Comics and Movies

John813

Well-Known Member
Messages
21,877
Reaction score
33,437
I don't agree with that quote from the article that absence makes the heart grow fonder. If Deadpool is a big hit it doesn't prove that at all, it means people want to see Deadpool and Wolverine.


Arrogance, greed, whatever just lead to too many misteps. They wanted every movie to be billion dollar movies, who doesn't, I guess, but the budgets got larger and larger, stakes got higher and higher. They could have sustained an increase in output if they paired back the budgets and concentrated on the storytelling and characters instead of SFX and be financially successful. They could have had a couple reoccurring series, like Netflix did, to have new content and keeps Marvel in the public consciousness, but remain budget friendly.

Many of the characters you named could have been pretty cool guests, introductions, cameos onto a reoccurring series, like an "Agents of Shield" series maybe?

Yea, people want to see Deadpool 3 cause of Ryan Reynolds killing it in the first two movies and Hugh Jackman coming back in a less gloomy world than what Logan was. Waiting another year for Captain Falcon won't make me long for that movie even more.
I couldn't careless if they never made another Captain America flick. As far as I'm concerned the falcon and winter soldier tv series de-hyped any movie with Sam being Capt. America.

Disney overestimated the appeal of The Marvels cast/characters to the general audiences. Disney also had a good string of disappointments even with a good box office pull in Thor 4 and Dr. Strange(IMO).
So, by now, the appeal of most new characters are low.

shang chi came out in 2021 and I doubt we see a sequel till the end of the decade. Most will have forgotten about that flick. Just odd direction in general this phase.
 
Last edited:

Trendnet

Well-Known Member
Messages
1,381
Reaction score
907
Yea, people want to see Deadpool 3 cause of Ryan Reynolds killing it in the first two movies and Hugh Jackman coming back in a less gloomy world than what Logan was. Waiting another year for Captain Falcon won't make me long for that movie even more.
I couldn't careless if they never made another Captain America flick. As far as I'm concerned the falcon and winter soldier tv series de-hyped any movie with Sam being Capt. America.

Disney overestimated the appeal of The Marvels cast/characters to the general audiences. Disney also had a good string of disappointments even with a good box office pull in Thor 4 and Dr. Strange(IMO).
So, by now, the appeal of most new characters are low.

shang chi came out in 2021 and I doubt we see a sequel till the end of the decade. Most will have forgotten about that flick. Just odd direction in general this phase.
My theory for Deadpool / Wolverine is that Hugh Jackman plays Hugh Jackman that Deadpool forces into playing 'Wolverine' and dresses Hugh Jackman up throughout the movie.
 

Stash

Staff member
Messages
78,211
Reaction score
101,915
CowboysZone ULTIMATE Fan
My theory for Deadpool / Wolverine is that Hugh Jackman plays Hugh Jackman that Deadpool forces into playing 'Wolverine' and dresses Hugh Jackman up throughout the movie.
That would be such a disappointment. I think there would be riots.
 

John813

Well-Known Member
Messages
21,877
Reaction score
33,437
My theory for Deadpool / Wolverine is that Hugh Jackman plays Hugh Jackman that Deadpool forces into playing 'Wolverine' and dresses Hugh Jackman up throughout the movie.


Boy, that would be something lol.
There has been mentions of Wolverine and Hugh so who knows how they go. My guess though is it is the real wolverine
 

Roadtrip635

Well-Known Member
Messages
13,927
Reaction score
26,791
It would not surprise me if the article's author is not that knowledgeable about comic book characters. Or may be bias after seeing the first two Deadpool movies and not enjoying them. Ryan Reynolds and both movies played within the character's niche environment and won over audiences well. Deadpool 3 may have similar or greater success if it keeps to the same formula and seamlessly integrates Hugh Jackson into it. Wolverine alone should boost the movie's appeal.


Agree with better storytelling but not budgets and special effects. The latter works with proper oversight and supportive direction. Most of the first three phases' movies illustrate that.

I agree completely about storytelling. Some movies had adopted a sizable portion of cookie cutter dialogue. A couple of scripts were too much Taika Waititi driven. :rolleyes: (oh how I dislike that man)


Liked Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. a lot but maybe have only trusted the series to do with just Dazzler I think. That would be a manageable character for the show in my opinion. All of my other suggestions? Nope.

The show did not do justice to Ghost Rider and really mishandled Graviton. GRAVITON!. It narrowed the Kree Empire into gloried henchmen. I can only imagine what it would have done with The Shi'Ar! Give the show Galactus? Hyperion? Excalibur? Super-Adaptoid? Onslaught??? (which would be even more difficult to fit into the show with the absence of an underlying mutant storyline)

Maaaaaybe Super-Adaptoid. The others? No sir. No way. The show may have wanted to embrace movie instead of comic book continuity and gave audience another SPACE CLOUD to laugh at. uh uh. Forget it. Hands off cancelled series. :laugh:
I should have clarified, not the ABC version of Agents, but possibly a rebooted version. A reoccurring series, that leans on the story and not SFX that's much more like a traditional TV series mini series, a mix of villain of the week/season villain thing. Some of those stories get resolved in an episode, a season or jumping off point for a larger mini series/movies endeavor. It gives them an ongoing series, new content at a reasonable cost and also gives them storytelling flexibility. It's a low risk way to introduce new characters or storylines without committing a whole mini series to and can gauge public response.

SHIELD just seems like an organic way to have some type of reoccurring show that gives a great deal of flexibility introducing all types of Marvel characters and stories.
 

Roadtrip635

Well-Known Member
Messages
13,927
Reaction score
26,791
Yea, people want to see Deadpool 3 cause of Ryan Reynolds killing it in the first two movies and Hugh Jackman coming back in a less gloomy world than what Logan was. Waiting another year for Captain Falcon won't make me long for that movie even more.
I couldn't careless if they never made another Captain America flick. As far as I'm concerned the falcon and winter soldier tv series de-hyped any movie with Sam being Capt. America.

Disney overestimated the appeal of The Marvels cast/characters to the general audiences. Disney also had a good string of disappointments even with a good box office pull in Thor 4 and Dr. Strange(IMO).
So, by now, the appeal of most new characters are low.

shang chi came out in 2021 and I doubt we see a sequel till the end of the decade. Most will have forgotten about that flick. Just odd direction in general this phase.
Well according to that article, people are gonna craving some Shang-Chi since he hasn't been seen in what will be almost a decade. :muttley:

Yeah, that didn't make much sense, why make that movie if you weren't prepared to do something else substantial with the character?


I'm kinda on the fence about the new Captain America. The Falcon was already a superhero with his own identity, giving him a shield doesn't make him Captain America, he's just Falcon with a shield. Steve Rogers to the public is Captain America, do we give CeeDee Lamb the nickname "Playmaker" because he wears #88?
 

nobody

Well-Known Member
Messages
10,365
Reaction score
18,444
As the late Don Meredith would say, "Turn out the lights! The party's over!" :laugh:

Oh well. I had fun while it lasted. Some of Disney/Marvel's product disappointed me also but everything will always hinge upon the box office bottom line.

From the article:

I have not been as critical as seemingly the majority of the MCU audience. Overall quality has dropped post-Phase Three but quantity was what I wanted and received for the most part. Practically all these characters, iconic and minor, new and old, DC included, are special for me and I have enjoyed the heck out of seeing them cross over from page to big and small screen. There were many more I had hoped to see in relative short order.

Now, Disney has slammed on its brakes and return to Infinity Saga output norms--possibly even more conservatively than before. MCU movies released at an average clip of two per year:

Phase One
2008 (2) Iron Man, The Incredible Hulk
2010 (1) Iron Man 2
2011 (2) Thor, Captain America: The First Avenger
2012 (1) Marvel’s The Avengers

Phase Two
2013 (2) Iron Man 3, Thor: The Dark World
2014 (2) Captain America: The Winter Soldier, Guardians of the Galaxy
2015 (2) Avengers: Age of Ultron, Ant-Man

Phase Three
2016 (2) Captain America: Civil War, Doctor Strange
2017 (3) Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2, Spider-Man: Homecoming, Thor: Ragnarok
2018 (3) Black Panther, Avengers: Infinity War, Ant-Man and the Wasp
2019 (3) Captain Marvel, Avengers: Endgame, Spider-Man: Far From Home

It looks like it will basically happen anyway with the impending merge of Disney+ and Hulu catalogs but I would support the studio sacrificing its original programming streaming model from a purely selfish standpoint--IF it meant overall quality would rise on the big screen AND get an average of three productions per year, as seen in Phase Three.

However, it is depressing to me knowing even that self-centered dream is highly likely farfetched. Disney made billions during the Infinity Saga phases without any really harmful pitfalls to its expected box office revenue. It is simply smart business recapturing that output.

So, in true drama queen fashion, SAYONARA characters and groups like Galactus, Dazzler, The Shi'Ar, Hyperion, Excalibur, Super-Adaptoid, Onslaught, etc. Y'all may never see the light of day. Or my granddaughter will have the good fortune of watching you one day at least, lol. :(
Galactus is too big a bad to not see the big screen. I bet they use him at some point. He's nearly as iconic as Doctor Doom. Were I writing for them, I'd set up a series of movies (like Phase 1 did) that made it look like it was setting up Galactus as the big bad, even having Doctor Doom actually helping the heroes stop Galactus from snacking on Earth...only to reveal at the end of that buildup that it was all part of Doctor Doom's plan and he's the big bad after all. (Sort of an almost homage to the 12-issue "Secret Wars" limited series in the mid-80's.)
 

John813

Well-Known Member
Messages
21,877
Reaction score
33,437
Well according to that article, people are gonna craving some Shang-Chi since he hasn't been seen in what will be almost a decade. :muttley:

Yeah, that didn't make much sense, why make that movie if you weren't prepared to do something else substantial with the character?


I'm kinda on the fence about the new Captain America. The Falcon was already a superhero with his own identity, giving him a shield doesn't make him Captain America, he's just Falcon with a shield. Steve Rogers to the public is Captain America, do we give CeeDee Lamb the nickname "Playmaker" because he wears #88?
100%

Sam is the Falcon. Nothing from with keeping him as a decent role but as the falcon.
 

DallasEast

Cowboys 24/7/365
Staff member
Messages
57,849
Reaction score
54,963
CowboysZone ULTIMATE Fan
lol, A visiting friend asked me how much I enjoyed The Marvels. It occurred to me at that moment I had never checked my three favorite review sites to see how each rated the film:

Rotten Tomatoes (link)
61% - Paid Critics
83% - Audience

Metacritic (link)
50 - Paid Critics
3.7 - User Score

IMDB (link)
6.0/10

I really expected seeing a squashed tomato on RT based on box office. Is it fair saying Metacritic's user score is the most reflective of actual box office appeal in this particular case?
 

VaqueroTD

Well-Known Member
Messages
7,551
Reaction score
15,671
Galactus is too big a bad to not see the big screen. I bet they use him at some point. He's nearly as iconic as Doctor Doom. Were I writing for them, I'd set up a series of movies (like Phase 1 did) that made it look like it was setting up Galactus as the big bad, even having Doctor Doom actually helping the heroes stop Galactus from snacking on Earth...only to reveal at the end of that buildup that it was all part of Doctor Doom's plan and he's the big bad after all. (Sort of an almost homage to the 12-issue "Secret Wars" limited series in the mid-80's.)
Most disappointing comic-to-movie adaptation… watching the Fantastic Four movie only to realize a giant cloud was as much as we would see of Galactus. :angry:
 

VaqueroTD

Well-Known Member
Messages
7,551
Reaction score
15,671
lol, A visiting friend asked me how much I enjoyed The Marvels. It occurred to me at that moment I had never checked my three favorite review sites to see how each rated the film:

Rotten Tomatoes (link)
61% - Paid Critics
83% - Audience

Metacritic (link)
50 - Paid Critics
3.7 - User Score

IMDB (link)
6.0/10

I really expected seeing a squashed tomato on RT based on box office. Is it fair saying Metacritic's user score is the most reflective of actual box office appeal in this particular case?
I’m always wary of Rotten Tomatoes where there is a LARGE disparity on critics vs audience scores. Where critics flunk it but audience likes it, or when the critics love it but the audiences flunk it. In general I find the movie going masses are usually right.

Cinemascore is my personal favorite. They poll people as they go in and out of the theaters on opening nights. So probably going to be a higher score because they paid to go to the movie on opening night anyways, but fairly accurate on hyped movies and if they, Bombed Expectations (D/C), Meh‘d Expectations (B), or Met/Exceeded Expectations. (A/A+)

The Marvels - B

CinemaScore_Ballot.jpg
 

nobody

Well-Known Member
Messages
10,365
Reaction score
18,444
Most disappointing comic-to-movie adaptation… watching the Fantastic Four movie only to realize a giant cloud was as much as we would see of Galactus. :angry:
Apparently they went with the completely stupid "Ultimate Universe" version of Galactus rather than the popular one everyone knew.
 

DallasEast

Cowboys 24/7/365
Staff member
Messages
57,849
Reaction score
54,963
CowboysZone ULTIMATE Fan
I’m always wary of Rotten Tomatoes where there is a LARGE disparity on critics vs audience scores. Where critics flunk it but audience likes it, or when the critics love it but the audiences flunk it. In general I find the movie going masses are usually right.

Cinemascore is my personal favorite. They poll people as they go in and out of the theaters on opening nights. So probably going to be a higher score because they paid to go to the movie on opening night anyways, but fairly accurate on hyped movies and if they, Bombed Expectations (D/C), Meh‘d Expectations (B), or Met/Exceeded Expectations. (A/A+)

The Marvels - B

CinemaScore_Ballot.jpg
Thanks for posting. I wish CinemaScores' website was a bit more informative. That said, I was surprised by the B rating. It did not help pull audiences via word-of-mouth.
 

VaqueroTD

Well-Known Member
Messages
7,551
Reaction score
15,671
Thanks for posting. I wish CinemaScores' website was a bit more informative. That said, I was surprised by the B rating. It did not help pull audiences via word-of-mouth.
I believe you have to pay for that or the protect it? It's more of a marketing business for movie studios to weigh audience reactions for further business decisions. But the overall letter grade is free.
 

quickccc

Well-Known Member
Messages
15,954
Reaction score
13,912
With Disney/Marvel in a seemingly slump in superhero production movies, I admit that I have grown
very skeptical about this upcoming Kang/Avengers movie flick.

I don't even like the way " Kang " was written into the Loki series. A boring long rant.
And i had already forgotten his appearance in a recent Ant man flick. Not surprising this past Ant man
was a forgettable flick anyway. It maybe in the record books as one of the lowest Marvel turnouts in history.
( don't worry ..The Marvels may still reign supreme in possibly the worst)

Though with so much going on in Mr. Majors personal life on a legal matter, I've the feeling his Kang
character maybe re-cast. We'll see.

I don't feel near as comfortable with the the Avengers films with Russo brothers departing it - Disney/Marvel studios
has to raise their stock, and even all of the producers realize this.

It's totally " cross our fingers " hope with this Avengers/Kang flick.

d49ed1adfbfd5f0dc88398abc6e3456b.jpg
 

VaqueroTD

Well-Known Member
Messages
7,551
Reaction score
15,671
With Disney/Marvel in a seemingly slump in superhero production movies, I admit that I have grown
very skeptical about this upcoming Kang/Avengers movie flick.

I don't even like the way " Kang " was written into the Loki series. A boring long rant.
And i had already forgotten his appearance in a recent Ant man flick. Not surprising this past Ant man
was a forgettable flick anyway. It maybe in the record books as one of the lowest Marvel turnouts in history.
( don't worry ..The Marvels may still reign supreme in possibly the worst)

Though with so much going on in Mr. Majors personal life on a legal matter, I've the feeling his Kang
character maybe re-cast. We'll see.

I don't feel near as comfortable with the the Avengers films with Russo brothers departing it - Disney/Marvel studios
has to raise their stock, and even all of the producers realize this.

It's totally " cross our fingers " hope with this Avengers/Kang flick.

d49ed1adfbfd5f0dc88398abc6e3456b.jpg
He’s just not as cool a villain as Thanos. Nothing to do with the actor. As Quentin Tarantino said, the stars are the original characters, not the actors. And with the villain already on a TV Show and a movie as a major character, there is no buildup unlike Thanos who only appeared in brief bits and usually by name more than on screen. We all knew he was a badarse. And then when the Avengers swoop down led by Captain AmeriFalcon, Female Thor and Black Panther, and whatever unneeded creations were added in these franchises.. well, it just won’t have the same impact as the previous Avengers movies. Going to be a disaster.
 

John813

Well-Known Member
Messages
21,877
Reaction score
33,437
I think another issue with Kang has been the general confusion over the multiverse movies to date. Adding in time jumping, potentially, it just doesn't hold the same weight as Thanos who was brought along and built up with less confusion. Doesn't help that variants of Kang have been in D+ shows, which who knows may have any impact in the future movies with Kang.

Sort of wish Marvel would just find a good way of moving on without simply cutting out Kang. You want a proper finish, but still unsure on how they'll handle it.
 

quickccc

Well-Known Member
Messages
15,954
Reaction score
13,912
He’s just not as cool a villain as Thanos. Nothing to do with the actor. As Quentin Tarantino said, the stars are the original characters, not the actors. And with the villain already on a TV Show and a movie as a major character, there is no buildup unlike Thanos who only appeared in brief bits and usually by name more than on screen. We all knew he was a badarse. And then when the Avengers swoop down led by Captain AmeriFalcon, Female Thor and Black Panther, and whatever unneeded creations were added in these franchises.. well, it just won’t have the same impact as the previous Avengers movies. Going to be a disaster.
I'm not sure what Tarantino meant.. but actors performances can stand out the characters:
Here are some character acting performances whether Hero or Villain that stood out big time, imo.
As you've mentioned Josh Brolin's Thanos ..
Heath Ledger with the Joker...
Chadwick Boseman as T'Challa/ Black Panther
Robert Downey Jr. as Tony Stark

Tom Middleton with Loki ...
Both Ian McKellen and Michael Fassbender as Magneto
Margot Robbie as Harley Quinn
Alfred Molina as Dr. Octopus
Christian Bale as Bruce Wayne
Huge Jackman as Wolverine


The Worse ? (hold on to your arm chair !)
Alicia Silverstone as Batgirl
Tom Hardy with Eddie Brock (Venom)
Jesse Eisenberg as Lex Luthor
David Twewilis with Ares (Wonder Woman)
Nicholas Cage as Johnny Blaze (Ghost Rider)
Val Kilmer as Bruce Wayne/Batman
Jaime Foxx as Electro
George Clooney as Bruce Wayne/Batman
Toby Kebbell as Dr. Doom
Vinnie Jones as Juggernaut
Oscar Isaac as Apocalypse
Jessica Alba as Susan Storm (Invisible Woman FF)
January Jones as Emma Frost
Taylor Kitsch as Gambit

Remind me if I am missing one or two .. ;)

BTW, i'm not one keen on an actor/actress portraying two different superhero/super villain
- Brolin as Thanos and Cable
- Halle Berry as Storm and Catwoman
- Ryan Reynolds as Dead Pool and Green Lantern
- Michael Keaton as Batman and Vulture
- Christian Bale as Batman and God Butcher
- Wil Smith Hancock and Dead shot
- Adewale Akinnuoye- Agbaje as Killer Croc/Kurse
 

DallasEast

Cowboys 24/7/365
Staff member
Messages
57,849
Reaction score
54,963
CowboysZone ULTIMATE Fan
My personal opinions of Jonathan Majors and the character of Kang the Conqueror differs from others. I think Majors is a great actor. And Kang? He is one of Marvel's top villains, cosmic or not.

There is no gray area for me concerning how I would want the future of both to play out. Either: a) go 100% with Majors/Kang for however many projects were initially planned or b) cancel all Majors contractual agreements and erase Kang completely from all future production timelines (pun intended).

For me, both enrich the MCU. If Disney/Marvel disagrees, they should dissolve the intertwining working relationship in its entirety. There are PLENTY of ultra-villains in Marvel canon but that well is not as deep if they decide upon an audience preference potentially as good as or better than Thanos. That character has been central to some of comics (regardless of publishing company) most epic maxi-stories. Topping the Deviant Titan would not be no small feat (understatement)...

Korvac? Not sure general audiences will accept a character that complex, especially not after Kang.

GALACTUS! Yeah boi-ee!

The Celestials? I mean. They are already setup. Again. They are already setup. It's right there. Then again, Eternals did not fare well with a significant share of the general audiences. :rolleyes:

The Beyonder? I would love it but it would certainly fry some brain cells. I can already read some Rotten Tomatoes reviews (paid critic or moviegoer): "Omnipotent being? Thanos killed off half the universe's living beings with an all-powerful glove. Why would some movie version of Q from Star Trek worry about The Avengers???"

I do not know. I just know not knowing how Disney/Marvel will play out this hand is bugging me something fierce. Victor Von Doom would be a great Earth-centric apocalyptic villain. Same goes for APOCALPSE (been there done that poorly). Onslaught? Gotta get the mutants rebooted and running for a while first for that to make any sense for general audiences.

Doctor Doom could go cosmic. It has been done before (e.g. Secret Wars). His world threatening rep must be constructed in the minds of the general audience first--"Hey? Who is Doc Doom?"--before he can be feared universe wide... right?

Scrap the cosmic canon completely? Keep it downsized and more comprehendible and acceptable for general audiences? Makes sense. Play it safe. The concession does not strive to match or top what Thanos established though.

Crap. My brain hurts. Gotta hit this real work and get outta here, lol

/rant
 

Roadtrip635

Well-Known Member
Messages
13,927
Reaction score
26,791
My personal opinions of Jonathan Majors and the character of Kang the Conqueror differs from others. I think Majors is a great actor. And Kang? He is one of Marvel's top villains, cosmic or not.

There is no gray area for me concerning how I would want the future of both to play out. Either: a) go 100% with Majors/Kang for however many projects were initially planned or b) cancel all Majors contractual agreements and erase Kang completely from all future production timelines (pun intended).

For me, both enrich the MCU. If Disney/Marvel disagrees, they should dissolve the intertwining working relationship in its entirety. There are PLENTY of ultra-villains in Marvel canon but that well is not as deep if they decide upon an audience preference potentially as good as or better than Thanos. That character has been central to some of comics (regardless of publishing company) most epic maxi-stories. Topping the Deviant Titan would not be no small feat (understatement)...

Korvac? Not sure general audiences will accept a character that complex, especially not after Kang.

GALACTUS! Yeah boi-ee!

The Celestials? I mean. They are already setup. Again. They are already setup. It's right there. Then again, Eternals did not fare well with a significant share of the general audiences. :rolleyes:

The Beyonder? I would love it but it would certainly fry some brain cells. I can already read some Rotten Tomatoes reviews (paid critic or moviegoer): "Omnipotent being? Thanos killed off half the universe's living beings with an all-powerful glove. Why would some movie version of Q from Star Trek worry about The Avengers???"

I do not know. I just know not knowing how Disney/Marvel will play out this hand is bugging me something fierce. Victor Von Doom would be a great Earth-centric apocalyptic villain. Same goes for APOCALPSE (been there done that poorly). Onslaught? Gotta get the mutants rebooted and running for a while first for that to make any sense for general audiences.

Doctor Doom could go cosmic. It has been done before (e.g. Secret Wars). His world threatening rep must be constructed in the minds of the general audience first--"Hey? Who is Doc Doom?"--before he can be feared universe wide... right?

Scrap the cosmic canon completely? Keep it downsized and more comprehendible and acceptable for general audiences? Makes sense. Play it safe. The concession does not strive to match or top what Thanos established though.

Crap. My brain hurts. Gotta hit this real work and get outta here, lol

/rant
Kang may be a top villain in the comic books, but he just doesn't feel that way in the movies or series, he just doesn't have that menacing or compelling nature that warrant so many MCU movies revolving around. I realize they want to capture the magic(and money) from the Thanos type villian, but would it be so bad to have some stand alone movies that don't have an arc related to Kang? I know they want to prolong it to build up the anticipation for future movies, but it doesn't feel like it's working, it feels forced. There tons of great comic stories that are not intertwined into other comics or characters. The casuals are the fans they are losing, give them some single or two movie arcs without feeling like homework for future movies. Just make a couple fun superhero based adventure movies. They are losing some of the character building and individual stories while trying to world build.


Really, how big of a threat can Kang really be if he's already been defeated by Ant-Man? Do they really need the Avengers to assemble, just call Scott up and have him handle it again.......:muttley:
 
Top