• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Bryan Cranston is....

Started by Aweandlorder,

23 posts in this topic

Aweandlorder

Aweandlorder

Posted
  • Author
Posted
tumblr_o9m0p4kbrj1u2if3uo1_1280.png

 

I had happened across that a few weeks ago. I really would like to see this movie.

 

Especially if it was how comic stories were being influenced by events around him and the Marvel Bullpen.

 

If this was to be made by Marvel you already know theyll cast Morgan Freeman to play him

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bosco685

Bosco685

Posted
Posted
tumblr_o9m0p4kbrj1u2if3uo1_1280.png

 

I had happened across that a few weeks ago. I really would like to see this movie.

 

Especially if it was how comic stories were being influenced by events around him and the Marvel Bullpen.

 

If this was to be made by Marvel you already know theyll cast Morgan Freeman to play him

 

Boy, you are not kidding. Pam Grier would play Ike Perlmutter, and would have issues with movies containing male leads. Not enough toy sales!

 

:ohnoez::ohnoez:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Prince Namor

Prince Namor

Posted
Posted
He worked for Joe Simon/Jack Kirby.

 

He re-introduced CA.

 

Simon and Kirby created the character. There's plenty of other characters Stan had an actual hand in creating, why even confuse the issue?

 

And he didn't work FOR Simon and Kirby, he DID work for them. He was hired by Martin Goodman's company.

 

See... it's a no win for Marvel... it's just going raise ghosts....

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Prince Namor

Prince Namor

Posted
Posted

It wouldn't come to that.

Stan's done documentaries and books regarding the 'history' of Marvel Comics and himself... and mostly they're what people want to hear or believe.

Neither him or Marvel wants to invite scrutiny of what really happened (if there's anyone who could really write that story) with a big budget movie.

The Kirby estate got what they wanted, Ditko is keeping mum. Others still around have more to gain by following the Marvel version of history than they do, bucking it.

And it's not like Stan needs the money or the fame.

 

A big budget Hollywood movie would benefit no one.

Though when Stan passes away, I expect we'll see someone take it on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
chezmtghut

chezmtghut

Posted
Posted
It wouldn't come to that.

Stan's done documentaries and books regarding the 'history' of Marvel Comics and himself... and mostly they're what people want to hear or believe.

Neither him or Marvel wants to invite scrutiny of what really happened (if there's anyone who could really write that story) with a big budget movie.

The Kirby estate got what they wanted, Ditko is keeping mum. Others still around have more to gain by following the Marvel version of history than they do, bucking it.

And it's not like Stan needs the money or the fame.

 

A big budget Hollywood movie would benefit no one.

Though when Stan passes away, I expect we'll see someone take it on.

Stan doesn't have that many years left & if it were your story, wouldn't you like to have some say in how it's presented? Like you said, it's bound to happen anyways.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheLiamSturgess

TheLiamSturgess

Posted
Posted
It wouldn't come to that.

Stan's done documentaries and books regarding the 'history' of Marvel Comics and himself... and mostly they're what people want to hear or believe.

Neither him or Marvel wants to invite scrutiny of what really happened (if there's anyone who could really write that story) with a big budget movie.

The Kirby estate got what they wanted, Ditko is keeping mum. Others still around have more to gain by following the Marvel version of history than they do, bucking it.

And it's not like Stan needs the money or the fame.

 

A big budget Hollywood movie would benefit no one.

Though when Stan passes away, I expect we'll see someone take it on.

Stan doesn't have that many years left & if it were your story, wouldn't you like to have some say in how it's presented? Like you said, it's bound to happen anyways.

 

Which is precisely why it won't happen yet - the filmmakers won't want to be subject to Stan's "creative direction".

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Prince Namor

Prince Namor

Posted
Posted

And his story has already been told a number of times in different formats that come under less scrutiny than a big budget Hollywood movie would.

Stan LIKES the persona that people have of him. Why on earth would he ever want to put that under examination?

It just doesn't make sense for him OR for Marvel.

Plus, what does Marvel APPROVE of the movie saying? That Stan, back in the day, straight out said in a Marvel Bullpen Bulletin, that Doctor Strange was Steve Ditko's baby, only to change his story years later? Is their approval of those FACTS, and they are FACTS, come back to haunt them when someone else tries to sue for creative rights of something?

 

If they DON'T address these facts, are they then asked a million times in media interviews and investigated and reported upon by media shows, and highlighted for everyone to see?

 

No... It's no good for Stan, it's no good for Marvel.

 

Marvel got the Kirby estate covered, and Ditko ain't talkin', so there's no sense in kickin' that bee hive.

 

After Stan passes we'll see an unauthorized movie most likely, unless Disney's lawyers threaten with all the power of the mouse, but I doubt it'll ever be something Marvel will take on themselves. It'd just be a bad idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Go to topic listing