AlexdeParis said:

That's wack!

The plus side of all these Marvel films being announced is that the price of my Marvel stock has gone up.

JerseyKRS said:

No, it isn't. Hank Pym = smartest man in Marvel (screw you, Reed Richards)

AlexdeParis said:

But Pym is a wife beater!

sextonseven said:

is the wasp going to be in the Avenger movie?

ehuffnsd said:

I don't see how an Ant-Man movie can be done without the Wasp. And she's the token female in the Avengers so her appearance is required I would think.

sextonseven said:

Hey, I never said he was perfect.
Besides, since when is smacking a wasp a crime? OK, bad joke.

JerseyKRS said:

it doesn't make sense to make a solo ant-man movie and not have it be about the current comic. he was never that popular of a character until this recent series, which now has a pretty strong cult buzz. i bet it will be based on the current series.

Anxiety said:

Eric O'Grady has never and will never be as popular as Hank Pym. The "current" series has already been cancelled just 11 or 12 issues into it. Apparently, the movie is about both Pym and Scott Lang, the second (and currently deceased) Ant-Man.

Wikipedia said:

Sounds great to me, at least.
[Edited 7/1/08 16:07pm]

AlexdeParis said:

No Wasp?

That's very interesting, but one minor annoyance for me is that Scott Lang will be a founding member of the movie Avengers. That's not right.

I sound like all those crazy fanboys that criticize every little fact that's different from the books.

sextonseven said:

I'm holding out hope she'll be a main character.


Hey, that would bother me, too. Immensely. I can't say I'm a big Lang fan. FWIW, I prefer Pym as Yellowjacket, so a change like that would be fine by me.

AlexdeParis said:

Who would be the Wasp in the movie? Would you still have Janet be Pym's wife in the 60s? Maybe Lang's daughter Stature could be the current Wasp. Y'know, something like she discovers Lang's shrinking formula and uses it on herself to help save the day in the last 15 minutes.

formatting
[Edited 7/1/08 16:26pm]

AlexdeParis said:[quote]

Anxiety said:

i think it sounds freakin weird, personally.

and i AGREE with you - i prefer the "classic" alter ego characters to the goldanged newfangled characterizations, but i think the new series and the popularity of its writing style would be more relevant to such a random marvel superhero film debut.

AlexdeParis said:

Prof X and Magneto were the shit. They couldn't have done them better plus grade A+ Actors.

I would dig a Magneto centered movie, he's always fascinated me.

ToraToraDreams said:

They ARE making a Magneto movie!..it just doesn't have a set release date or anything yet

ToraToraDreams said:

Co-sign! AFAIC, Magneto has long been the most fascinating and developed character in the X-Universe, which is quite unique.

AlexdeParis said:

They HAVE to. Thor's not Hulk-size, but he's still a big MFer(@ 6'6" in the comics). And he has a great collection of villains(Loki, Hela, Surtur, Ymir, the Midgard Serpent, Ulik, Absorbing Man, Ego, Kurse, the Wrecker, etc.). You could easily make this a three-hour movie. I'd love to an appearance by Beta Ray Bill.

Any of you Thor fans reading the current series? It's very good, and the female Loki is an interesting twist. Thor really laid the smackdown on Iron Man - damn!

And check out the current issue of 'ol Greenskin, where Thor takes on the Red Hulk.

kcwm said:

*hugs kcwm*

uPtoWnNY said:

i'm not a big Marvel fan but I do remember always liking Thor and enjoying the book. Maybe I should look up the new series.

Milty said:

It's interesting to say the least. After Ragnarok a few years ago, Asgard has been relocated to Oklahoma. It's funny seeing the locals interact with their new neighbors.

It has been rumoured for a while now that The Dark Kinight would blow everything out of the water. Since the press screening last week, The reports have cooborated this claim. Many have stated it to be the greatest film of its genre.. Others have likened it to The Godfather Pt11. Also, there has been talk of possible oscar nominations for Heath Ledger and the film itself. i for one can not wait to see this movie.

3121 said:

Damnit, I missed part 4 - 10.

calldapplwondery83 said:

you didn't miss much. too much CGI, and jar jar corleone was annoying as hell.

calldapplwondery83 said:

I wish I had missed part 3.

Anxiety said:

George Lucas

3121 said:

That's my question, though. What genre IS it? Because it doesn't seem like a superhero movie to me, which is fine. If it's something else, then great. I'll reserve judgement until I see it (which I'm eager to do), but my sense is that it isn't going to fulfill my personal requirements for a great superhero movie.

But then again, that's one of my problems with the way Batman has been portrayed on and off for decades, for the most part. They're tried every which way to hammer this pulp character into the superhero genre every which way they can and it usually comes off as unsatisfying. I'm fully prepared to regard this as an incredible film, but not as a great superhero movie.
[Edited 7/2/08 10:42am]

uPtoWnNY said:

Ant Man? Sounds like they stole my idea 4 Uncle Anti. WTH.....

errant said:

i think i may be part of a wavering minority here who really thinks tim burton hit it closest to a bullseye with his batman movies, especially the second one.

i guess my problem with the nolan batman movies is that they're being celebrated for being so "gritty" and "adult". that's all fine and well, but my big hang-up is, why should a comic book movie have to be "adult"? it's a comic book movie! it's a grown ass man running around in a mask chasing some fruitcake in a clown costume! there SHOULD be some whimsy in that!

i understand that batman has a very dark psychology to it, but there IS camp and there IS a storybook element to the characters, and....that's OKAY.

what i liked about batman returns was that there was a lot of pretty colors and funny shapes and crazy looking costumes and gadgets, but there was still an operatic darkness to it and the characters - even the good guy - were incredibly messed up people on the inside and informed WHY they were running around in masks in this crazy colorful whimsically dark world. it worked for me - a perfect balance of the childlike and the adult.

i don't want to see batman as dirty harry. i don't want to see the hulk as a nuanced psychodrama. if you can weave those elements in, then great, but when i hear "comic book movie" i want the fun of a comic book to smack me upside the head first, and then leave me walking out thinking about all the other interesting things they added to it. i still think "batman begins" was a yawn because they took batman out of his element, which is that of fun. it was an epic movie, but i did not think it was meant to be particularly fun.

but again, i know i'm not in the majority with this.

Anxiety said:

I agree with all of that.

I think my own reservations about the Nolan Batman franchise is that these really aren't great superhero movies and don't satisfy me on that level at all. There's no sense of wonder, I'm not awed by anything on the screen (so far). I don't get choked up seeing a dream come true like Nightcrawler bamfing around the White House or Peter Parker web-slinging through Manhattan for the first time.

These new Batman movies may be great movies, but they don't fill the qualifications for great superhero movies for me.

Anxiety said:

I'm with you in that minority (although I prefer the original Batman film over all others). The Scarecrow is what saved Batman Begins for me.