Gatsby77

Where is Silvermane in all this?

Yup - this looks like another Sony Spidey-adjacent flick.

I mean - looks better than Morbius, but I was more excited to see New Mutants than I am this.

Although I also have zero exposure to Madame Web.

May have mentioned it before but my only exposure to her was in the 1984 text-based Incredible Hulk Questprobe video game. I'm pretty certain I've never read an actual comic in which she appeared...

On 10/28/2023 at 6:25 PM, media_junkie said:

Who is the big baddie?  If it is the female "Ronan the Accuser", ugh we already saw that villain once (as a dude).  Is it Kang?  Dude was beaten by a bunch of ants, who cares if there are more of him, just throw an ant farm at him, wham, you win. 

This.

I was (and am) a *huge* fan of the first Captain Marvel movie - primarily because of the script, but also due to the performances of Brie Larsen, Jude Law and Annette Bening.

And I likely won't see this one in the theater...because having watched a few of the trailers, I have no idea what it's about.

Who is the villain?

If I can watch two separate trailers for a film and not have a clear understanding of the villain or threat, you've lost.

I mean - I can *guess* it's some combination of Kree or rogue Skrulls, but the first movie made it's purpose 100% clear, even with the ultimate villain misdirect.

See also:

• Shang-Chi
• Thor Love and Thunder 

Neither of these presented the villain clearly in the trailers either - and I skipped them. Sure, I vaguely knew that the Thor villiain was Bale's character, but the trailer placed more of an emphasis on comedy than his threat (or purpose).

At least with Doctor Strange 2 we knew exactly who the villain was - an unhinged Wanda, fresh off of WandaVision and ready to destroy nearly everything in her quest to save her kids.

I'd love to see her as Dazzler - and think shed kill it.

This is one of my favorite SNL skits of the last 5 years:

Honestly, I don't imagine they can do much with # 428, the way the story in that issue unfolds. As in, only the last page matters, unless they opted to add 3-6 more pages.

I'd be far more interested in an alternate version of # 429, if it exists.

That said, 429 blew me away as a kid on several counts:

• Superman's appearance
• The twist that Joker now has diplomatic immunity
• That both Ronald Reagan and the Ayatollah Khomeini cameo

On 10/16/2023 at 9:06 AM, Bosco685 said:

Looks like it contained one alternate page from the original Batman #428. So if it contains more, then that would be the unpublished content.

https://dc.fandom.com/wiki/Batman_Annual_Vol_1_25

 

Huh.

It seems like all of the alternate unpublished art was featured in a "Deluxe Edition" trade of A Death in the Family a few years ago.

Word is the single page featured in Batman Annual 25 was the only one that was finished and colored - but there's a subsequent full page with unfinished pencils featuring Jason in a coma as Bruce talks to .

https://www.comicsbeat.com/batman-a-death-in-the-family-deluxe-edition-alternate-artwork-jason-todd-lives/

On 10/14/2023 at 6:17 PM, Bosco685 said:

 

So...this is the same alternate ending by Aparo & Starlin previously published in Batman Annual 25?

I'm confused.

Given that Amazon bought MGM, wouldn't their library presumptively be available on Prime? Why the need for a separate MGM streaming platform?

I understand the Hulu / Disney+ split, because Hulu predated Disney+ by several years and was only co-owned by Disney to start.

Heard a piece on the BBC this week that said Harry Styles and Ed Sheeran were currently the top two contenders to do the song for the next Bond film.

My prediction: If Nolan directs, not only will Harry Styles do the song, he'll also play a role in the film (though not necessarily as Bond).

On 9/24/2023 at 1:46 PM, ADAMANTIUM said:

I don't know the "terms" of what was "wrong with the sequences in acting and on camera, but it was just basically badly directed. The over all impression was off.

Like Megan Fox, 1st you see her? Stallone is looking through the door peephole from the outside and you can hear her yelling, to have the door open and it is "lovers squabble." Stathom exits with Stallone with a look on his face, and Stallone is like, "hey, you knew! But hey! she's an Expendable!" hachacha

Something seems lame? eh they're and Expendable, what can you do! At the end hurrah, WE"RE EXPENDABLES! hooray! 

Stallone is *40* years older than Fox.

Reviews I read said this isn't even really an Expendables film - but rather a straight-up Jason Statham action film -- even Barney's reportedly only in it for a few scenes.

Also weird that the last one spent time setting up the next generation only to have basically none of them return here.

On 9/16/2023 at 4:08 AM, Bosco685 said:

 

 Yup - that's what's shown at 2:23.

Pretty sure we saw Mera briefly at 2:23, no?

Recall that even 20 years ago, Jet Li dropped out of The Matrix 2 and 3 because the studio was demanding to digitally scan him and (according to him) effectively own the trademark to his martial arts moves, effectively allowing them to use them (without additional payment or credit to him) in perpetuity.

He did multiple interviews about it.

Saw a trailer for this last night.

I'm intrigued - gives off "Children of Men" vibes.

On 9/8/2023 at 6:07 PM, media_junkie said:

Especially when paired with someone that legit can sing, Lady Gaga.  I'm not a fan of her music (don't like it, don't hate it) but she has some pipes on her for sure.

She can also act.

She was *phenomenal* in A Star Is Born.

I thought we've known this was a musical for months now.

The main question in my mind is: Can Joaquin sing?

Countless talented actors have stumbled when they found themselves in musicals that asked too much of their abilities:

See:

• Russell Crowe in Les Miserables
• Edward Norton in Everybody Says I Love You
• Pierce Brosnan in Mama Mia!

Put another way, that argument seems to be "Marvel, facing bankruptcy, in order to survive, mortgaged not only their premiere characters of Spider-Man, X-Men & the FF, but also everything from Daredevil to Ghost Rider to Punisher to Blade to Namor" but somehow magically held back their true A-list stars (checks notes)...Captain America, Iron Man Thor and the rest of the Avengers.

Because The Avengers - in the mid-to-late '90s - was seen as some future cinematic gold mine.

Umm...Yeah. That checks out. 

Liefeld's runs on The Avengers and Captain America really must have made an impression on you.

On 9/6/2023 at 4:51 AM, Bosco685 said:

With this logic, I guess then:

- Namor was an A-list character because he was sold to Universal too.

- Ghost Rider was an A-list character because he was sold to Columbia Pictures.

- Punisher was an A-list character because he was sold to Artisan Entertainment. Though War Zone is considered the 1st Marvel Studios joint effort under the 'Marvel Knights' banner.

- Daredevil was an A-list character because he was sold to Fox Studios.

- I am glad to see Hulk now considered an A-list character. As previously it was noted he was not A-list material at the time. Oh, the web we weave.

Meanwhile, Captain America, Iron Man, Thor have always been wider known brand names strongly associated with Marvel for years via marketing, merchandising, ads, TV commercials, animated productions and fanzines. Along with extensive use throughout the Marvel Universe comic book world.

I can't speak for Namor - *nobody* considers him anything other than C-list.

And I say that despite enjoying the first 10 issues or so of the Silver Age Buscema run - and John Byrne's '90s revival. ( Jae Lee's run however - I get what he was trying to do; it didn't work).

But...your post simply proves my point.

Because in the '90s Ghost Rider and Punisher *were* A-list characters in a way Captain America, Thor and Iron Man were not.

And the proof?

Not only were the film rights sold off, but (unlike Namor) movies were actually developed and made featuring those characters - and well before 2008's Iron Man.

On 9/5/2023 at 4:50 PM, Bosco685 said:

Yes.

They were and have been flagship characters for years. No matter how far someone buryies their head in the sand (or other places).

Whether it was:

Animated shows (1966)

Fan clubs (1973)

You don't throw your B-List and C-List characters out there for years to hope they get established. You include the same foundational brand names that many recognize even outside of comic books.

This is really simple.

The proof that even Marvel didn't consider these characters "A-list" is what actually happened in the 1990s.

Marvel was facing bankruptcy, so they agreed to sell off the movie rights to their most valuable characters in a last-ditch effort to stay afloat.

Hence:

• X-Men -> to Fox
• Fantastic Four -> to Fox
• Spider-Man -> to Sony
• Hulk -> to Universal

They sold these, because they were seen as the most valuable (potential) movie properties.

Had Iron Man or Captain America or Thor or The Avengers been seen as A-list *by Marvel* at that time, they would have been sold. Period.

And that, paradoxically, is exactly why (years later) the MCU succeeded.

Because Marvel Studios had to try to build a connected film universe without their biggest stars.

On 9/5/2023 at 3:48 PM, Bosco685 said:

This is the folklore that Captain America, Iron Man, Thor, Hulk were not A-List Marvel characters. Only Spider-Man and the X-Men were, which is what put Marvel Studios in a tough position. Yet they were all flagship characters that made Marvel Entertainment a household-recognized brand for decades. Including action figures, t-shirts, lamps, puzzles and more. Part of why Disney purchased Marvel.

But even before they rolled out the live MCU films, Marvel had worked with Lionsgate to roll out the 2006-2007 Marvel animated films to re-introduce the characters to general audiences and remind long-time fans how key they were to the Marvel Universe. And they sold very well. I still have mine in the movie collection. Including The Invincible Iron Man, Doctor Strange and Thor standalone animated films.

 

No.

Literally all of the Avengers were B-list comic book characters.

Based on comic book sales in the 1980s - 2010s.

Captain America, Iron Man & Hulk = definition of B-list.

As in - rarely cracked the top 20, let alone top 10, in monthly sales. Spawn, for example, was A list; Captain America was not.

Thor hasn't been A-list since the first year or two of Walt Simonson's run -- even Mike Deodato's run in the 90s -- or the whole Eric Masterson / Thunderstrike detour - failed to move the needle.

And pop culture / TV crossovers don't necessarily change that.

Example: Silver Surfer had a solo cartoon in the 90s. Doesn't change that he's a C-list character who hasn't been able to float a stand-alone title for more than 6-7 years at a time.

Likewise, there was an Ultraverse cartoon and even a Nightman live action show - doesn't change that those characters were (and are) D-list.

On 9/5/2023 at 12:15 PM, kimik said:

No. For this DC fan there are only 3 A-list properties: Batman, Wonder Woman, and Superman. The rest of the JLA founding characters like Flash, Aquaman and GL would be B listers now, and everything else like Blue Beetle would be C-list. \

Just like for Marvel the A-list is Spider-Man, Wolverine/X-Men, and then movie wise Iron Man. The rest of the Avengers would be B-list properties, along with Dr. Strange, and the rest of the MCU including the FF is C-list.

If you look at it objectively, there are really two character franchises that drive each company - Batman for DC and Spidey for Marvel. 

I think it's more nuanced than that.

Agree that, for DC, Batman, Superman and Wonder Woman are the only A-list characters. And that's been largely born out in films - Secondary Justice League characters (The Flash, Green Lantern) have suffered in translation, but for Aquaman, which did surprisingly well.

And agreed re. Spider-Man, Wolverine/X-Men and (movie-wise), Iron Man being A-list.

But Marvel has succeeded in elevating even B- and C-list characters into blockbuster films.

Examples include:

• Blade (3 films - for Blade?? And before the superhero boom)
• Guardians of the Galaxy - the 3rd movie's sitting at # 4 for the year so far, with $358 million domestic / $845 million worldwide. The Flash - in his first big screen outing, won't break the top 20 for the year.
• Ms. Marvel - $1.1 bn. worldwide
• Dr. Strange - the 3rd film last year made $677 million worldwide - aka, more than $200 million more than Mission Impossible 7.

That said, I stand by my statements that Fantastic Four is basically unfilmable. We've had 4 films so far, and none have hit the mark. I have zero faith that a 5th try will yield different results.

Also - spoiler for Season 4, but it was surreal watching the show in real-time during the back half of season 3 because Luke Perry died in real life - but the show was filmed so far ahead that he continued to appear in the next 6-7 episodes.

The show didn't deal with his death until months later in the premiere of Season 4, where we learned his character was killed in a hit-and-run car accident - and

I don't think the show is really aimed at teens - but rather Gen X parents.

Why?

*Way* too many intentional castings of 90s TV stars - hitting that nostalgia button. Like:

• Luke Perry (Beverly Hills 90210)
• Skeet Ulrich (Scream, The Craft)
• Molly Ringwald
• Robin Givens (Head of the Class)
• Madchen Amick (Twin Peaks)
• Mark Consuelos (All My Children)
• Chad Michael Murray (One Tree Hill)

So...it may be more specifically geared towards Gen X *mothers* but it's definitely not primarily for teens.

Also, I first heard about it from (late 40s) boss 5-6 years ago - she watched it religiously.

Took me a few years later to discover the show for myself - and it's amazing.

*Far* better than it has any right to be.

I need to catch up.

Loved this show - but dropped off half-way through season 5 (which was split up due to pandemic filming delays).

Season 1 is amazing - and the pilot episode is an all-time great first episode of television - up there with the first episodes of Friday Night Lights, Breaking Bad and Lost.