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.

 Corpsesarefun wrote:
Planet hulk would make an excellent standalone hulk film.

It's almost like they already done did that.

While I thought Ed Norton was a far better Hulk I'd imagine they would use Mark Ruffalo since he is the current Hulk actor.

 Platuan4th wrote:

 Corpsesarefun wrote:
Planet hulk would make an excellent standalone hulk film.

It's almost like they already done did that.

Ok.

Planet Hulk would make an excellent live action standalone Hulk film that isn't direct to dvd.

Though perhaps standalone isn't the right word either, I mean a film starring the hulk that is set in the greater marvel universe without the rest of the Avengers.

 generalgrog wrote:
IMHO I have only seen a few "modern"(post millenium) super hero movies that were what I consider truly horrible films.

Ghost Rider 2 stands out as the worst one in recent times.


There have been some excellent films, and a ton of mediocre films.

GG

This is pretty true.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Corpsesarefun wrote:
Planet hulk would make an excellent standalone hulk film.

Edward Norton Hulk, or some other actor? Or, didn't they do a Planet Hulk animated movie?



Turns out, they did:
http://www.amazon.com/Planet-Hulk-Kevin-Michael-Richardson/dp/B0032VZ18K/ref=sr_1_11?s=movies-tv&ie=UTF8&qid=1389543506&sr=1-11&keywords=hulk

But, I do wonder (since I've not seen it) if it's any good?

It is on Netflix, and, having not read the comic book storyline, it is very enjoyable. I don't know how well it matches up to the original storyline, but the animation is good, and the story was fun.

Agreed with the above post. How does it mesh with the comic though? I'm always curious about movies based on comics.

 spacewolved wrote:
An argument could be made that the Marvel cinematic universe is the greatest achievement in film history. As a whole Disney/Marvel Studios has created a universe in film that when it has reached completion, will span well over a decade with 20+ films. Each film tying itself in with the other films with cameos and teasers for upcoming films, all of which seem to be pointing to an epic conclusion in The Avengers 3.

I think you're making the assumption that a serial film making and shared continuity is both hard to do and a good thing. I think both of those things are entirely untrue.

To paraphrase Seinfeld, "If I want a long boring story that doesn't end, I have my life."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LordofHats wrote:
None of the x-men movies are from Marvel. The only reason fox even makes them now is to continue holding the rights to the series.

Irony being they make a ton of terrible films to hang onto the rights of a franchise they apparently never plan to make a decent film for XD

Not quite. First Class was made in a hurry, to avoid not necessarily the loss of rights but certainly an ugly legal battle over exactly when those rights were to end. The first three films and the new one are all being made because the franchise has a proven track record of delivering box office returns.

And the two Wolverine movies were made because Hugh Jackman with his shirt off has cross-gender appeal, and studios go silly for that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
And yeah, a couple of their earlier films were mediocre at best (looking at you Hulk), but it seems once they find the right actor to play the part, they are good fun movies.

It isn't about the actor, but about the approach Marvel took. The big change is with the decision to develop all of the movies within Marvel Studios, starting with Iron Man. Before that films were made basically through the open agent system most films in Hollywood are made, with people being brought on to projects, with scripts and attached stars being cycled in and out as in normal for that shambolic process. The 2003 Hulk film went through at least three major versions over about a decade before Ang Lee got attached, ordered his own rewrites and started production.

In contrast, the Incredible Hulk, with Ed Norton, was made through Marvel Studio's new model, and the difference is clear. The film is much slicker, closely tied to the new universe they were creating (I believe only Iron Man had been released before then) and, as a downside also kind of bland, with no real risk taking or attempt at greater art. The new films are, as you said, not trying to create cinematic masterpieces but just deliver a fun experience. Whether this is a genius concept or ultimately a straightjacket will be known in time.

The Avengerverse is far from finished. They've probably got another 3-5 years worth of movies to pump out if they're quick, and could probably milk it for much longer.

Thus far it's been great overall. Iron Man 2 and 3 were somewhat weak IMO, and Thor 1 was merely "ok," but everything else thus far that has been in the Avengerverse has been really good.

In terms of where it falls in cinematic history, we'll need to wait a bit first. Things can go downhill very fast. I don't think they will, but they could.

As for Bond, I love Bond, but how do we fit his "universe" together? I mean, he's "supposed" to be the same person through all the movies, not a code name, so I suppose they're all in the same continuity, but I feel like Bondverse and Avengerverse are not really comparable.

Bondverse is built like the Whoverse, it's designed to be robust and last forever if they want it to, because they can swap out the main character and slowly change the background characters as they go (M, Q, etc.). The Avengerverse, meanwhile, has these very recognizable actors playing the lead roles, and there are a lot of them. You might be able to swap out one character, but swapping out them all would be hard. They couldn't really do a James Bond like set-up, at least not easily. I imagine once Avengers 3 comes out and the current crop of actors hang up their suits, they'll have to reboot the whole thing, versus keeping it in the same universe. Unless a pull a Star Trek.

Both, as series, are cinematic triumphs and juggernauts, but I don't know how comparable they are when we start looking at universes.

 spacewolved wrote:
An argument could be made that the Marvel cinematic universe is the greatest achievement in film history. As a whole Disney/Marvel Studios has created a universe in film that when it has reached completion, will span well over a decade with 20+ films. Each film tying itself in with the other films with cameos and teasers for upcoming films, all of which seem to be pointing to an epic conclusion in The Avengers 3.

I don't know if I'd go so far as to call it the greatest achievement in film history, but it's pretty damned impressive. Creating such a big world that maintains continuity between multiple film series is an impressive feat, and they should be lauded for achieving this.

Shame about Agents of SHIELD though...

 Paradigm wrote:
...but after the rise of the Avengers, they're really stepped up their game with Origins, First Class and The Wolverine.

 Paradigm wrote:
... really stepped up their game with Origins, First Class and The Wolverine.

 Paradigm wrote:
... really stepped up their game with Origins...

 Paradigm wrote:
... Origins...

Que?

Origins? Really? That was a terrible film.

 LordofHats wrote:
If this is the criteria for the greatest achievement in film history...

That's actually a terrible example. Bond films have no real continuity between them, aren't made up of multiple series with different protagonists, and we even had a soft reboot in Casino Royale. Just making a lot of films with the same central character isn't the same thing as what Marvel has done, however grand the Bond franchise is.

 KingCracker wrote:
Agreed with the above post. How does it mesh with the comic though? I'm always curious about movies based on comics.

I haven't seen the whole movie (only bits of it), but I can tell you that in the arena Hulk is made to fight Beta Ray Bill (of all people!) rather than the Silver Surfer because they didn't have the film rights to the Fantastic Four, which includes the Silver Surfer (and Galactus, and Doom, and Skrulls, and so many other things that would be better off in the hands of Marvel and not Fox).

Yeah, I liked origins. It was better than X3, Jackman was great as Wolverine, Schriber was a great Sabretooth, and the cameo from Gambit was also pretty cool.

That said, I've not forgiven them for what they did to Deadpool. The merc with the mouth, so they sew it shut? What were they thinking.

I've also consistently enjoyed Agents of Shield, and eagerly await the continuation of the series over here.

 spacewolved wrote:
An argument could be made that the Marvel cinematic universe is the greatest achievement in film history. As a whole Disney/Marvel Studios has created a universe in film that when it has reached completion, will span well over a decade with 20+ films. Each film tying itself in with the other films with cameos and teasers for upcoming films, all of which seem to be pointing to an epic conclusion in The Avengers 3.

Not only does every film have us waiting in theaters for the end of the credits to catch a glimpse of something that might hint at the next film, but it also has us lining up at the doors beforehand. The Avengers alone have made over 1.5 billion dollars worldwide and the franchise as almost made 5 billion dollars. That makes it the third highest grossing franchise in history. This is even before movies like Avengers: Age of Ultron, Captain America: Winter Soldier, Ant-Man, Doctor Strange and Guardians of the Galaxy have been released. In would be absurd to believe that at the end, the Marvel movie franchise will blow the franchise record out of the water by billions.

Something else has happened as a result of the success of the Marvel franchise. DC and the other companies that own other Marvel properties, such as X-Men and Spider-Man, have now been forced to make their movies in the same way. This means we will continue have movies that keep their actors and production value.

Of course no single movie in any of these franchises are as good as say Shawshank Redemption or The Maltese Falcon but, as a whole, nothing else compares to the depth and complexity in the making of these films. Or the financial success. This is of course is all my opinion but I am excited to see this franchise completed.

Hardly. Thats not creating a universe thats just putting bits at the end of movies.

LOTR
Star Wars
Star Trek(s)



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ramshackle_Curtis wrote:
This thread makes me laugh! Haha!

The films have nice effects...but what else? Nothing of substance. They are cute and funny, but not really "great films". Whats the sub text? What is the meaning? That being good is good and bad is bad? Why is Loki so naughty? Who knows?Because his dad rejected him? Why doesnt Stark release the designs of his work for everybody? Or at least make iron man walking wheel chairs for the disabled?

Im basically saying that the film is 1 dimensional. It has no depth, it makes no sence if you try to scratch the surface. Its based on silly concepts and has no realy artistic merit beyond the asthetic.

Here you go.

Take out Robert Downey Jr. playing er...himself and the whole thing falls apart.

I can easily admit that I liked the marvel movies more then LOTR Star Wars and Star Trek, then again, I never liked them too much.

Star Wars

Which were horribly spoiled by the trash that is the three new movies.

Star Trek(s)

er the direness which was Inserrection and Nemesis? Least they have come back with some decent movies recently.

Avengers and Iron Man have all the stuff that makes a great movie:
Action, humour, characterisation, heart.

Hugh Jackman's and Liev Schriber's acting were the only saving grace of origins. Maverick was Asian (wtf?! He's German!!), Gambit sucked, Deadpool was an abortion. Hell, as much as I liked reynold's one-liners, they even botched Wade Wilson (he was serious and grim until the cancer-that's when he went bonkers and borderline-homosexual for Cable/muscly men without shirts and large quantities of metal). The whole movie sucked except Liev and Hugh. There was nothing else redeeming. Will.I.Am shouldn't have ever been a part of the movie either. Terrible. I'm willing to bet Ghost Rider 2 wasn't even as bad as that trash.

 Mr Morden wrote:
Star Wars

Which were horribly spoiled by the trash that is the three new movies.

Star Trek(s)

er the direness which was Inserrection and Nemesis? Least they have come back with some decent movies recently.

Avengers and Iron Man have all the stuff that makes a great movie:
Action, humour, characterisation, heart.

I fell asleep partway through Avengers, or wanted to.
Thor I was boring.
Thor II was boring, with no background development at all. Why were the bad guys bad guys? Why is Loti a bad guy? Why are the GG's using shields and spears???
Captain America was unwatchable. The wife fell asleep and I went to surf the internet.
Hulk II was about as deep as the shallow end of a kiddie wading pool. Most of it was a bad rehash of Ang Lee's superior film.

These movies have no plot, poor writing, poor development, and are just CGI vehicles.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:
Star Wars

Which were horribly spoiled by the trash that is the three new movies.

Star Trek(s)

er the direness which was Inserrection and Nemesis? Least they have come back with some decent movies recently.

Avengers and Iron Man have all the stuff that makes a great movie:
Action, humour, characterisation, heart.

I fell asleep partway through Avengers, or wanted to.
Thor I was boring.
Thor II was boring, with no background development at all. Why were the bad guys bad guys? Why is Loti a bad guy? Why are the GG's using shields and spears???
Captain America was unwatchable. The wife fell asleep and I went to surf the internet.
Hulk II was about as deep as the shallow end of a kiddie wading pool. Most of it was a bad rehash of Ang Lee's superior film.

These movies have no plot, poor writing, poor development, and are just CGI vehicles.

Apart form Hullk which only had a few good moments and Cap America which was very average version of GI Joe we have completely different views - but thats life and all good

There are only two types of movies IMO

Good ones - those you like,

Bad ones - those you don't

Then of course you could put the whole "universe" against a film like Bladerunner and feel the lesser for it.

 Frazzled wrote:
Then of course you could put the whole "universe" against a film like Bladerunner and feel the lesser for it.

Which version

I really like Bladerunner - such a great movie.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Ramshackle_Curtis wrote:
This thread makes me laugh! Haha!

The films have nice effects...but what else? Nothing of substance. They are cute and funny, but not really "great films". Whats the sub text? What is the meaning? That being good is good and bad is bad? Why is Loki so naughty? Who knows?Because his dad rejected him? Why doesnt Stark release the designs of his work for everybody? Or at least make iron man walking wheel chairs for the disabled?

Im basically saying that the film is 1 dimensional. It has no depth, it makes no sence if you try to scratch the surface. Its based on silly concepts and has no realy artistic merit beyond the asthetic.

Here you go.

Take out Robert Downey Jr. playing er...himself and the whole thing falls apart.

RDJ should be getting paid something like...HALF. That's why stars exist and get paid obscene money, folks.


It's interesting to me how DC's and Marvel's roles have flipped somewhat from comics to films. Historically speaking, DC Comics has been considered to be more kiddie fare, with larger but perhaps more 2-dimensional characters. Meanwhile, Marvel Comics was known as the home of "heroes with problems," and with perhaps not more adult, but at least more adolescent sensibilities.

However, Marvel's movies are notable for being straightforward popcorn flicks -- not particularly edgy, complex, or adult-themed, although they're certainly polished, coherent, and faithful to the source material.

Meanwhile DC has the Dark Knight trilogy, the new standard for adult superhero fare, with plenty of edge and complexity. And whether or not you liked Man of Steel (I did, but your mileage may vary), you can't say that it didn't break some eggs (necks?) and try to inject some Marvel-style angst into the character.

Sure, that's only a 4-movie trend, where Marvel has something like double that under its belt now. And Batman will be rebooted. Still, it's interesting to note that DC seems focused on grounding their characters going forward, while Marvel seems mostly focused on making fun romps.

I'm not sure if it is the greatest thing ever or even unique. However, I will say it is an impressive undertaking considering the $$$ involved all around.

Dark Knight - overlong, poor plot and most importnatly no heart - I didn't care about anyone in those IMO terrible films - I watched two and couldn't stomach another - at least that Nolen guy is not going to amke any more turgid nonsense.

but your view may differ

 Mr Morden wrote:
Dark Knight - overlong, poor plot and most importnatly no heart - I didn't care about anyone in those IMO terrible films - I watched two and couldn't stomach another - at least that Nolen guy is not going to amke any more turgid nonsense.

but your view may differ

Yes, it most certainly does.

 Mr Morden wrote:
Dark Knight - overlong, poor plot and most importnatly no heart - I didn't care about anyone in those IMO terrible films - I watched two and couldn't stomach another - at least that Nolen guy is not going to amke any more turgid nonsense.

but your view may differ

I will agree with you on Begins, and Rises (to an extent). But, IMO, Knight is the best Batman film to date. Say what you will about Christian Bale, but I think that Heath Ledger's Joker absolutely MADE the film.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:
Star Wars

Which were horribly spoiled by the trash that is the three new movies.

Star Trek(s)

er the direness which was Inserrection and Nemesis? Least they have come back with some decent movies recently.

Avengers and Iron Man have all the stuff that makes a great movie:
Action, humour, characterisation, heart.

I fell asleep partway through Avengers, or wanted to.
Thor I was boring.
Thor II was boring, with no background development at all. Why were the bad guys bad guys? Why is Loti a bad guy? Why are the GG's using shields and spears???
Captain America was unwatchable. The wife fell asleep and I went to surf the internet.
Hulk II was about as deep as the shallow end of a kiddie wading pool. Most of it was a bad rehash of Ang Lee's superior film.

These movies have no plot, poor writing, poor development, and are just CGI vehicles.

Sorry Fraz, but the fact that you consider Ang Lee's film to be superior proves you've finally gone senile and your opinion can't be trusted. That was an absolute crap movie that never should have seen the big screen.

 timetowaste85 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:
Star Wars

Which were horribly spoiled by the trash that is the three new movies.

Star Trek(s)

er the direness which was Inserrection and Nemesis? Least they have come back with some decent movies recently.

Avengers and Iron Man have all the stuff that makes a great movie:
Action, humour, characterisation, heart.

I fell asleep partway through Avengers, or wanted to.
Thor I was boring.
Thor II was boring, with no background development at all. Why were the bad guys bad guys? Why is Loti a bad guy? Why are the GG's using shields and spears???
Captain America was unwatchable. The wife fell asleep and I went to surf the internet.
Hulk II was about as deep as the shallow end of a kiddie wading pool. Most of it was a bad rehash of Ang Lee's superior film.

These movies have no plot, poor writing, poor development, and are just CGI vehicles.

Sorry Fraz, but the fact that you consider Ang Lee's film to be superior proves you've finally gone senile and your opinion can't be trusted. That was an absolute crap movie that never should have seen the big screen.

You beat me to it, Ang Lee's Hulk was fething awful.

 Frazzled wrote:
Thats not creating a universe thats just putting bits at the end of movies.

That's not even accurate.

The Greatest Achievements in Cinematic History are as follows:
The Room.
Street fighter.
True Legend. (Also known to some as Wushu Fight Club)

@OP

Every film? (cough) Daredevil (cough)

Please. Elektra was worse.

^^ I never saw it. I took a Marvel sabbatical after Ben Affleck's portrayal of a super hero was immortalized on film.

Let's hope he never is chosen to wear a cowl again.

They made a great successful commercial franchise, enjoyable popcorn movies, but to call it " Greatest Achievement in Film History?" i don't think so!