Anxiety said:

the best part would be that if it's done well, then they'll probably stop doing such poor characterizations in the comics. he's become the go-to deus ex machina that waves away a lot of plotholes or creates a lot more.

Milty said:

The more I see the less I like of this, the first immages that leaked looked like it was going to be a dark creepy joker filem, now it looks like a theme park ride

Am I the only person up in here that LOVES Thor? They could make that movie feel so damn epic.

ToraToraDreams said:

he better not look like that mangey shit they put in the hulk tv movie.

Anxiety said:

the guy they've rumoured to be Thor isn't even huge like Thor. Thor has to be a big ass mofo.




unless it's changed by this point, last heard it was this guy.



i don't know what is DC's problem but I dont know why they aren't making movies. I know a few of their characters are in development but it seems pretty quite on the news front.
I wonder if they are working on stuff but they want to make sure they do it right. I mean really, some of the Marvel films weren't really THAT great. in years to come, they'll look back on Iron Man and say well that was cool but it wasn't that epic.
[Edited 6/30/08 18:42pm]
[Edited 6/30/08 18:45pm]

Milty said:

DC aren't getting that many movies made because all of the characters are owned by AOL/Time-Warner, a large part of which is a movie studio. all of the DC characters' movies are going to be made by Warner Bros., and right now, they have plenty of other movies to put out. they will probably be developing more and more superhero projects in the coming years, but it isn't a huge priority for the movie studio when they've already got a lot of other stuff to choose from.

besides, outside of Superman and Batman, most of their big name characters don't really have any identifiable, cinematic themes to play up. unless they're all just action movies, which is fine i guess, but that's what given Marvel characters the edge over DC's ever since Marvel arrived on the scene in a big way in the 60's. DC's characters are usually just heroes that fight bad guys. there isn't a lot to be done, story-wise, with that kind of thing.
[Edited 6/30/08 19:05pm]

i thought they were talking about brad pitt playing thor?

still kind of a douchey choice, but i can see him making it work.

Anxiety said:

after Troy, Brad Pitt doesn't need to be going anywhere near a role like that ever again.

I heard rumors that the WWE wrestler Triple H has been considered for Thor, which would be very interesting considering the only other movie his been in was Blade 3 where he played a random vampire

ToraToraDreams said:

My second-favorite Avenger by far -- and dammit, my favorite is Ant-Man/Giant-Man/Goliath/Yellowjacket/Hank Pym! Cap isn't an original at all (his block of ice was discovered in Avengers #4, but he's an honorary founder as a replacement for the Hulk). The other founders: Thor, Ant-Man, Wasp, and Iron Man.

I still hold the first 2 Spider-Man movies as the gold standard, followed by the last 2 X-Men movies.

errant said:

are you suggesting that DC heroes' stories are not deep enough to make a feature film about?
If that is the case then you really need to go back and check out the Green Lantern/Green Arrow stories from 70s or look at the Shazam story. Homeless boy on crutches becomes a god. Wonder Woman, if done right, would be amazing! The Aquaman story is great - he's a king of an underwater kingdom, he gets dethroned and goes into exile, then he comes back and takes back his kingdom, his kid gets killed. Lots there to choose from.
Shit even a Zatanna film would be awesome.

Milty said:

i thought this said ZELAIRA film for a hot second and i was all

Anxiety said:

You just killed me a little on the inside.

Thor is HUGE and not...pretty! I don't wanna see no bunch of 13 year old girls shaking their pony tails around in the Cinema.

AlexdeParis said:

I don't know about them X-men movies, though. There was a lot potential with those that they didn't jump on. Urrr...X-men are MY BOYS (and Girls) and I just think they coulda done more with them. There's a lot they skirted over...
Oh, well. They were still fun movies, especially the second one.
There's always Wolverine.
[Edited 6/30/08 22:45pm]

ToraToraDreams said:

I don't know about them X-men movies, though. There was a lot potential with those that they didn't jump on. Urrr...X-men are MY BOYS (and Girls) and I just think they coulda done more with them. There's a lot they skirted over...
Oh, well. They were still fun movies, especially the second one.
There's always Wolverine.
[Edited 6/30/08 22:45pm]
[/quote]


yeah let's hope that Wolverine will be better.

ToraToraDreams said:

Eh, I think they struck a perfect balance. The first one wasn't great, but it was the first Marvel movie that didn't completely suck, which changed their fortunes tremendously. They managed to nail so many characters (particulary Magneto and Prof. X) and do an admirable job with so many others (Marvel Girl, Wolverine, Cyclops, Iceman, Mystique). Nightcrawlers assault on the White House and Magneto's escape from prison were perfect in every way. I wish we could've had more from my favorite X-Man, Colossus. I'll watch the Wolverine movie, but he is easily the most overrated X-Man and has never been a favorite of mine.
[Edited 7/1/08 7:54am]

Ant-Man is a fucking RIOT.

JerseyKRS said:

You mean the new one? I'm pretty sure the movie is going to be about the original, Hank Pym.

Milty said:

The first reviews (Rolling Stone etc.) say so. In fact, they're talking in nothing but superlatives about this movie.
This is from director Kevin Smith, for example:

“Without giving anything away, this is an epic film (and trust me: based on the sheer size and scope of the visuals and storytelling, that’s not an overstatement). It’s the “Godfather II” of comic book films and three times more earnest than “Batman Begins” (and fuck, was that an earnest film). Easily the most adult comic book film ever made. Heath Ledger didn’t so much give a performance as he disappeared completely into the role; I know I’m not the first to suggest this, but he’ll likely get at least an Oscar nod (if not the win) for Best Supporting Actor. Fucking flick’s nearly three hours long and only leaves you wanting more (in a great way). I can’t imagine anyone being disappointed by it. Nolan and crew have created something close to a masterpiece.”

calldapplwondery83 said:

I'm optimistic, but cautiously so. I found Batman Begins to be severely overrated. I thought it was very slow to get going and I didn't like Christian Bale in the role as much as I thought I would. Still, there were a lot of bright spots (although I hate that damn tumbler).

calldapplwondery83 said:

wow. that just got me really f-ing excited.

Milty said:

Ok, so one more, the one from RS. Very slightly spoilerish, but not too much:





Heads up: a thunderbolt is about to rip into the blanket of bland we call summer movies. The Dark Knight, director Christopher Nolan's absolute stunner of a follow-up to 2005's Batman Begins, is a potent provocation decked out as a comic-book movie. Feverish action? Check. Dazzling spectacle? Check. Devilish fun? Check. But Nolan is just warming up. There's something raw and elemental at work in this artfully imagined universe. Striking out from his Batman origin story, Nolan cuts through to a deeper dimension. Huh? Wha? How can a conflicted guy in a bat suit and a villain with a cracked, painted-on clown smile speak to the essentials of the human condition? Just hang on for a shock to the system. The Dark Knight creates a place where good and evil — expected to do battle — decide instead to get it on and dance. "I don't want to kill you," Heath Ledger's psycho Joker tells Christian Bale's stalwart Batman. "You complete me." Don't buy the tease. He means it.

The trouble is that Batman, a.k.a. playboy Bruce Wayne, has had it up to here with being the white knight. He's pissed that the public sees him as a vigilante. He'll leave the hero stuff to district attorney Harvey Dent (Aaron Eckhart) and stop the DA from moving in on Rachel Dawes (feisty Maggie Gyllenhaal, in for sweetie Katie Holmes), the lady love who is Batman's only hope for a normal life.

Everything gleams like sin in Gotham City (cinematographer Wally Pfister shot on location in Chicago, bringing a gritty reality to a cartoon fantasy). And the bad guys seem jazzed by their evildoing. Take the Joker, who treats a stunningly staged bank robbery like his private video game with accomplices in Joker masks, blood spurting and only one winner. Nolan shot this sequence, and three others, for the IMAX screen and with a finesse for choreographing action that rivals Michael Mann's Heat. But it's what's going on inside the Bathead that pulls us in. Bale is electrifying as a fallibly human crusader at war with his own conscience.

I can only speak superlatives of Ledger, who is mad-crazy-blazing brilliant as the Joker. Miles from Jack Nicholson's broadly funny take on the role in Tim Burton's 1989 Batman, Ledger takes the role to the shadows, where even what's comic is hardly a relief. No plastic mask for Ledger; his face is caked with moldy makeup that highlights the red scar of a grin, the grungy hair and the yellowing teeth of a hound fresh out of hell. To the clown prince of crime, a knife is preferable to a gun, the better to "savor the moment."

The deft script, by Nolan and his brother Jonathan, taking note of Bob Kane's original Batman and Frank Miller's bleak rethink, refuses to explain the Joker with pop psychology. Forget Freudian hints about a dad who carved a smile into his son's face with a razor. As the Joker says, "What doesn't kill you makes you stranger."

The Joker represents the last completed role for Ledger, who died in January at 28 before finishing work on Terry Gilliam's The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus. It's typical of Ledger's total commitment to films as diverse as Brokeback Mountain and I'm Not There that he does nothing out of vanity or the need to be liked. If there's a movement to get him the first posthumous Oscar since Peter Finch won for 1976's Network, sign me up. Ledger's Joker has no gray areas — he's all rampaging id. Watch him crash a party and circle Rachel, a woman torn between Bale's Bruce (she knows he's Batman) and Eckhart's DA, another lover she has to share with his civic duty. "Hello, beautiful," says the Joker, sniffing Rachel like a feral beast. He's right when he compares himself to a dog chasing a car: The chase is all. The Joker's sadism is limitless, and the masochistic delight he takes in being punched and bloodied to a pulp would shame the Marquis de Sade. "I choose chaos," says the Joker, and those words sum up what's at stake in The Dark Knight.

The Joker wants Batman to choose chaos as well. He knows humanity is what you lose while you're busy making plans to gain power. Every actor brings his A game to show the lure of the dark side. Michael Caine purrs with sarcastic wit as Bruce's butler, Alfred, who harbors a secret that could crush his boss's spirit. Morgan Freeman radiates tough wisdom as Lucius Fox, the scientist who designs those wonderful toys — wait till you get a load of the Batpod — but who finds his own standards being compromised. Gary Oldman is so skilled that he makes virtue exciting as Jim Gordon, the ultimate good cop and as such a prime target for the Joker. As Harvey tells the Caped Crusader, "You either die a hero or you live long enough to see yourself become a villain." Eckhart earns major props for scarily and movingly portraying the DA's transformation into the dreaded Harvey Two-Face, an event sparked by the brutal murder of a major character.

No fair giving away the mysteries of The Dark Knight. It's enough to marvel at the way Nolan — a world-class filmmaker, be it Memento, Insomnia or The Prestige — brings pop escapism whisper-close to enduring art. It's enough to watch Bale chillingly render Batman as a lost warrior, evoking Al Pacino in The Godfather II in his delusion and desolation. It's enough to see Ledger conjure up the anarchy of the Sex Pistols and A Clockwork Orange as he creates a Joker for the ages. Go ahead, bitch about the movie being too long, at two and a half hours, for short attention spans (it is), too somber for the Hulk crowd (it is), too smart for its own good (it isn't). The haunting and visionary Dark Knight soars on the wings of untamed imagination. It's full of surprises you don't see coming. And just try to get it out of your dreams.

Milty said:

That pic reminds of the hole left by the first plane that struck the North tower of the World Trade Center... I work 6 blocks from where the towers use to be

he was great in Rome

ehuffnsd said:

and Journeyman

AlexdeParis said:

i haven't seen that. i just finised watching both seasons of Rome on Sunday I'm in love with that show. i wish there was a third season.

calldapplwondery83 said:

well they certainly make it sound like a great film. what i'm worried about is whether or not it's a great superhero film. of course by the character's nature, it can get away with a high level of grim, grittiness. but you know, i want to have fun too. as good a movie as Batman Begins was, i think my (slight) problem with it and why i don't count it among the best superhero movies is because it was lacking something.... the fun. or a sense of awe and wonder. though i did like it a great deal.
[Edited 7/1/08 12:21pm]

banks said:

my girlfriend works at a gym right around the corner from Ground Zero too.

errant said:

yeah but Batman was never meant to be "fun". right from the start in 1939, it was a dark story compared to even Superman's story.
the story did go campy in the 60s but after it reverted back to the dark stuff. Besides we all know what happened when they injected "fun" into a Batman film and we got George Clooney and whatever that guy's name was who played Robin air-gliding thru the sky.

ehuffnsd said:

I happen to think he'd be a great Thor. Who cares if he doesn't suit the larger frame of the comic hero; neither did Hugh Jackman and he did fine as Wolverine.

He can turn it on from noble to sinister, as Rome proved.



And again, I got love for Thor.

namepeace said:

Well, that's a little different. Jackman was much too tall to be Wolverine, but Logan's runt status is inarguably secondary to his ferocity and claws. Thor's stature is directly linked to his regal aura. They'd have a very hard time getting away with a puny god.


Yes, but I still think they'd have to do something visually to make him larger than life.


Aye!