TheLiamSturgess

Just like this movie appears to be! I'm here all week.

I don't know why, but I had this strange, unfounded feeling that for some reason, John Byrne simply isn't interested in the movie realm of things. Surely someone has asked him before. :shrug:

That seems so far away! We've gotten enough press that it would have me guessing December.

Because true comic book fans like their aliens looking like humans. And wearing fetish clothing. There's a balance to be struck. Make him a gargantuan demi-god, but instead of him physically eating the planet, have him use technology which converts physical matter into energy he can absorb. Isn't that pretty much what he does anyway?

^ Can't help but agree there!

What's great about Sony's situation is that if the Spider-Man reboot is successful, it may push other large entertainment companies to explore collaboration opportunities in the future (even outside of the superhero genre). Yes, it's about maximizing profits within one's own corporation, but Fox must be at least considering the fact that they could still turn this around and make a profit on the FF property without having to sell it back to Marvel. Strike a deal. Give Marvel creative influence, and if Fox still retains final say, then fine. But open up a trust relationship with the studio that knows how to do these movies at least halfway decently.

No, that's not it. The first effort was low-budget and pre-CGI; you get what you pay. The second effort was lazy (rubber Thing suit; Galactus-as-a-cloud) and miscast (bubble-bleach-blond playing Sue Storm; hyper Reed Richards; metrosexual version of Victor Von Doom with trimmed eyebrows). This third effort, based on the 8 or so reviews that I have read on RT, point to two problems: a bland -script and a director who was in over his head. (Fox thought Trank was the next Steven Spielberg, gambled and lost.) If GOTG can be one of the greatest super-hero films ever made, FF -- done correctly -- can be an outstanding franchise. At this point there is no doubt Fox will pull the plug on any sequel plans involving the current iteration. The real question is whether Fox will throw in the towel and work out some deal with Marvel Studios. I sort of disagree. I think the FF have aged really poorly. In the 60s, they were groundbreaking. They were the glue that held the universe together. Into the Byrne era, that was still partly true. Since then, we've seen a book that has never maintained sales and their role in the universe has dwindled to the point that their own book was cancelled. The elements that made the FF so great in the 60s were applied to everything. Now they just aren't unique and storylines and characters in The Avengers can serve the main purpose. I honestly think the FF just don't reach the same level of interest and haven't in a long time. Personally, the thing to do in my mind is make them part of the larger universe. Use Reed as the scientist and expert going into the Infinity Gauntlet. Bring Skrulls and Galactus into the Avengers universe. I'd also play up Sue Storm. Marvel has been criticized for being sexist- Sue is the perfect catalyst to that idea. That is all dependent on Marvel getting the rights back or Fox making a Spidey like deal with Marvel. This is what I'm pushing for, too. Don't give them another solo movie, just do a good job of integrating the characters as supporting cast (ala Hulk) into the Marvel movies. While I wouldn't want to see yet another origin/reboot movie I wouldn't want to see the team split up. I don't blame the FF for a poor screenplay or bad writing but unfortunately they are often the victims of it. Maybe there's room for a soft reboot. Technically, they could assume the events of the first movie had already taken place, with Doom introduced (but before the introduction of the Surfer or Galactus) or some version of the above. Then, as they plan to with Spider-Man, do a non-origin story that introduces audiences to the new status quo for the characters (and the new actors) but also introducing a new, MCU-relevant storyline that moves the characters forward from the previous attempts.

No, that's not it. The first effort was low-budget and pre-CGI; you get what you pay. The second effort was lazy (rubber Thing suit; Galactus-as-a-cloud) and miscast (bubble-bleach-blond playing Sue Storm; hyper Reed Richards; metrosexual version of Victor Von Doom with trimmed eyebrows). This third effort, based on the 8 or so reviews that I have read on RT, point to two problems: a bland -script and a director who was in over his head. (Fox thought Trank was the next Steven Spielberg, gambled and lost.) If GOTG can be one of the greatest super-hero films ever made, FF -- done correctly -- can be an outstanding franchise. At this point there is no doubt Fox will pull the plug on any sequel plans involving the current iteration. The real question is whether Fox will throw in the towel and work out some deal with Marvel Studios. I sort of disagree. I think the FF have aged really poorly. In the 60s, they were groundbreaking. They were the glue that held the universe together. Into the Byrne era, that was still partly true. Since then, we've seen a book that has never maintained sales and their role in the universe has dwindled to the point that their own book was cancelled. The elements that made the FF so great in the 60s were applied to everything. Now they just aren't unique and storylines and characters in The Avengers can serve the main purpose. I honestly think the FF just don't reach the same level of interest and haven't in a long time. Personally, the thing to do in my mind is make them part of the larger universe. Use Reed as the scientist and expert going into the Infinity Gauntlet. Bring Skrulls and Galactus into the Avengers universe. I'd also play up Sue Storm. Marvel has been criticized for being sexist- Sue is the perfect catalyst to that idea. That is all dependent on Marvel getting the rights back or Fox making a Spidey like deal with Marvel. This is what I'm pushing for, too. Don't give them another solo movie, just do a good job of integrating the characters as supporting cast (ala Hulk) into the Marvel movies.

I liked all those stinkers. could be worse, you could like the band Creed and then you'd really have problems I think all Canadians love Nickleback, actually. Sadly, we're few and far in between.

The guy's name is Trank. Not Trask.

It's crazy, but they must have a scenario in their grand plan that accounts for the return of the FF properties. Silver Surfer, Galactus and even just Richards could all make leaps and bounds in moving the MCU forward beyond the Infinity War. It just seems so empty without them.

I'm very disappointed that this might not be great. I am thrilled and ever so hopeful that this may mean an MCU FF.

I had no idea there was a matte and glossy version! My very first CGC book was a CGC 8.5 version, and I would have no idea which one is which.

I find it wrong to get such a high grade copper grail like this signed. I don't get it. Good thing it's not your book, hey?

That is immensely cool.

I also like how blatant yet courteous he was about explaining that we won't be seeing the '60's blonde hair, blue eyes Aquaman. It wasn't the prospect of a "new, fresh character" that won the older lady over, it was Momoa himself.

I don't think that's entirely true about network TV - AoS and Agent Carter are both MCU-canon productions, equally as involved as DD. I wouldn't be surprised if there's at least a nod to the Secret Warriors by the time Infinity War comes around, as it would appear Marvel is ramping up to rope everyone in. Netflix and their movie options have more or less confirmed that; AoS, I'm just speculating. I would LOVE some lower-budget feature films on Netflix, though. I think Ant-Man is great for that, though he might eclipse the Netflix budget standard.

So the creepy interview was really Kate Mara's fault. She should have been much more appreciative of the toes focus from the interviewer. I'm a nice guy, but those two are first rate jackazzes.

He seems like a really standup guy.

They're trying to fool people into thinking it's a genuine MCU film. I'd hazard to guess it's a contractual obligation, seeing as every single Marvel property done by other studios has had it. I could see arguments for it being advantageous for both sides. For Marvel, they're reminding people who realllllly made the characters when it comes down to it, and reminds people of their own MCU films. But for Fox, it does add a perceived connectivity that they probably wouldn't mind given the MCU's overall success.

The thread is still fine for me. What are your browser settings?

+1. I still scratch my head that Marvel Studios rolled out Ant-Man giving him his own film. But I think the other factor is that audiences are getting bombarded with CGI-doused super hero and adventure films, not just in the theatres but on TV. There is a ton of competition today that didn't exist in such quantity and visual quality even 5 years ago. Audiences are getting a bit tired, I think. That might make sense, but I'm still wondering if that's even close to true. Have numbers on superhero films and TV gone down? As far as I understand the stats posted, there is an overall positive upswing on box office take and in most recent cases, very positive reviews both critically and from general audiences. Daredevil was a hit. GOTG was a hit. TWS was a hit. Even Ant-Man was well received. Nobody I talk to has so far expressed any fatigue in the genre, and still see the movies and enjoy them :shrug: I'm just unsure as to why we have the assumption audiences are getting tired. Basing it off of money coming in domestically compared to previous MCU films and looking at. Base it off of you talk with the heads of some of the big comic shows they saw little to no increase in con attendance this year compared to previous years so they believe they hit the top of the bubble waiting for it to burst.Just like horror films of the 80's, action films of the 90's, and comic films of the 00's all good things come to an end. I think we're arguing apples vs. oranges. I'm referring only to the comic movies, not their overall impact on the comic industry. I'm also not specifically referring to Ant-Man! Yes, it was a box office descent compared to the previous films, but that's in no way an accurate gage as to the overall interest and enthusiasm for superhero movies. On the note of conventions, it's ridiculous to assume that a fan of the comic movies is also a fan of comic conventions. That's simply not how it works. They're two different demographics which happen to cross over significantly, but stagnating convention attendance is not directly correlated to comic book movie interest.

+1. I still scratch my head that Marvel Studios rolled out Ant-Man giving him his own film. But I think the other factor is that audiences are getting bombarded with CGI-doused super hero and adventure films, not just in the theatres but on TV. There is a ton of competition today that didn't exist in such quantity and visual quality even 5 years ago. Audiences are getting a bit tired, I think. That might make sense, but I'm still wondering if that's even close to true. Have numbers on superhero films and TV gone down? As far as I understand the stats posted, there is an overall positive upswing on box office take and in most recent cases, very positive reviews both critically and from general audiences. Daredevil was a hit. GOTG was a hit. TWS was a hit. Even Ant-Man was well received. Nobody I talk to has so far expressed any fatigue in the genre, and still see the movies and enjoy them :shrug: I'm just unsure as to why we have the assumption audiences are getting tired.

http://comicbook.com/2015/08/01/x-men-apocalypses-olivia-munn-shows-off-her-psylocke-fighting-st/ Tae-Kwon-Do at its best.

Yes, he did amazing as Papa Doc. His range is evident even comparing just Papa Doc and Falcon.