Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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.