So following on from the news of Raimi and Maguire leaving the Spidey Franchise, I fancied a chinwag about what people feels makes a Super Hero film really enjoyable, and what absolutely breaks them.

To start, I'll go with the aforementioned Spiderman franchise. First two films (much like X-Men) were fantastic fun. Single Villain vs Single Hero, allowing for decent character development and a respective plot building. X1 and X2 were highly enjoyable films, as the actors playing the characters (barring Halle Bloody Berry as Storm) were well cast, and seemed to genuinely enjoy their roles (Hugh Jackman in particular made a really good Wolverine IMHO). But both franchises stumbled heavily on the third outings. Spiderman 3 simply had too many bad guys in it. To my mind, only Batman Returns pulled this off, mainly thanks to an excellent cast. So whilst we know who Spidey is, and Sandman was covered fairly well, I found Venom weak as Kittens Piss, due to a total lack of investigation as to what exactly the Symbiote was. I know, because I kind of try to follow Spiderman Comics, but the general viewing public? Probably quite baffled by it.

So what do you think Dakka? Are there common hallmarks of a good Super Hero film, or does it vary from flick to flick?

The best one was Dare Devil... Basically a blind man kicking arse majorly.

G

Really? That's one of the ones I think really stunk. THough to be fair, I'm not terribly familiar with the main character, and I think Ben Affleck is a crap actor.

I liked all three X-Men, but I didn't really like Spiderman 2. Doc Oc was the only good part about the movie.

I thought Daredevil was okay. Batman Begins and The Dark Knight were both quite good. The Watchmen was decent (it seemed a little cramped). The latest Superman was awful, as was Catwoman. The Incredible Hulk wasn't very good (was there a sequel to it? If so I didn't see that one), but Iron Man was.

I can't think of any others I've seen.

Sticking to the comics is the first thing that comes to mind for me.

I like it when they pay attention to established stuff, but don't feel shackled to it.

Take the latest Star Trek film (a slight digression I know, but bare with). In resetting the Time Line, JJ Abrams has given himself breathing space for the second and subsequent films. This is a master stroke, as he doesn't have to worry and double check what has gone before. But at the same time, he made sure to put references in that long time Fans will appreciate (the Kvashimaru thing, where Kirk cheated the test is a good exampe) without feeling pandered to.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:To my mind, only Batman Returns pulled this off, mainly thanks to an excellent cast.

That was a major weak spot for me actually. I thought two-face was a borderline 'throw another villian for 2X the ACTION (echo!)' addition to the movie.

Check out this monkey though...

So whilst we know who Spidey is, and Sandman was covered fairly well, I found Venom weak as Kittens Piss, due to a total lack of investigation as to what exactly the Symbiote was. I know, because I kind of try to follow Spiderman Comics, but the general viewing public? Probably quite baffled by it.

General viewing public...

So what do you think Dakka? Are there common hallmarks of a good Super Hero film, or does it vary from flick to flick?

It really varies from film to film. I can't imagine a practical way to classify what actually made the first two Spiderman movies good, same with X-men. Understandable characters make a pretty big difference in my mind though. I am really looking forward to Iron Man 2, I hope it will rock my fragile mind.

Not the one with Two Face, the one with Penguin and Catwoman (pretty sure it was Batman Returns?)

But I do share similar hopes for Iron Man 2. Again, Robert Downey Jr was perfectly cast in that role, much as I find Christian Bale (less growling next time though) makes a good Batman. His Bruce Wayne reminds me of his Patrick Batemen, which I feel fits nicely with the overall darker theme. He's taken Bruce Wayne from a philanthropist, to a complete bellend.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: I found Venom weak as Kittens Piss

Raimi had zero interest in doing Venom but Sony forced him in. Raimi doesn't like the character. Big shock that he didn't play well in the movie.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Not the one with Two Face, the one with Penguin and Catwoman (pretty sure it was Batman Returns?)

You were/are right. Batman Returns is correct. Batman Forever *shudder* is the one with something resembling Two-Face.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Not the one with Two Face, the one with Penguin and Catwoman (pretty sure it was Batman Returns?)

For some reason I was thinking of The Dark Knight...

Batman Returns was directed by Tim Burton, there is very little that can go wrong there. The whole cast was phenomenal, and this cover explains (in detail) how much awesome is actually contained in this film.



If I remember correctly though, there really was no use of any penguin special forces... soooo... that was a letdown.

Oh well, check out these marching penguins.

Obsolete comment.

I still haven't seen Hancock. Where have I been?

A good superhero flick must contain Asterix and Obelix, all other factors are irrelevant.

I can count the superhero flicks I like on one hand.

First and foremost story is the most important thing. TBH I really enjoyed 90% of all super hero movies, since the new millenium, that have come out starting with the blade series.

And yes I liked Daredevil and the first Hulk movie. I also liked Spiderman-3,Xmen-3 and Ghostrider, even though I know a lot of people didn't.

Corny endings and shortcuts can make a movie bad. This almost happened for me with the first hulk with the absorbing man ending, but I really enjoyed Ang lees approach to making the film.

The superman and Batman reboots haven't really done it for me though. I did enjoy the two new batman films, but wasn't overly "wowed" like I was for Spiderman-2 and Iron Man.

My top ten List

1-IronMan
2-SpiderMan 2
3-X-men 1
4-Spiderman 1
5-X-men 2
6-Batman(1989)
7-Batman Begins
8-Ghost Rider
9-Fantastic Four
10-X-men 3

GG

edit..forgot the Watchmen..throw it in as my honorable mention

As others have said - maintaining loyalty to the "canon" of the comic does wonders.

Appropriate casting is also a huge necessity, as a block-buster name actor can't necessarily fit the role appropriately (eg: Halle Barry as Storm, Topher Grace as Eddie Brock/Venom, Jessica Alba as Invisible Woman, Arny as Mr. Freeze). Proper casting for even the smallest characters can do wonders (JK Simmons as J Jonah Jameson remains a highlight of the Spider-Man series and Jackie Earle Haley as Rorschach in The Watchmen).

Non-overcomplicated - usually, they try to draw in more numbers by including more and more fan favorite characters, which tends to lead to a dilution of plot. Part of the issues with the first and third X-men movies is that they tried introduce too many characters, for instance (first one by nature had to deal with introducing all the characters, third one just tried adding too many new ones). The later non-Nolan Batmans suffered from this as well.

Action! Ultimately, we want to see the super-heroes kicking ass. Character development is nice and all, but we don't want to see our heroes being all weepy and stalkerish (Superman, I'm looking at you) or turning all emo (Spidey). The first Hulk movie suffered from this a lot since most of it dealt with his internal issues with relatively low amount of action (though to be honest, I liked the movie a lot, personally).

A worthwhile villain - it's hard to care about a movie if the bad guy sucks so much that you don't really care. You can't make them too cheesy (Batman Forever, Batman and Robin, Bullseye in Daredevil), you can't have a stupid "world conquering plan" (Kevin Spacey - love him, but real-estate plot was dumb), and you can't have them with basically no real motivation (Elektra).

In the end, you're left with only a handful of super-hero movies that are actually quite good (my opinions, only):
X-men 2, Spider-Man 2, Iron Man, Batman Begins and Dark Knight, Watchmen, Blade, Batman (Michael Keaton), Batman Returns

A bunch that are decent:
X-men 1, Spider-Man 1, Incredible Hulk (personal opinion, most hate it), Superman (plot sucked, casting was otherwise great, imo), Blade 2, Batman Forever

And a lot of rubbish:
Blade 3, X-men 3, Spider-Man 3, Batman & Robin, X-men Origins: Wolverine, Elektra, Daredevil, Ghost Rider, Both Fantastic Four, Catwoman (ugh, just ugh)

One last note: if it's a movie involving a group of heroes, don't for the love of god keep focusing on the "most popular" one - it gets old after 2 movies (Wolverine, I'm lookin' at you).

My 2 cents.

Dont bother with Hancock - great idea, great cast - empty film. Nothing in the movie grabbed me in or interested me in any way - and Im not a fussy movie watcher.

Fair point about Wolvie!

As for the first Hulk film (Ang Lee) I enjoyed it as a film (even if the size of Hulk seemed to vary depending on just what he was walloping at that point) but not as a Hulk film. I want to see Bruce Banner worrying about turning, and Hulk smashing stuff. Ang Lee was essentially wasted on it in my opinion, as his stuff usually has a distinct edge to it.

But I loved The Incredible Hulk, as it got across that Banner doesn't really enjoy his life, is actively seeking a cure, but part of him needs Hulk.

I guess for me it's all down to how well you can relate to your characters. Hulk and Wolverine for example, work as comic book characters because to a degree, people associate with them. Nobody really likes to lose their temper, but almost everyone gets some sort of rush as the fight instinct kicks in. Easy to get across in a work of literacy, as you can have the inner thoughts mixed in with the violence, whereas it takes a bit of forethought and character building in a movie or play to achieve the same thing.

Jin wrote:One last note: if it's a movie involving a group of heroes, don't for the love of god keep focusing on the "most popular" one - it gets old after 2 movies (Wolverine, I'm lookin' at you).

You're also looking at Jack Sparrow. When that scene in At World's End had twenty different "Jack Sparrows" in it - for no fething reason at all - almost shot myself.

As for the focussing on a single character, I guess that's largely unavoidable. After all, Wolverine is popular for a reason, and was so before the film, so to marginalise him would have been worse.

Oh, and also, I think it was Nightcrawler that really made X-2, and the thought that went into his character was sorely and noticably missing from X-3. From his combat, to his demeanour, everything seemed very right with the Elf. But compare to say Juggernaught. Love Vinnie Jones, really quite like him as an actor, but the role was wrong for him. End of the day, all he did was say a crap one liner, smack Wolverine around, say another crap one liner, and run into a wall. I'd have preferred such a cool character to be more central, rather than 'we need a hardcase, lets use him, he seems popular'. Marvel have a wide gamut of characters for such things (lots of throw away hardmen) so it was a bad call all round.

Thank god we got an A-Team movie coming soon!

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:even if the size of Hulk seemed to vary depending on just what he was walloping at that point

The angrier the Hulk gets, the bigger he gets. This is in the comic.

Ah fair enough. Didn't feel it worked all that well in the Movie, as it wasn't really mentioned. Wasn't sure on this myself, so all I saw was inconsistent CGI.

Does Constantine count?

I like the movie, but the thing about it that grabbed me the most was how they portrayed hell.

Drk_Oblitr8r wrote:Does Constantine count?

Don't get my Hellblazer reading friends started on this.

Something about a brunette American portraying a blonde Brit...

Rachel Weisz was born in London.

dogma wrote:Rachel Weisz was born in London.

lolwut?

Gratz on missing what I was talking about(Constantine is blonde and British in the comics).

Hmm, I guess I don't discuss the color of male hair very often.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Ah fair enough. Didn't feel it worked all that well in the Movie, as it wasn't really mentioned. Wasn't sure on this myself, so all I saw was inconsistent CGI.

The Hulk was not a very good flick IMO.

They could have clearly portrayed that the Hulk was angrier, thus larger, but they chose to gloss over it. Color tone changes as well if I am not mistaken, and I am quite sure they did not show that in the movie either.

So yeah, it just came across as badly planned CGi. I really like the Hulk as a character, and the movie did not tone his anger very thoroughly. I don't care why he is angry, I just want to see him be angry. I would however, like to have been shown how he gets larger with increasing rage though...

The Hulk is awesome because he is just a big, green, ball of rage. Not because he is a particularly interesting protagonist. His initial background is just not very compelling, his raw rage is awesome though.

Platuan4th wrote:

Drk_Oblitr8r wrote:Does Constantine count?

Don't get my Hellblazer reading friends started on this.

Something about a brunette American portraying a blonde Brit...

Didn't they mention the movie in one of the novels?

"The novel Hellblazer: War Lord by John Shirley (author of the novelisation of the movie) features Constantine talking about "another John Constantine in an alternate universe, [who] has black hair and lives most of his life in Los Angeles" whilst giving a brief summary of the movie's plot."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Constantine#Film_adaptation

I absolutely loved both of the Christian Bale Batman films.

Other than that, I'm not a huge superhero/comic fan - although I used to love the Daredevil comics. The film was a bit of a letdown though.

Albatross wrote:I absolutely loved both of the Christian Bale Batman films.

Other than that, I'm not a huge superhero/comic fan - although I used to love the Daredevil comics. The film was a bit of a letdown though.

Agreed concerning both Christian Bale/Batman films.
Also agreed concerning the Daredevil film,wich was disapointing considering I was also a huge Daredevil fan,I always felt that since the film makers decided to depict the Bullseye/death of Elektra element into the movie,it would have been much better had they followed the comic closer,the story (in the comic) was great,on film,meh.

Other movies I enjoyed
Iron Man
Spider Man 1 & 2
Fantastic Four
X Men 1&2

Films I'd love to see.
A properly done Daredevil
Deathlock,the Demolisher (look it up if your unfamilar)

FITZZ wrote:

Albatross wrote:I absolutely loved both of the Christian Bale Batman films.

Other than that, I'm not a huge superhero/comic fan - although I used to love the Daredevil comics. The film was a bit of a letdown though.

Agreed concerning both Christian Bale/Batman films.
Also agreed concerning the Daredevil film,wich was disapointing considering I was also a huge Daredevil fan,I always felt that since the film makers decided to depict the Bullseye/death of Elektra element into the movie,it would have been much better had they followed the comic closer,the story (in the comic) was great,on film,meh.

Watch the DVD Commentary, it's very telling that they wanted to do a different movie(what with the director constantly saying stuff like "When we did this scene, I kept thinking about how Batman would have done this").

Wrexasaur wrote:

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Ah fair enough. Didn't feel it worked all that well in the Movie, as it wasn't really mentioned. Wasn't sure on this myself, so all I saw was inconsistent CGI.

The Hulk was not a very good flick IMO.

They could have clearly portrayed that the Hulk was angrier, thus larger, but they chose to gloss over it. Color tone changes as well if I am not mistaken, and I am quite sure they did not show that in the movie either.

They didn't gloss over it, they just didn't take a crayon and spell it out in capitol letters. Once again Lee may have failed by assuming the audience would pick up on cinematic cues instead o having to spell it out explicitly. Hulk only changes skin tone when he changes personalities. It would have been a radically different Hulk and a bit much to squeeze into the movie.

The way I understood Daredevil is that it was another studio interference situation. The directors vision was a little to grim-dark. If it had been release after The Dark Knight he might have been able to get away with it.

Speaking of Super Hero movies,do any of you guys remember the old made for TV Captian America movies from the late 70's early 80's staring Reb Brown....WOW,they were some kind of awful...even Christopher Lee couldn't help them.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
And let's not forget this little gem...

You forgot the Electric Company version of Spider-Man.

The key for me is that the movie has to have a good solid script ans stick to being a singular vision of what the story and interactions between the heroes and the villains are.

I say singular vision because (at least) 3 of the films mentioned in this thread have been severely negatively impacted by the studios making demands of the directors or writers. (Sony insisting that Venom be in Spidey 3, the director/studio clusterfethery that was X3/Superman Returns, and some of the issues with Daredevil)

That said, I'm not a big comics person (I just read Batman comics and for some reason have ended up hooked on DC's Blackest Night Event) so faithfulness to the comics isn't a major issue with me.

I also have fairly low standards for big dumb movies to impress me. I mean, I'm on record as loving the hell out of Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen, I enjoyed the Ghost Rider movie and I can even sit through Batman & Robin without gnawing out my own eyeballs...

Edit: Profanity

I'm really shocked that no-one's mentioned Punisher.

Lordhat wrote:I'm really shocked that no-one's mentioned Punisher.

Didn't like the comic or the movies.

GG

Thomas Jane was a great pick for the part but they never get the screenplay right. Either they make it to kiddie friendly by going for a PG-13 or crap out on the story and go all violence. Needs an R with a story.

Ahtman wrote:Needs an R with a story.

The 1989 movie had an R rating with a story.

Not a good story, but it had a story.

Punisher III was awesome... Extremely graphic violent movie.

The thing about DD is first i think Affleck did a good job portraying the character if you have actually read most any of the comics. It's meant to be a dark film. Here is the story of a young boy who loses his sight in a tragic accident then later loses his beloved father. Instead of throwing in the towel he transforms himself into an elite crime fighter. I love the scene with Elektra where they basically test each other to see who is the best. This is one of those films I can watch over and over again. I love people who stay on top despite being surrounded by tradegy and prevail. DD is such a bad arse that common criminals greatly fear him. He has no super powers and is basically the Marvel version of the Batman with a bit of a dark twist to it. You really need to read the comics if you want to understand his character. The movie did not gross well at the box office but it was still an excellent movie nonetheless.

G

Superhero movies are fundamentally the same as any other action movie. You need a script that quickly and efficiently established the theme, gives context to the action scenes, and gives us some fun if superficial good guys and bad guys. Then you need good action scenes, especially the climax.

The possible exception to this The Dark Knight, which plays out like more of a thriller than an action movie.


I think Iron Man, the first two X-Men movies, Batman, Batman Begins, The Dark Knight and Spiderman are all excellent movies. Most of the others have problems as action movies and this results in them being bad superhero movies.

Ahtman wrote:The way I understood Daredevil is that it was another studio interference situation. The directors vision was a little to grim-dark. If it had been release after The Dark Knight he might have been able to get away with it.

The issue wasn't that there was no Dark Knight, it was that there was a Spiderman.

The idea and original script was grimmer, more violent movie, targeted at a more mature audience, with a much smaller production budget. Then Spiderman became a runaway hit and the studio revised the Daredevil concept, looking to turn it into a blockbuster. They took the edge off the script to access a teen audience and piled in the money for big name stars and more special effects.

Lordhat wrote:I'm really shocked that no-one's mentioned Punisher.

The problem with any Punisher movie is that making it into a movie defeats the original premise. The concept for The Punisher comics are to take a standard 80s action movie and put it in the medium of comics. Turning it back into a movie removes the idea that made it interesting and means you end up with just another action movie.

Platuan4th wrote:

Ahtman wrote:Needs an R with a story.

The 1989 movie had an R rating with a story.

Not a good story, but it had a story.

I meant a good story. The last one was crazy violent but had no real story to speak of.

sebster wrote:

Ahtman wrote:The way I understood Daredevil is that it was another studio interference situation. The directors vision was a little to grim-dark. If it had been release after The Dark Knight he might have been able to get away with it.

The issue wasn't that there was no Dark Knight, it was that there was a Spiderman.

That is why it needed to come out after Dark Knight. Studios would have been easier to sell on a film being a much darker tone and that they didn't have to be like Spider-man.

I enjoyed Unbreakable.

/ducks

malfred wrote:I enjoyed Unbreakable.

/ducks

I enjoyed Mystery Men.

Platuan4th wrote:

malfred wrote:I enjoyed Unbreakable.

/ducks

I enjoyed Mystery Men.

/highfives

What about Sky High? That was fun.

malfred wrote:

Platuan4th wrote:

malfred wrote:I enjoyed Unbreakable.

/ducks

I enjoyed Mystery Men.

/highfives

What about Sky High? That was fun.

Meh. It's no Zoom

Ahtman wrote:That is why it needed to come out after Dark Knight. Studios would have been easier to sell on a film being a much darker tone and that they didn't have to be like Spider-man.

True, or before Spiderman, when a superhero movie might have been conceived as something other than a summer blockbuster.

sebster wrote:

Ahtman wrote:That is why it needed to come out after Dark Knight. Studios would have been easier to sell on a film being a much darker tone and that they didn't have to be like Spider-man.

True, or before Spiderman, when a superhero movie might have been conceived as something other than a summer blockbuster.

Yar

I'm surprised no one has mentioned the Nick Fury movie, with David Hasselhoff as Nick Fury.

Ironhide wrote:I'm surprised no one has mentioned the Nick Fury movie, with David Hasselhoff as Nick Fury.

Thanks, I just vomited thanks to remembering that...

Jalapeno chips and queso do NOT taste better the second time around.

They are making a Nick Fury film at the moment aren't they?

I echo the Daredevil sentiment - the comics are waaaaay darker than the film turned out. The setting's pretty bleak - I always saw DD and Batman as two peas in a pod really.

@Lordhat - Woah! Isn't that the bloke from 'Hung'? HE was The Punisher? Jesus.

Platuan4th wrote:

malfred wrote:I enjoyed Unbreakable.

/ducks

I enjoyed Mystery Men.

i enjoyed Bloodrayne.

am i doing it right?

I'll be honest, I'm glad the pendulum has shifted back to sci fi. Most of the comic book movies have been drek (Nicholas Cage anyone?) with a few gems. For a time it looked like half the year was taken up by bad comic films.

Would Sin City have classed as a comic? Loved it. Also the Lee Hulk film was intense in that it attempted to marry a different cinematic style of comic films, and potentially go deeper.

And Mystery Men rocked. The Shoveler is the greatest super hero of all time. ALL TIME I TELL YOU!!!

Frazzled wrote:And Mystery Men rocked. The Shoveler is the greatest super hero of all time. ALL TIME I TELL YOU!!!

Classic line from the movie.

The Shoveller: Lucille, God gave me a gift. I shovel well. I shovel very well.
Lucille: Honey, you shovel better than any man I've ever known

GG

generalgrog wrote:Corny endings and shortcuts can make a movie bad. This almost happened for me with the first hulk with the absorbing man ending, but I really enjoyed Ang lees approach to making the film.

I'm with ya on that one, grog. I think the Lee film was flawed and that he blew it with the AM ending, but he at least tried to make Hulk a movie with some style and depth. I mean, he actually tried to answer the question "why is the Hulk so freaking angry?" The Norton film was back to being the typical brain candy you expect from a superhero flick. Yeah, Hulk smashes...and it's all instantly forgettable.

IMO, what makes a good comic book film is what makes a good FILM...good story, good script, good actors, good direction. Fans think studios should stick to the material and hold up the latest Batman films as an example, but IMO they're completely wrong. Comic book material is cheesy as heck. Directors and writers should feel free to veer from that material as needed in the name of keeping things grounded and real. Batman Begins and The Dark Knight were NOT canon, but what they did was get the four "goods" listed above in place, then got the overall mood right and sprinkled in just enough nods to the real Batman nerds out there. That's the formula, IMO.

Captain America has the potential to be right there with The Dark Knight as the greatest comic book movie ever made. You take a grounded, gritty, yet smaltzy in spots approach --- Saving Private Ryan meets Batman Begins meets Rocketeer -- and you'd have yourself a winner. But I really fear that it's gonna end up a cheesy stinker along the lines of the Norton Hulk movie.

@malfred -- Unbreakable was IMO M. Night's best film, and I still wonder if the blah response to it got sent him into the death spiral his career's been in since. Unbreakable is so understated -- from the direction to the performances -- that I think people just overlooked it even as they were watching it.

Right now hte Red Skull has taken over Captain America's body... Ed Brubaker should be hung by his nads!!!

G

Don't forget:


One of my favorite newcomers during the "Death of Superman" saga. And they completely wiped their asses with the character.

Also couldn't stand the Spawn movie. John Leguizamo was outstanding as the Clown, but other than that the movie was far too hollywood. The cartoon was light-years better.

gorgon wrote:Captain America has the potential to be right there with The Dark Knight as the greatest comic book movie ever made. You take a grounded, gritty, yet smaltzy in spots approach --- Saving Private Ryan meets Batman Begins meets Rocketeer -- and you'd have yourself a winner. But I really fear that it's gonna end up a cheesy stinker along the lines of the Norton Hulk movie.

Yes remember the Captain America movie that came out during the late 80's, early 90's? what a piece of trash that movie was.

Cap has always been my favorite, and the character deserves a great film. I can't wait until the solo movie and the Avengers films are out.

GG

sebster wrote:Superhero movies are fundamentally the same as any other action movie. You need a script that quickly and efficiently established the theme, gives context to the action scenes, and gives us some fun if superficial good guys and bad guys. Then you need good action scenes, especially the climax.

The possible exception to this The Dark Knight, which plays out like more of a thriller than an action movie.


I think Iron Man, the first two X-Men movies, Batman, Batman Begins, The Dark Knight and Spiderman are all excellent movies. Most of the others have problems as action movies and this results in them being bad superhero movies.

Ahtman wrote:The way I understood Daredevil is that it was another studio interference situation. The directors vision was a little to grim-dark. If it had been release after The Dark Knight he might have been able to get away with it.

The issue wasn't that there was no Dark Knight, it was that there was a Spiderman.

The idea and original script was grimmer, more violent movie, targeted at a more mature audience, with a much smaller production budget. Then Spiderman became a runaway hit and the studio revised the Daredevil concept, looking to turn it into a blockbuster. They took the edge off the script to access a teen audience and piled in the money for big name stars and more special effects.

Lordhat wrote:I'm really shocked that no-one's mentioned Punisher.

The problem with any Punisher movie is that making it into a movie defeats the original premise. The concept for The Punisher comics are to take a standard 80s action movie and put it in the medium of comics. Turning it back into a movie removes the idea that made it interesting and means you end up with just another action movie.

You need to read the Garth Ennis Punisher books to see what the new Punisher flicks have went for. Punisher '04 went for Ennis' Marvel Knights Punisher style and War Zone was an all-style no-substance take on Ennis' MAX work. The director of that one while she got the physical cues right by mimmicking the gritty look of MAX failed by trying to combine it with some of the lighter elements of Mavel Knights and ultimately screwed the pooch. It didn't help she turned all the good villians (Damn near each of the throw away bad guys where serious villians in the books) into one-note jokes. (Also the colored lighting in every scene was obnoxious) I think if they combined Thomas Jane with the gritty ambience of War Zone they would have the perfect Punisher movie. Jane wanted to do a grimmer sequel (with a workable budget) and I think could pull it off perfectly.

Roughly chronologically, ones I saw and care about:
Batman- Obviously batman is awesome, but the first burton film for me didn't nail anything about what makes him awesome, and Jack Nicholson being himself does not a joker make.
Batman Returns- Gets a big resounding "meh" from me.
Batman Forever- Hate Val Kilmer, Riddler and Two Face were crap, Robin was crap, and the plot was crap.
Batman and Robin- All round terrible film, temporarily killed the franchise.
Judge Dredd- Good for certain bits, but overall not a very good Dredd film, as Dredd isn't very Dreddish in it.
Ang Lee's Hulk- The film with excess middle. I saw where they were going with it and sort of enjoyed it but in the end weak antagonists ruined it.
Spiderman- Rebooted superhero movies, and is very enjoyable in a "switch brain off" kinda way. Brilliant choice for the Goblin, weaker choice for Peter.
Daredevil- Silly, and I don't like Daredevil anyway.
Hellboy- Enjoyable, and a pretty good adaption of the Hellboy I've read. Not the world's greatest film by any margin but not the worst either.
Electra- Gah, horrible film! Though I enjoyed the rock, paper, scissors bit.
Batman Begins- Excellent film, way closer to what batman should be than I expected. Silly evil device but I forgive it. Was really happy at Rhas Al Ghul as the villain.And Bale as batman.
Superman Returns- Sort of like bits of it, but it's generally not that exciting, and it has very silly elements. I think it's too tied to the old films, or something.
Oh! X Men 1, 2, and 3- I think all of these are pretty poor, but I don't really like the X Men.
Spiderman 2- Didn't like the romance bits too much, or the wierd power losing bit (was crap in the comics, is crap in the film) but it's saved again by the excellent villain and good direction for the fights- still some of the best fights are in these films.
Spiderman 3- Terrrible Terrible. TERRIBLE.
Ghost Rider- Bit of a crap film, but decent adaption of 80s Ghost Rider comics.
Constantine- Bad adaption, but a good film.
Hellboy 2- Not that great really. But visually impressive in a lot of places.
Dark Knight- I thought this could only go badly, as the realism from the first one had to get broken now, but they managed it fairly well (Joker's ability to rig ANYTHING to explode and silly batsonar aside), and so I love it to bits.
Iron Man- Excellent film, really good fun.
Hulk with Ed Norton- Absolutely loved this, I'm a big fan of the characterisation of banner as he is in this film, and it was pretty cool all round.
Watchmen- Much better than expected, really enjoyed this too.
Oh, League of Extraordinary Gentlemen- CRAP!

I may have left something out.
Sin City and 300 are about as good as the comics, ie. alright but overated. Road to Perdition is awesome but haven't read the comic yet.
Can't think of any others but there must be a few. Didn't watch the punisher movie or the wolverine movie- punisher because I heard it was piss poor, wolverine because of what they did to deadpool and cos I pretty much hate wolverine anyway. Catwoman likewise.

Da Boss wrote:Batman- Obviously batman is awesome, but the first burton film for me didn't nail anything about what makes him awesome, and Jack Nicholson being himself does not a joker .

The ledger Joker is what killed "The Dark Knight" for me. I did enjoy the film, but I just could not get into the lip smacking joker at all. Also the bat voice/growl/whisper whatever you want to call it was distracting. It made for a very average film in my opinion. Don't get me wrong I know why people, especially younger people liked it, because the Joker was all creepy like. And creepyness is all the rage.

The Nicholson Joker was much more what I expect the Joker to be, and I thought he nailed it, although it is definately showing it's age at 20 years.

GG

Do you read batman comics? The joker is quite creepy.

Need we forget this timely gem?

Da Boss wrote:Do you read batman comics? The joker is quite creepy.

I have to admit that I haven't read many batman comics(pretty much a Marvel man). The only one I really enjoyed was "The Killing Joke".

I guess most of the Joker archtype that I am looking for is the one from the cartoons and the original batman( the Romero joker). You know... the fun loving prankster, as I find that kind of contrast makes for a more intersting villain, not the dark freddy kruger that Ledger portrayed. .

GG

I've said before but the key thing for me first with a Superhero film is how accurate the script/actor play to the character as they are in the comics. Followed quickly by how the Villian is portrayed.

Second Is story, and then overall film content.

So in my view these are the Superhero films I really enjoy, rate as excellent...

Ironman, Fantastic Four (both,) Hulk (Ed Norton,) The Dark Knight, Hellboy 1&2,

Those I have found acceptable...

X-men 1-3, Spiderman 1-2, Batman, Batman Returns, Batman Begins, Daredevil, Superman 1-3, Wolverine Origins

Those that I view as poor, might get watched if I am bored and I flick on the channel...

Batman & Robin, Hulk (Ang Lee,) Spiderman 3 (mainly to the screw up on Venom,) Elektra, Superman Returns, Ghostrider,

Those which are cringeworthy...

Batman Forever, Captain America (Red skull is in it, really poor,) Nick Fury (Hasselhoff)

generalgrog wrote:

Da Boss wrote:Do you read batman comics? The joker is quite creepy.

I have to admit that I haven't read many batman comics(pretty much a Marvel man). The only one I really enjoyed was "The Killing Joke".

I guess most of the Joker archtype that I am looking for is the one from the cartoons and the original batman( the Romero joker). You know... the fun loving prankster, as I find that kind of contrast makes for a more intersting villain, not the dark freddy kruger that Ledger portrayed. .

GG

Ah okay. That's a reasonable reason to prefer the Nicholson joker. I don't like that portrayal, I like how he is done in the comics moreso. Actually my favourite portrayal is Ledger's joker, mostly because of how he was scripted and so on, though I enjoyed the performance. The real show stealer performance wise for me in those films is Gary Oldman.

generalgrog wrote:
Cap has always been my favorite, and the character deserves a great film. I can't wait until the solo movie and the Avengers films are out.

GG

Me either. I love the build up for it they've been doing(Cap's shield in IM1, frozen Cap in the background in Director's Cut of Norton Hulk).

I don't really get why Cap is so awesome but I'm hoping they do a good job on the film, it should be good.

Does Jason Bourne count as a Super Hero?

If not, then my favorite super hero movies are the Batman ones. Ironman was the only Marvel movie I liked, but maybe Disney is going to get their act together.

Da Boss wrote:I don't really get why Cap is so awesome but I'm hoping they do a good job on the film, it should be good.

Honestly, I think you have to be American to get it.

I present you with your own Italian version:



And for our British friends:

Probably. In the comics, the bits with him always make me feel like I'm looking in on something completely foreign, alright.
I'm hoping a soundtrack, motion and script will get it across to me better, maybe.

I think it was only a 2 hour tv pilot, but anybody remember the "Flash" show back in the 80's?


Mark Hamil as the trickster. Yeah baby.

Lint wrote:I think it was only a 2 hour tv pilot, but anybody remember the "Flash" show back in the 80's?


Mark Hamil as the trickster. Yeah baby.

Actually, the Flash show went on for a full season of 22 Episodes.

And did someone say Mark Hammil as a villain?

Da Boss wrote:I don't really get why Cap is so awesome

Cap was pretty good in Civil War, I'll grant.

Cap is one of those hit or miss characters. He's tough to do consistently but in mini-series and stuff where you need that moral center he really shines.

Platuan4th wrote:
frozen Cap in the background in Director's Cut of Norton Hulk).

Wait... what? I haven't seen this!! Now I'm gonna have to go and rent the directors cut.

GG

generalgrog wrote:

Platuan4th wrote:
frozen Cap in the background in Director's Cut of Norton Hulk).

Wait... what? I haven't seen this!! Now I'm gonna have to go and rent the directors cut.

GG

I just saved you a couple bucks.

Da Boss wrote:Probably. In the comics, the bits with him always make me feel like I'm looking in on something completely foreign, alright.
I'm hoping a soundtrack, motion and script will get it across to me better, maybe.

Well the new series with brubaker has made an interesting take on Cap. Cap has always been more of a secret agent with super villains kind of vibe. But Brubaker has really taken it to a new level. If your into secret agents and the like then Captain America is for you. Captain Americas rogues gallery is mostly super secret agents, Like Red Skull, Baron Zemo, Sepent Society, Arnim Zola, AIM, MODOK etc.

GG

I'll give it a look, my brother was raving about the newer stuff too.

Platuan4th wrote:

generalgrog wrote:

Platuan4th wrote:
frozen Cap in the background in Director's Cut of Norton Hulk).

Wait... what? I haven't seen this!! Now I'm gonna have to go and rent the directors cut.

GG

I just saved you a couple bucks.

That's an awesome cameo. Wish they'd have gone with it in the regular theatrical cut.

What are people's thoughts about the Green Lantern movie then ? I gather Peter Sarsgaard is apparently playing HEctor Hammond..hmm.. yeah... I think the major problem is that GL doesn't really have that many cool or even vaguely interesting villains of his own, with the odd exception .Ryan Reynolds is a good choice.. I'd prefer Nathan Fillion but there you go.

I had (quite purposelly) forgotten about the Judge Dredd movie. The look of it all was pretty much spot on, but that was about it. I know films often deal in 'alternate versions' of source material, but the chronology was all over the place, plus Dredd showed his face, which he never does properly in the comic (always in shadow, or with 'CENSORED' over it).

Sadly, being a Dredd fan, that pretty much prevented me enjoying the film, despite the fact that source related inaccuracies aside, it's a pretty reasonable action movie.

reds8n wrote:What are people's thoughts about the Green Lantern movie then ? I gather Peter Sarsgaard is apparently playing HEctor Hammond..hmm.. yeah... I think the major problem is that GL doesn't really have that many cool or even vaguely interesting villains of his own, with the odd exception .Ryan Reynolds is a good choice.. I'd prefer Nathan Fillion but there you go.

The green Lantern concept is really cool IMO. The concept of a galactic policeman could do really well. The only problem is the stuff I tried to read in the comics was just waaaaayyy over the top for me. The many different aliens that were literally like an alien race of whales or wasps was just too far fetched. This is why gene roddenberry always made sure is aliens had some semblence of humanity to that we could relate to them.

Anyway, as long as they stay away from space whales and space bees and bring in Synestro as the villain they should be ok. Also the look of the movie should be very good with the new technology of CGI all those green effects created by the lantern ring should be sweet to look at.

GG

chaplaingrabthar wrote:

Platuan4th wrote:

generalgrog wrote:

Platuan4th wrote:
frozen Cap in the background in Director's Cut of Norton Hulk).

Wait... what? I haven't seen this!! Now I'm gonna have to go and rent the directors cut.

GG

I just saved you a couple bucks.

That's an awesome cameo. Wish they'd have gone with it in the regular theatrical cut.

There's also a scene in "Iron Man" where Stark is in his workshop, and cap's sheild is on one of the workbenches partially disassembled.

I'm really looking forward to the new marvel movie lineup with the Avengers. Hopefully they take the time and do it right, Hulk and Iron Man were both a good start. Thor is coming up, then Cap, with Iron Man 2 mixed in. The only downside is that I really like Ed Norton as Bruce Banner, but I don't know if he'll come back. And the X-men/Wolverine rights are owned by a different studio, so it will suck if wolverine isn't part of the Avengers team.

Lint wrote: And the X-men/Wolverine rights are owned by a different studio, so it will suck if wolverine isn't part of the Avengers team.

I really like Wolverine, he's one of my favorite characters, but Marvel made a mistake adding him to the New Avengers. Wolverine is way overrepresented in Marvel comics. Keep him with X-men and be done with it.

GG

Wolverine is an Avenger now! WTF? Yeah, Marvel is just out to sell comics, screw the writing. Wish they would go back to the days of Chris Clairemont and Alan Davis.

Clairemont?
Clairemont is a hack.

Lint wrote:I'm really looking forward to the new marvel movie lineup with the Avengers. Hopefully they take the time and do it right, Hulk and Iron Man were both a good start. Thor is coming up, then Cap, with Iron Man 2 mixed in. The only downside is that I really like Ed Norton as Bruce Banner, but I don't know if he'll come back. And the X-men/Wolverine rights are owned by a different studio, so it will suck if wolverine isn't part of the Avengers team.

I believe (if I've read things correctly) the Avengers franchise is being based on the 'Ultimates 1' version, so nope, no Wolverine.

So who's on the team then? Iron Man, Hulk, Thor, Cap, and Fury.... anybody else?

Well in the series you had,

Nick Fury, Cap, Giantman, Wasp, Ironman, Thor, Quicksilver, Scarlett Witch, Black Widow, Banner/Hulk and Hawkeye.


Currently confirmed for the film are,

Cap, Ironman, Warmachine, Thor, Black Widow, Banner/Hulk.


I'm hoping some more faces appear, from what I've seen mentioned Loki has been signed to appear, but that seems to be an odd villian choice.

Morathi's Darkest Sin wrote:I believe (if I've read things correctly) the Avengers franchise is being based on the 'Ultimates 1' version, so nope, no Wolverine.

I haven't read any of the ultimate titles, but I did purchase and watch the recent Avengers direct to DVD animated moive, which was based on the Millar Ultimates. I thought that was real good. However I'm not sure if there is enough there to keep a live action audience interested. They would almost need to put the Hulk Battle early in the film and then later have the hulk help the avengers. I just don't think fighting the hulk would be enough of a movie.

GG

Da Boss wrote:Clairemont?
Clairemont is a hack.

Clairemonts early writing for the X-Men was good stuff. I don't know about his recent stuff.

Ah sorry got my wires crossed there, what I meant is its being based around those characters/that version of the Avengers team.

There was no real note that they where following the Ultimates 1 story, just that style of team. Hence Nick Fury being Samual Jackson, as the Ultimates Fury was based on him.

It might be following the story as well i suppose, but I've seen that film as well, and although I agree its pretty good as a cartoon movie, its probably not enough for a live action plot.

Hopefully the fact they're adding War Machine is hint that they are already making changes, if not making up their own plot.

Morathi's Darkest Sin wrote:
Currently confirmed for the film are,

Cap, Ironman, Warmachine, Thor, Black Widow, Banner/Hulk.

You forgot Hawkeye and Warmachine.

Ant Man is still up in the air.