movie even though the story's not really well-known. And they still should do The Silver Surfer.
---------------------------------------
The OKP® King of the Late Pass™

http://www.centsports.com/?opcode=33245
^^^Free Gambling w/Ad Money....It Works :)^^^

"Being the bigger man is overrated." -- Huey (The Boondocks)

i don't see it at all.

huge flop, yeah. i see that much.

I'd actually be disappointed if he failed.
---------------------------------------
The OKP® King of the Late Pass™

http://www.centsports.com/?opcode=33245
^^^Free Gambling w/Ad Money....It Works :)^^^

"Being the bigger man is overrated." -- Huey (The Boondocks)

that shit has absolutely zero appeal for a movie. none whatsoever.

his lameness is going to be the central joke. Get it?

get it?

that lil girl was too geeked over her some Thor

Yeah, lets get Vincent D'Onofrio to reprise the role to.

That'd be awesome

****************************************
StLOKp's™: DawgEatah, Dstl1, hyde, Colonel Sanders, MisterGrump, Afrotec, Instant_Vintage, ThaTruth, Soul1908, SefConscious, Baldheadslik, YngblkprinceMD, 314confidential, rdiggity, Kid

Honorable mention:auragin_boi
****************************************
Only after the last tree has been cut down
Only after the last fish has been caught
Only after the last river has been poisoned
Only then will you realize that money cannot be eaten
Sitting Bull

I don't see what they can do w/ him. I admit I don't know much about Cap, but from what I do know, I cant see an entertaining movie.

that shield can end up to be mad cheesy. plus he doesn't kill.

Cap is one of the most interesting characters in the Marvel Universe. You're taking a dude that disapperared a hero and a living peace of propaganda in WW2, then Rip Van Winkling him into an America that he doesn't identify with.

It's the PERFECT movie for right now.

Shit, if nothing else, I hope they include the scene where he wakes up nowadays and thinks he's being tricked because he doesn't believe General Fury is telling the truth. Why? Because Cap knows the highest-ranking black soldier wasn't no damn general when he fell in the ocean in 1942!

When that teaser trailer drops with a single red gloved hand busting out of a giant ass block of ice these jabronis will change their tune.

as I'm coming down from the happiness of pride of seeing Marvel knock it out the park on their first swing, I'm starting to realize how tough it will be for them to follow up as well.

I mean, if Thor ain't a tough movie to make, I dunno what is.

This Iron Man shit was make or break, but just because it far exceeded expectations doesn't mean they can afford to flop. I don't see it doing as well as Iron Man, but you know, good comic book movies get people in the mood to watch more comic book movies, so Iron Man's momentum will probably help.

Thor will be a challenge. Probably the toughest sell announced (Of course I'm the one guy who's been screaming for an Ant-Man comedy for the past 6 years). But I'd be surprised if a Captain America movie tanked. There's just too much potential for coolness, and they've gotten him wrong so many times on film, statistically it's just bound to not suck for once.

The thing about The Avengers is that if you really sit and analyze the line-up objectively, it's a freaky bunch of characters that you'd never in a million years have invented, let alone put together in a shared universe/team situation. Okay we got a super soldier, a guy in a robot suit, a Norse thunder god, this fellow that talks to ants... It's fucking WEIRD. Comic fans have accepted them as an institution at this point, but I'm really not seeing how it's going to translate into a decent movie. To say nothing of logisitcal/budgetary concerns, which are myriad.

is Norton's grandstanding on the set maybe messing up everything.

But.

I've read enough to believe that it's gonna be pretty good. Easily better than the Ang Lee joint. Yeah, Thor is my major concern, because it's the most likely to tank, I would think.

I'm dying to see how he debuts in Iron Man, though. I can't really figure out how you debut a guy like Thor in another person's flick.

I don't think anything about the character makes him a harder sell than, say, Superman or Spider-Man.
The comics have been successfully placing him in a fairly realistic world to great effect for years now. He'd fit into the world Iron Man creates fairly easily.

They lost me with Captain America. Thor....can be salvageable.

Like folks were saying above this, he's one of the most complex and interesting characters in the Marvel universe. You can't have an Avengers movie without Captain America. Y'all act like we're going to get some Joel Schumaker version of Cap.
__________________________________
http://reunionradio.blogspot.com/
May Artist of the Month: Alexander O'Neal

if Hulk does well, or is at least reviewed well, I wouldn't be surprised if other studios hollered at Marvel with a stack of cash asking to put stuff from the Marvel Studios movies in THEIR joints.

Although, at this point, I don't know how you work in the Marvel Universe into the Spidey movies, or FF.

...well i could, but marvel won't make the movie that dark...

..the Avengers movie?? no thanks

...IM 2 wit the Mandarin (i'm still convinced he could be dope)?? word UP i halfta admit, i'm not up on the IM villians

anyway, Cap has me the MOST hyped cause if they play it between Spidey and Blade it WILL be a banger...if they do it like Daredevil or FF or Elektra (ugh) it will suck complete ass and just piss me off as a disservice to Stevie Rogers....

it would be dope if they do the WW2 hero trapped in ice thing, but bring him back EXTRA pissy after seein what the place he fought for turned into...wantin to help he dons the costume and rolls thru NYC helpin people...BUT...nobody wants some red and blue costume wearin, shield slangin, throwback on the streets, so the Gov (SHIELD, wit Sam Jack as Nick Fury and let Dell Rusk be the senator takin a personal intrest in Steve's case) tells Rogers to fall back and take all his shit...but you can't keep a good Cap down, so went trouble arises dude goes underground to get back in the action and prove the world still needs CA....(or somethin like that)

There's a way to do it basing it off the template of the rebooted JMS-written series. Start it where the gods have fallen due to Ragnarok or whatever. Play it where physician Donald Blake has visions of Odin appearing to him, letting him know he's really Thor, and that the rest of the gods are scattered around the world, "sleeping" in mortal human form. Like the series, Thor has to wake up the sleeping gods.

And then, unlike JMS has actually done, something has to happen from there, then the conflict is that Loki or Surtur has taken the human form of someone really powerful (like the president of the U.S. or something( and is bent on destroying the planet or something. It could work.

Robert Downey Jr. as Iron Man
Samuel L. Jackson as Nick Fury
Edward Norton as Hulk
Captain America
Thor
Ant-Man (why not?)
Wasp (if they can, and again, why not)

They create the team a la Ultimates, Hulk goes crazy, they fight Hulk.

Final scene, after credits:

Fury and Cap are sitting at a nice restaurant, talking to somebody. You don't know who it is until that person asks 'What are you suggesting?'
They respond 'Something new' and the camera turns and its Tobey MacGuire.
The camera zooms out as they all look up to see their other invited guest, Hugh Jackman as Wolverine.

End.

End.

single greatest comic book movie moment-and among the greatest cliffhangers- ever.

But are AntMan and Wasp really necessary. I mean, I've never heard of these characters and I consider myself at least adequately aware of comics. I say keep it to the big draws, but obviously Marvel has a different idea since AntMan got the green light.

are founding members of The Avengers. not to mention they're married. so if you gonna do it right, you need to have them somehow. though i'm sure they're going to have Captain America and he wasn't a founding member so who knows.

but i hear what you are saying tho. personally, i'd like to see Hawkeye and Vision over those two.

its about what makes for the better character, to make a better movie

i don't think wasp or ant man, as characters, are worth any screen time, personally

I mean he is CONSTANTLY changing his superhero persona and Wasp is constantly changing her costumes. They could use them for great comic relief and their potential as characters is great. I mean they were such a rollercoaster of a relationship. They dynamics. Oh man. As a die-hard Avengers fan, they NEED to be in the movie. At least the first one.



http://www.avatarsdb.com/avatars/I_gotcha.gif
http://fuck-your.blogspot.com
http://www.myspace.com/insightclopediabrown
http://www.myspace.com/dumhi
http://www.youtube.com/group/okayplayer
http://www.last.fm/user/Dawgeatah

> I say keep it to the big draws,
>but obviously Marvel has a different idea since AntMan got the
>green light.

Get it? HAHAHAHAH!

i can't see it...

http://www.avatarsdb.com/avatars/I_gotcha.gif
http://fuck-your.blogspot.com
http://www.myspace.com/insightclopediabrown
http://www.myspace.com/dumhi
http://www.youtube.com/group/okayplayer
http://www.last.fm/user/Dawgeatah

Iron Man, Captain America, Thor, and Hulk are put together by Nick Fury to protect the United States from super-terrorist threats, again a la Ultimates.

A terrorist by the name of Baron Zemo and his cell, the Masters Of Evil, are planning an attack on the United States.

Guess who is there to stop them? Stark, Cap, Thor, Fury, and SHIELD as the Avengers. Hulk is a worst case scenario call (which of course would happen in this movie).

Other names are dropped as potential members of the team, including Ant-Man, Wasp, Vision, and Hawkeye, but never fully seen or explained.

Take my ending from my first post on this subject, and you got yourself another killer idea.

Maybe they wouldn't even switch sides until Avengers 2

You gotta think about these flicks in 3's nowadays. They aren't making films, they're making franchises.

In fact, Avengers 3 : SKRULLS LIKE A MUTHAFUCKA

Does Fox still have the X-Men license? They could be included.

Scarlett Witch = Abra-Ka-Debra

Quicksilver = Zippy Goldstein


See? Problem solved.

Well, okay... he can't remember where he put his keys anyway. It's still pretty tragic.

Then flip them for the 2nd movie.

will any of the newer cats be there? jessica? ronin? sentry?

it HAS to revolve around cap, iron man, and thor imo. i would save vision/sentry for later in the trilogy-movies like this aren't on offs.

i could care less about the auxiliary characters until you get to spidey and wolverine (and spidey with the iron man suite on film would be banoodles.)

Has continued existence is a brain-fart of epic proportions on Marvel's part. It's a very rare day when someone makes good use of him.

>will any of the newer cats be there? jessica? ronin?

I say for now they ignore Spider-Woman. Marvel is still figuring out what they want to do with her. I'd say keep her out of the movies for now. Ditto Ronin, they'd be better off going with Hawkeye.

>it HAS to revolve around cap, iron man, and thor imo.

I agree. Throw in Ant-Man/Giant Man and Wasp as well, a dsyfunctional married couple of super-heroes could be explored in an interesting way. Maybe Hawkeye and Vision later.


>i could care less about the auxiliary characters until you get
>to spidey and wolverine (and spidey with the iron man suite on
>film would be banoodles.)

It'd probably be better in the movies than it was in the comics.

>Has continued existence is a brain-fart of epic proportions
>on Marvel's part. It's a very rare day when someone makes good
>use of him.

i agree. his story doesn't really make much sense to me, the whole thing with the void is confusing. i "get it" but its poorly done and seems complex for complexities sake.

but the man took carnage into space and ripped him in half. he took hulk to the limit in world war hulk, which, lets face it, is pretty damn impressive.

i like the idea of the character though, the type of power he has is awesome, but the story behind it all is shit.

>>will any of the newer cats be there? jessica? ronin?
>
>I say for now they ignore Spider-Woman. Marvel is still
>figuring out what they want to do with her. I'd say keep her
>out of the movies for now. Ditto Ronin, they'd be better off
>going with Hawkeye.

i concur.

>>it HAS to revolve around cap, iron man, and thor imo.
>
>I agree. Throw in Ant-Man/Giant Man and Wasp as well, a
>dsyfunctional married couple of super-heroes could be explored
>in an interesting way. Maybe Hawkeye and Vision later.

meh....... if they are very minor characters, then i wouldn't mind. if thy play up ant mans genius, and use him with the intent of bringing ultron into play, then it could prove interesting and entertaining. depends on the type of movie they want to do though.

>It'd probably be better in the movies than it was in the
>comics.

yeah..... but it was dope within the context of that story

are on the producers radar whatsoever.

They'll use the established characters: Iron Man, Cap & Thor. Maybe add two more better known characters and call it a day. Probably close to Ultimates. They aren't going to cater to geeks enough to add characters nobody outside of comic readers have ever heard of.

The Avengers in the movie will be Thor, Cap, Iron Man, and that's it, unless they make Hulk an Avenger.

That's IT.

Otherwise you're spreading yourself way too thin character-wise.

>The Avengers in the movie will be Thor, Cap, Iron Man, and
>that's it, unless they make Hulk an Avenger.
>
>That's IT.
>
>Otherwise you're spreading yourself way too thin
>character-wise.


all good and well. we aren't doing the movie, now are we? so whats the problem with wondering aloud who ELSE might be in the film?

because it wont be just thor, cap, and iron man. it just isn't gonna be that way.

so if yuo don't like the fact that we are speculating on who else is gonna be in it, run along and stay out the board, because it's gonna happen, the same way the movie will feature more then the big three.

maybe your right though; what was i thinking? me wondering what the film makers are gonna do with it might actually lead to them overloading the movie with too many characters. this could actually happen and it would be my fault the movie sucked. right?

Listen, they're doing a good job of making movies so far. That wouldn't be good movie-making. It ain't rocket science.

You show me a good comic movie where there's more than two villains and more than three heroes with speaking parts. No, Blade 2 doesn't count. Speaking parts means more than two lines.

for marketing purposes. They'll want to offer something new and they own all of the characters anyways.

Who really wants characters like Hawkeye or Giant Man to be lead characters with extensive back stories anyways?

no, it's not happening. its gonna be cap, thor and iron man and a bunch of props. adding any other supporting characters will be bad movie making, see, and they make good movies. it's not rocket science.

why would they bother with minor, supporting characters? good movies never have those.

and people like it.
Also, they want to make movies that bring in audiences. Their quality is a secondary priority. See: Daredevil, Ghostrider, Spider-Man 3. Notice that serial hacks have their names attached to Captain America right now.

People would be upset if The Avengers were just 3 or 4 dudes. The Avengers are supposed to be epic. Not to mention execs will demand there be at least one female superhero. Black Widow would be a prime option there.

Edit: Saw this before your other post. My points still stand, on your side apparently comrade.

he really thinks that by us being geeked up fanboys salivating at this and doing what all fanboys do, which is discuss all the possibilities and theorize, dream, and wonder, it's the same thing as making the movie.

he thinks we are actually the ones making the movie, and he hopes that by telling us its a bad idea to add the extra characters, we'll heed his warning and agree to add no one but the big three.

nevermind that supporting characters will not take away from anything else if done right, especially in the context of sequels.

whatever though, that dude is delusional. too serious for this thread if you ask me.

I know you enjoy people putting things in your mouth, but it's not really what I'm into, so please stop that.

Thing is, you're not even speculating. Speculating is taking info that exists and trying to predict the next step based off of that. We have almost no info. What you're doing is imagining. I'm saying your ideas are stupid. Simple as that.

>Listen, they're doing a good job of making movies so far.
>That wouldn't be good movie-making. It ain't rocket science.

no, it wouldn't be. but quite OBVIOUSLY, people like to go that route. right? i mean, didnt batman forever and batman and robin have a gagillion characters? didnt spiderman 3?

yes, it isn't rocket science, correct you are. so quite obviously, others have gone that route. spiderman was 2-2 before, and so was batman, to a lesser degree. so at some point people deviate, right? there is an established track record of people doing such things, right? x men 1 and 2 already had character density that worked well and they got carried away in part 3, did they not? yeah. they did.

>You show me a good comic movie where there's more than two
>villains and more than three heroes with speaking parts.

what does this have to do with anything? when did i say it was a good idea to add more characters? i wondered who else they were gonna throw in the mix. thats it. cry about it.

you are waaaaaaaay over analyzing the whole thing. it was simple speculation to begin with. and whether you want to believe it or not, the avengers WILL have more then the big three. it will. period. doesn't mean they will be featured. doesn't mean they will be major characters. but there will be other characters.


>Blade 2 doesn't count. Speaking parts means more than two
>lines.

ok, x-1 and 2. again.

you just brought up the X-men movies to argue against my point. The only heroes that mattered in those movies were Wolverine, Prof X, and Jean Grae. You're supporting my point. You're gonna sit here and tell me that they did anything but piss people off with Storm and Cyclops? Hell, they used Cyclops so little that dude left the franchise to do...Superman Returns. So they killed him.

Homey.

Then you brought up Spider-man. Yeah, the Spider-man movies that fit with what I told you were good. The one that didn't was Spider-man 3.

I'm saying that they're not going to do it because they know it simply doesn't work. If they DO do it, it will be so limited that they could've just not done it in the first place. Yes, filmakers like to put in more characters to get the fanboys excited with the trailers, but then in the movie you see those fanboy characters only slightly more than you saw them in the preview. It just hasn't worked yet.

The best superhero movies work because we care about the characters. That's why in the origin movies we spend so much time with the hero before they don the costume, because a guy in a mask is a guy in a mask, but if we know the guy before the mask and outside of the mask, it's a different relationship. It's the difference between people that actually know Spider-man and others, such as the cops and JJJ.

If you spend five minutes on Hawkeye in an Avengers movie, then you've done a disservice to the fans because you didn't really get to show people the character properly. You've also done a disservice to the casual viewer, because that five minutes is precious in a action movie where you have to pack as much story in as possible, because there's going to be a lot of time where the story doesn't move because people are scrapping. Nobody wins. In comics it's different because if Iron Man pops into Thor for three pages, it's cool because we already know the chemistry. The casual viewer doesn't have that. It's not the same interaction between charaters, and it's not the same experience for the viewer.

So basically what I'm saying is this: All the best comic movies are the best because of certain common aspects, like how the characters are developed, the ease with which the viewer can suspend disbelief, the pacing, etc. A big part of Marvel having their own studio is so they can handle their own properties properly. I don't think they're going to make the regular mistakes that the studios have done, a big one being what we're talking about right now.

And I dunno about you, but a big part of why I'm so giddy that Iron Man came out the way it did is because I want the non-comic reading public to understand why us comic readers love these characters so much. The movies that have pulled that off well fall into what I'm telling you, and the movies that haven't pulled that off well mostly fall out of what I'm telling you.

So here ya go:

A few characters:
Spidey 1&2
Blade 1&2
Iron Man
Batman, Returns, Begins

A few more characters:
Spidey 3
Blade 3
Batman Forever, Robin
X-men 1,2,3

The proof is in the pudding, man. Yeah, X-men 1 was alright and 2 was dope, but the extra characters hurt the movies. Remember when everyone was giddy about everyone being in there? Then remember when everyone was irritated at the same characters that were preripheral? Remember when everyone was giddy about Sandman, Harry, AND Venom all gunning for Spider-man? Then, remember when Spider-man 3 CAME OUT?

i called the shit. Look up the posts. It's just pattern recognition. It's not even a creative matter, really.

A) Secondary characters are brought into the upcoming solo films.
B) The characters that already have their own films are put more into a secondary role in The Avengers because we already know who they are while new ones are brought in.
C) You can make a good superhero movie with loads of characters. It works in non-superhero movies already and this genre just hasn't hit that mark yet.
D) You accept that there is no way Marvel is going to miss out on making a shit load of money by not throwing more flashy characters into the thing even if they don't work out at all outside of making for a great trailer, or miss out on the possibility that these new characters can launch their own franchise afterwards.

>C) You can make a good superhero movie with loads of
>characters. It works in non-superhero movies already and this
>genre just hasn't hit that mark yet.

It's not like you couldn't do a Seven Samurai in tights. Couldn't you?

I think where we get caught up with this one is the idea of the 'origin story' - There seems to be this idea, and I don't know who's responsible for it really - that we can't watch a superhero flick until we know all of that superhero's background info. His secret identity, how he got his powers, etc. Obviously when you're dealing with multiple characters and a very limited time frame, this poses a problem.

It's a weird sort of standard that I don't see as distinctly in other genres.

and I can't really think of what the origin stories for the other Avengers are and I don't really care at all. Just throw in a nice flashback montage while Fury introduces Tony to all of them and it's done.

first, you're always going for a wide audience in superhero flicks, so you have to spoon-feed a lot of people so they understand why a character is the way they are. It's fundamental in how people relate to, and like (or dislike) a character. So yeah, you gotta spend a lot of time on that. Also, you have to actually care if this person lives or dies. In action movies, we've been trained to not give a crap unless we've spent a lot of time with the character. See: red-shirt Trek guys.

second,

...

aw crap, I forgot.

Spider-man is responsible. We didn't see Spidey really being Spidey until well into the flick, and it KILLED at the box office.

So spending 2 minutes per additional character's origin wouldn't be a big deal anyway.

Plus, there won't be origins. X2 proved you don't need them for all your characters to make it work.

>A) Secondary characters are brought into the upcoming solo
>films.

not bad, and they're already doing that with Thor in Iron Man 2.

>B) The characters that already have their own films are put
>more into a secondary role in The Avengers because we already
>know who they are while new ones are brought in.

Also not bad. Probably logistically sound, also.

>C) You can make a good superhero movie with loads of
>characters. It works in non-superhero movies already and this
>genre just hasn't hit that mark yet.

All I've been saying is that it hasn't happened yet. It may be possible, but it's gonna be tough to reconcile that idea with the things that have made the best superhero movies (up till now) so good.

>D) You accept that there is no way Marvel is going to miss out
>on making a shit load of money by not throwing more flashy
>characters into the thing even if they don't work out at all
>outside of making for a great trailer, or miss out on the
>possibility that these new characters can launch their own
>franchise afterwards.

I'm saying there's only so much money to be made, and that's based on repeat biz. If the movie sucks, it can make 100 mil first weekend and still be considered a flop and a failure. (Hulk, Superman Returns)

... coming out that is gonna be tied to Iron Man. Hulk is def gonna be in the Avengers movie from what they are telling us. And since Ant-Man is in development and he is ALSO a founding member of the Avengers, I am counting him in too. And since his wife is The Wasp, I can only assume she'll be in it too. It sounds like they are trying to stay true to the comic book and using The Ultimates as a template for the modern upgrading.

It's gonna be Iron Man, Captain America, Hulk, Ant-Man (or Giant Man), Wasp and Thor. I'd put money on it at this point.





http://www.avatarsdb.com/avatars/I_gotcha.gif
http://fuck-your.blogspot.com
http://www.myspace.com/insightclopediabrown
http://www.myspace.com/dumhi
http://www.youtube.com/group/okayplayer
http://www.last.fm/user/Dawgeatah

much better dynamic there.

i am not an ant man fan at all but i have come around to liking the idea of him and wasp as minor axillary characters.

I mean I'd prefer the Ant to the Giant, sure. But the cool and wacky thing about Hanky Pym is the way he kept using what was basically the same technology to become like 3 different superheroes. Would that confuse audiences? I dunno.

Why is everyone so down on Thor? I think this is probably the one with the greatest commercial appeal. Just imagine if they flipped it on some Narnia/Lord of the Rings tip. That joint could be hot!!!

Marvel seems to be going the 'shared universe' route with their movies, just as they do in the comics. So instead of a screen adaptation of Ragnarok, they're gonna have to sell us on Thor flying around Central Park and shit.

I bet they go back and forth somehow, with Loki messing with his head.

it's gonna be on some ghost rider shit, and so is ant man

Marvel is doing everything in-house now so that they can crossover movies and shit. So far they did good with Iron Man, so I can only hope they will get good writers and directors for the rest of the movies.

I think almost any material can be done well given the right cooks in the kitchen.


http://www.avatarsdb.com/avatars/I_gotcha.gif
http://fuck-your.blogspot.com
http://www.myspace.com/insightclopediabrown
http://www.myspace.com/dumhi
http://www.youtube.com/group/okayplayer
http://www.last.fm/user/Dawgeatah

a major part of iron mans endearing appeal was the casting and the freedom-and ability-to do so much improve.

and tell us why you think the movie will be similar to Ghost-Rider and Ant-man. What do you even know about the Ant-man movie, other than the director and tone of the flick? They haven't shot a single frame, and none of us has seen the script.

both films will be similar to ghost rider in that they won't be very good. thor COULD but i doubt it will.

i don't know any other parallels to the films; i just know that ant man won't work out well at all, and thor has the potential but will likely be a misstep. on paper neither looks very promising; who needs to see the script?

feel free to quote me when ant man comes out and is all kinds of lame. it is not a good character for a movie at all to me. i don't need a script or a screen shot to think that.

get smart is gonna be wack juice as well, sue me.

>on paper neither looks
>very promising; who needs to see the script?

"On paper"? There is no paper. It doesn't exist. All we have is: THERE WILL BE A THOR MOVIE. On what paper? I wanna see that paper.

I'm not saying either will be good. I'm not saying either will be bad. Know why? Because we have little to no info.

Like, ever. It's allegedly that good.

The point is that he is lame!
What are you not getting here?

As for Thor: Until we know the direction and the talent it's really a huge question mark. there are at least two very different versions in the comics.

guaranteed. watch. quote me or whatever and if this shit pops i'll eat my words. shit is not gonna be dope. it's gonna suck gargantuan donkey nuts to a rousing climax, apparently on the faces of those of you who seem convinced that its a good idea.

they've got excellent, fresh talent lined up on it and Marvel is showing they can laugh at themselves.
Sounds like a great idea to me.

Fuck the rest of that shit. LOL.

Fuck this Ant-Man shit

*edit*
I see Castro made almost the exact same post while I was working on this one.
__________________________________
http://reunionradio.blogspot.com/
May Artist of the Month: Alexander O'Neal

even supporting characters. those aren't allowed, even if vision is a minor character possibly setup for the inevitable sequel.

I'd like an old school Avengers, but it wouldn't necessarily have to be all OG members.

The thing is, regardless of how dope they cast it, there will be at least 100 muhffugs out there mad as hell that *their* Avenger got snubbed. Ridiculous but true.

P.S. If Triathlon isn't included I'm boycotting.

>The thing is, regardless of how dope they cast it, there will
>be at least 100 muhffugs out there mad as hell that *their*
>Avenger got snubbed. Ridiculous but true.

... the comic and have the OG line up. Vision, Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver can be in Avengers 2.




http://www.avatarsdb.com/avatars/I_gotcha.gif
http://fuck-your.blogspot.com
http://www.myspace.com/insightclopediabrown
http://www.myspace.com/dumhi
http://www.youtube.com/group/okayplayer
http://www.last.fm/user/Dawgeatah

>... the comic and have the OG line up. Vision, Scarlet Witch
>and Quicksilver can be in Avengers 2.
>
I could get with this
__________________________________
http://reunionradio.blogspot.com/
May Artist of the Month: Alexander O'Neal

like if they disregarded any sort of "comic continuity" and just made a kickass movie with Cap,Thor,Iron Man,Spidey,and Wolverine trying to stop a raging violent Hulk. Two hours nonstop, and stress the point that they're just as intelligent as they are powerful and also tease at some tension between the team and Fury by the end of it. Ultimately have it end with Hulk helping them out and they have to fight off like thirty five dozen tanks or some sh*t. just a fun story man, that's why Iron Man worked. Can you explain what an arc reactor is to me please? No, didn't think so, but were you entertained? Sh*t yea you were. I'm tellin you, if you go with that team you can't lose. or at least start the flick with Cap, Iron Man and Thor and then bring Wolverine and Spiderman in at the very very end like "no way"

B/c aren't Spidey and X-Men licenses owned by other companies?

That'd be dope though b/c Cap, Thor, Stark, Spidey, and Wolverine are the best of the best Avengers (or Marvel characters really) and them fighting Hulk would just be fuckin awesome.

work so well nowadays.

See: X2.

http://www.colonzone.org/prune-juice-constipation.php

Morbid but I'm just saying. Their fucked up relationship dynamic is what makes Hank Pym and Wasp interesting.



http://www.avatarsdb.com/avatars/I_gotcha.gif
http://fuck-your.blogspot.com
http://www.myspace.com/insightclopediabrown
http://www.myspace.com/dumhi
http://www.youtube.com/group/okayplayer
http://www.last.fm/user/Dawgeatah

if they want to take a few elements from The Ultimates like Cap's uniform or Fury, then ok. But this is about the Avengers, not the Ultimates.

As far as cast goes, no limited cast. A three hero team is for ish like Invaders. You gotta have the characters that are closely associated with the Avengers like Hawkeye or maybe Vision.

PLEASE! DONT!

i assume that's when the much anticipated squirrel girl feature drops.