Comics and Movies

[Runwildboys]

that may be it ..it's." nuthin' new" ... how many Bat Girls are they gonna keep regurgitating ?

How many Batmans ...Supermans ... are gonna be make, remake, re-introduced ...?

as Road" mentioned ... it may also about quality - and that goes into series as well.
yes, there's a blitz of superheroes particularly Marvel , ..but has there been quality amongst them ?

i don't hear anyone, any whispers, any raves about Hawkeye, who was already the boring member of the Avengers but yet he gets his own Disney series ?
Heck i always thought it was the snoring, boring Hawkeye that should've croaked... instead of Black Widow . .

I actually liked the Hawkeye series, and as superheroes go, he's pretty cool, because he's at least somewhat realistic.

 

[DallasEast]

Will Disney bring back Daredevil's hyper radar senses ?

Netflix was too cheap to include it ... but i'd love to see it in his Disney DD series.

What say Ye ?.....

My answer is conflicted. Before 2015, I would have said yes. I grew up seeing it visually captured on paper. And I did not like the imagined conceptualization seen in the Affleck movie, so I wanted someone else to take a shot at bringing it from page to screen.

Then the series came out. The creators got rid of the "Spider-Man! Spider-Man! He's got radioactive blood!" angle in favor of matching his trained heighten senses skill set to Stick's. That commitment helped the audience follow a commonly held real-life belief that people, who have lost their sight, discover another of their sense or senses has grown somewhat stronger.

The change made the show's main protagonist more realistic in a live action television adaptation in my opinion. Additionally, it made Matt and Stick's heighten senses' abilities equivalent, which, in turn, made Stick a more believable character as well.

It should be pointed out also that Stick's tv series abilities essentially match his comic book abilities. For me, that translation won me over more because Murdock's comic book mentor taught him how to HEIGHTEN his senses, like he did, without the aid of the comic book radioactive plot device. After all, Daredevil, like Batman, is only a man. He is more of a superhero than those with extraordinary abilities like flight, telepathy, etc., because he trained himself to be more than the average human to combat enemies and overcome obstacles.

I would say Disney should keep the status quo and not introduce a comic book version of visualized hyper radar senses. I say 'visualized' because the series does show the character with hyper radar sense but without any 'wavy' circles flashing across the screen.

 

[DallasEast]

that may be it ..it's." nuthin' new" ... how many Bat Girls are they gonna keep regurgitating ?

How many Batmans ...Supermans ... are gonna be make, remake, re-introduced ...?

It depends. These media giants have invested billions in these fictional characters in order to make billions more. They have a treasure trove to pull from in that regard but they prefer the safe route in getting a higher return on their investment. The riskier course would mean putting in real time-and-effort into market research into discovering and molding less popular characters into versions the audience will accept and enjoy.

Personally (and this comes from my opinion only), I do not mind regurgitation as much as I want studios to get match the 'right' actors with 'correct' movie or television environments.

For example, I'll talk Superman. I thought Christopher Reeves casting was perfect. How he was presented in the first two films' settings? Ditto. The next two? Vomit.

Brandon Routh? Tarzan/Jane. It would be perfect if Routh posed as a statue and didn't say anything throughout the movie but that would be completely unrealistic. I still believe who ever cast him from all the actors who auditioned should be shot. As far as the movie itself goes, it is basically a continuation of Superman: The Movie. "Lex Luthor plots to destroy the world for his economic gain." Wow. Original.

Henry Cavill? Home run. Humanity faces annihilation from an actually villainous General Zod this time (my apologies to Terence Stamp, whose talent was not close to being fully tapped in Superman II), who has a real defined purpose this time also. His subordinates, not playing sexy smooth or goofy on camera, are also villainous. THIS LOOKS LIKE A JOB FOR..! Yep. Man of Steel was just that movie.

as Road" mentioned ... it may also about quality - and that goes into series as well.
yes, there's a blitz of superheroes particularly Marvel , ..but has there been quality amongst them ?

Guess it is a matter of what each individual audience member sees as quality per movie or television series.

i don't hear anyone, any whispers, any raves about Hawkeye, who was already the boring member of the Avengers but yet he gets his own Disney series ?
Heck i always thought it was the snoring, boring Hawkeye that should've croaked... instead of Black Widow . .

There are literally tons of reviews, both positive and negative, about Hawkeye that can be read on sites like Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic. And the majority of those reviews are from audience members separate from paid critics.

I never saw Jeremy Renner's rendition as boring. It was a departure from cartoon versions showing him as emotional and highly charismatic for sure. That is not the comic book version of Clint Barton though. Plus, Robert Downey Jr. was already established as the charismatic guy in the group. Two of them would have combative and not messed well on screen I think.

Now, I agree that the series had its boring moments but it was a good show overall. Perhaps I would agree more about Renner's portrayal of the character if not for the fact the series was never going to be about Renner's Hawkeye. It was always going to be a launching point for his successor in Kate Bishop. Renner was never meant to outshine or upstage Hailee Steinfeld.

That said, I would agree they could have refined her character more in the series, along with Echo. Much of that blame can be placed at Disney's feet with these abbreviated episodic seasons of theirs. Then again, I do not know if more episodes would have helped Moon Knight improve.

 

[nobody]

It depends. These media giants have invested billions in these fictional characters in order to make billions more. They have a treasure trove to pull from in that regard but they prefer the safe route in getting a higher return on their investment. The riskier course would mean putting in real time-and-effort into market research into discovering and molding less popular characters into versions the audience will accept and enjoy.

Personally (and this comes from my opinion only), I do not mind regurgitation as much as I want studios to get match the 'right' actors with 'correct' movie or television environments.

For example, I'll talk Superman. I thought Christopher Reeves casting was perfect. How he was presented in the first two films' settings? Ditto. The next two? Vomit.

Brandon Routh? Tarzan/Jane. It would be perfect if Routh posed as a statue and didn't say anything throughout the movie but that would be completely unrealistic. I still believe who ever cast him from all the actors who auditioned should be shot. As far as the movie itself goes, it is basically a continuation of Superman: The Movie. "Lex Luthor plots to destroy the world for his economic gain." Wow. Original.

Henry Cavill? Home run. Humanity faces annihilation from an actually villainous General Zod this time (my apologies to Terence Stamp, whose talent was not close to being fully tapped in Superman II), who has a real defined purpose this time also. His subordinates, not playing sexy smooth or goofy on camera, are also villainous. THIS LOOKS LIKE A JOB FOR..! Yep. Man of Steel was just that movie.


Guess it is a matter of what each individual audience member sees as quality per movie or television series.

There are literally tons of reviews, both positive and negative, about Hawkeye that can be read on sites like Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic. And the majority of those reviews are from audience members separate from paid critics.

I never saw Jeremy Renner's rendition as boring. It was a departure from cartoon versions showing him as emotional and highly charismatic for sure. That is not the comic book version of Clint Barton though. Plus, Robert Downey Jr. was already established as the charismatic guy in the group. Two of them would have combative and not messed well on screen I think.

Now, I agree that the series had its boring moments but it was a good show overall. Perhaps I would agree more about Renner's portrayal of the character if not for the fact the series was never going to be about Renner's Hawkeye. It was always going to be a launching point for his successor in Kate Bishop. Renner was never meant to outshine or upstage Hailee Steinfeld.

That said, I would agree they could have refined her character more in the series, along with Echo. Much of that blame can be placed at Disney's feet with these abbreviated episodic seasons of theirs. Then again, I do not know if more episodes would have helped Moon Knight improve.

I emphatically disagree with you on Man of Steel. That movie was terrible and everything Superman was not.

Cavill can't be blamed for it though.

 

[Runwildboys]

It depends. These media giants have invested billions in these fictional characters in order to make billions more. They have a treasure trove to pull from in that regard but they prefer the safe route in getting a higher return on their investment. The riskier course would mean putting in real time-and-effort into market research into discovering and molding less popular characters into versions the audience will accept and enjoy.

Personally (and this comes from my opinion only), I do not mind regurgitation as much as I want studios to get match the 'right' actors with 'correct' movie or television environments.

For example, I'll talk Superman. I thought Christopher Reeves casting was perfect. How he was presented in the first two films' settings? Ditto. The next two? Vomit.

Brandon Routh? Tarzan/Jane. It would be perfect if Routh posed as a statue and didn't say anything throughout the movie but that would be completely unrealistic. I still believe who ever cast him from all the actors who auditioned should be shot. As far as the movie itself goes, it is basically a continuation of Superman: The Movie. "Lex Luthor plots to destroy the world for his economic gain." Wow. Original.

Henry Cavill? Home run. Humanity faces annihilation from an actually villainous General Zod this time (my apologies to Terence Stamp, whose talent was not close to being fully tapped in Superman II), who has a real defined purpose this time also. His subordinates, not playing sexy smooth or goofy on camera, are also villainous. THIS LOOKS LIKE A JOB FOR..! Yep. Man of Steel was just that movie.


Guess it is a matter of what each individual audience member sees as quality per movie or television series.

There are literally tons of reviews, both positive and negative, about Hawkeye that can be read on sites like Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic. And the majority of those reviews are from audience members separate from paid critics.

I never saw Jeremy Renner's rendition as boring. It was a departure from cartoon versions showing him as emotional and highly charismatic for sure. That is not the comic book version of Clint Barton though. Plus, Robert Downey Jr. was already established as the charismatic guy in the group. Two of them would have combative and not messed well on screen I think.

Now, I agree that the series had its boring moments but it was a good show overall. Perhaps I would agree more about Renner's portrayal of the character if not for the fact the series was never going to be about Renner's Hawkeye. It was always going to be a launching point for his successor in Kate Bishop. Renner was never meant to outshine or upstage Hailee Steinfeld.

That said, I would agree they could have refined her character more in the series, along with Echo. Much of that blame can be placed at Disney's feet with these abbreviated episodic seasons of theirs. Then again, I do not know if more episodes would have helped Moon Knight improve.

Moon Knight was absolutely terrible. I thought that, maybe, if it had been a separate entity, not attached to the MCU, I would have liked it better, simply because my expectations wouldn't have been as high.

After reflection on it, I think it still sucked. They were too obsessed with his mental state, yet I still don't really understand his motivation.

 

[DallasEast]

I emphatically disagree with you on Man of Steel. That movie was terrible and everything Superman was not.

Cavill can't be blamed for it though.

Trust me. You are not the first CBZ member to say the movie was terrible. And I doubt you will be the last. I do not even try countering the opposing opinion anymore but I am curious of a personal comparison.

In your opinion, do you see Superman Returns as a better or worst movie than Man of Steel? Film fan sites' scoring systems are not precise and subjective but I like reviewing their gauged opinion. I will use Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes as gauges in my thoughts (bold numbers are links). For the audience:

Man of Steel ranks higher [ 7.6 & 75% ] than Superman Returns [ 7.0 & 61% ]​

The overall audience does not appreciate MoS as much as I do but it is looked upon favorably. On the other hand, paid critics thought:

Man of Steel ranked lower [ 55 & 56% ] than Superman Returns [ 72 & 74% ].​

My thoughts on how my opinion sways wildly with or from paid critics' have been posted on this site many times. Yet, my few conversations about MoS over the years has commonly demonstrated differing perspectives of it match or run beneath those of paid critics.

So, I am always curious and sometimes question other members if their opinion of Superman Returns also agrees or exceeds that of paid critics' consensus opinion, which I also disagree with. It is my way of kinda getting a clearer picture how much or little other folks judge these particular films as entertainment value comparatively.

 

[DallasEast]

Tomb Raider: Edgar Wright Supports Aubrey Plaza As Next Lara Croft
By Ryan Northrup | Screen Rant
August 10, 2022

Acclaimed writer/director Edgar Wright supports Aubrey Plaza as the new Lara Croft following the cancellation of the long-awaited sequel to 2018's Tomb Raider. Based on the iconic Square Enix video game character, the Tomb Raider franchise has now seen two different actors play the live-action role of the adventurous female archeologist. Angelina Jolie first played Lara Croft for two films in the early 2000s, but the 2018 reboot saw Alicia Vikander take up the mantle of the titular Tomb Raider. Although Tomb Raider was critically divisive and not a huge box office success, a sequel was announced shortly afterward.

Despite promising updates from both Vikander and attached writer/director Misha Green, it was recently announced that Tomb Raider 2 has been scrapped. In addition to reported creative differences between Vikander and Green, development on the sequel was purportedly cancelled due to MGM losing the film rights for the character. The rights have now reverted to producer Graham King and his company, GK films, with Vikander and Green no longer attached to any future reboots. With Tomb Raider proving a hot commodity and various studios interested in scoring the rights to the reboot, it remains to be seen who will take on the iconic role.

In a new interview on The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon, Plaza, who is best known for her role on Parks & Recreation, shares that Baby Driver director Wright supports her taking on the role of Croft. In fact, as Plaza hilariously explains, he genuinely thought she had already been cast in the role, with a recent magazine cover promoting her new movie, Emily the Criminal, featuring the star looking very much like the famed adventurer. Plaza is characteristically nonchalant about the idea of playing Croft, but does ultimately seem up for the role. Check out Plaza's full comment below:

My friend Edgar Wright actually saw that and texted me and said, ‘Oh my god, you’re the new Lara Croft? You’re the new Tomb Raider?’ That’s the character in ‘Tomb Raider.’ And I was like, ‘No, Edgar. That’s my movie, ‘Emily the Criminal,'” He genuinely thought I was cast as the new ‘Tomb Raider.’ And then I looked it up and they actually are casting this role right now. And I was like, ‘Well there you go. The new Tomb Raider, whatever.'

Read more

____________________

Confession time. I am having a Paul Rudd announced as Ant-Man moment.

Aubrey Plaza? As Lara Croft? Not seeing it but I could not picture Rudd as Ant-Man at first either. That worked out for me in the end. Hopefully (if the film is made) Plaza will as well.

 

[Roadtrip635]

My answer is conflicted. Before 2015, I would have said yes. I grew up seeing it visually captured on paper. And I did not like the imagined conceptualization seen in the Affleck movie, so I wanted someone else to take a shot at bringing it from page to screen.

Then the series came out. The creators got rid of the "Spider-Man! Spider-Man! He's got radioactive blood!" angle in favor of matching his trained heighten senses skill set to Stick's. That commitment helped the audience follow a commonly held real-life belief that people, who have lost their sight, discover another of their sense or senses has grown somewhat stronger.

The change made the show's main protagonist more realistic in a live action television adaptation in my opinion. Additionally, it made Matt and Stick's heighten senses' abilities equivalent, which, in turn, made Stick a more believable character as well.

It should be pointed out also that Stick's tv series abilities essentially match his comic book abilities. For me, that translation won me over more because Murdock's comic book mentor taught him how to HEIGHTEN his senses, like he did, without the aid of the comic book radioactive plot device. After all, Daredevil, like Batman, is only a man. He is more of a superhero than those with extraordinary abilities like flight, telepathy, etc., because he trained himself to be more than the average human to combat enemies and overcome obstacles.

I would say Disney should keep the status quo and not introduce a comic book version of visualized hyper radar senses. I say 'visualized' because the series does show the character with hyper radar sense but without any 'wavy' circles flashing across the screen.

I think I'm with you on this one. I don't think I want it visualized on screen, but that sense is there just not shown in an overt way. The way he moves around inanimate objects, grabs at a ledge, or when he bounces his baton, that suggests more echo location, "radar" sense than just hypersensitive hearing. The series also showed he was still developing his skills, heck he was still trying to figure out his costume....lol, so there's still room to sharpen his radar sense.

 

[Roadtrip635]

Tomb Raider: Edgar Wright Supports Aubrey Plaza As Next Lara Croft
By Ryan Northrup | Screen Rant
August 10, 2022

Acclaimed writer/director Edgar Wright supports Aubrey Plaza as the new Lara Croft following the cancellation of the long-awaited sequel to 2018's Tomb Raider. Based on the iconic Square Enix video game character, the Tomb Raider franchise has now seen two different actors play the live-action role of the adventurous female archeologist. Angelina Jolie first played Lara Croft for two films in the early 2000s, but the 2018 reboot saw Alicia Vikander take up the mantle of the titular Tomb Raider. Although Tomb Raider was critically divisive and not a huge box office success, a sequel was announced shortly afterward.

Despite promising updates from both Vikander and attached writer/director Misha Green, it was recently announced that Tomb Raider 2 has been scrapped. In addition to reported creative differences between Vikander and Green, development on the sequel was purportedly cancelled due to MGM losing the film rights for the character. The rights have now reverted to producer Graham King and his company, GK films, with Vikander and Green no longer attached to any future reboots. With Tomb Raider proving a hot commodity and various studios interested in scoring the rights to the reboot, it remains to be seen who will take on the iconic role.

In a new interview on The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon, Plaza, who is best known for her role on Parks & Recreation, shares that Baby Driver director Wright supports her taking on the role of Croft. In fact, as Plaza hilariously explains, he genuinely thought she had already been cast in the role, with a recent magazine cover promoting her new movie, Emily the Criminal, featuring the star looking very much like the famed adventurer. Plaza is characteristically nonchalant about the idea of playing Croft, but does ultimately seem up for the role. Check out Plaza's full comment below:

​

Read more

____________________

Confession time. I am having a Paul Rudd announced as Ant-Man moment.

Aubrey Plaza? As Lara Croft? Not seeing it but I could not picture Rudd as Ant-Man at first either. That worked out for me in the end. Hopefully (if the film is made) Plaza will as well.

I don't know if I see her as Lara Croft either, but I really like her and want to see her in something. She's such a kooky goofball, I like watching her interviews as much as whatever project she's actually promoting.

 

[DallasEast]

@quickccc , one more thing that has been pecking at my brain since my earlier comment. 37 years separated Lynda Carter hanging up her tiara and Gal Gadot dropping down out of nowhere to keep Doomsday from making a burnt smear out of Ben Affleck.

Regurgitating superheroes is a real issue. Lesser characters should see the light of day on both the big and small screens.

That said, Princess ‎Diana of Themyscira has been and may always be a Top 3 DC Comcs headliner character. I am sorry if movie studios deem female characters as risky box office ventures. I am sorry some audience members are not enthusiastic with female characters getting the spotlight for various reasons--some of which may be perfectly valid assumptions.

I don't care. My opinion? That Amazonian demigoddess deserves to be regurgitated as often as humanly possible. Perhaps until she has finally caught up with the number of regurgitated Supermen and Batmen seen since her ABC television show went off the air.

Gadot is the first reincarnation. Let more come! Although it would be appreciated if future actresses can act. And they all have the look of a legendary Amazon warrior.

/RIGHTEOUS RANT!

 

[Roadtrip635]

Moon Knight was absolutely terrible. I thought that, maybe, if it had been a separate entity, not attached to the MCU, I would have liked it better, simply because my expectations wouldn't have been as high.

After reflection on it, I think it still sucked. They were too obsessed with his mental state, yet I still don't really understand his motivation.

I didn't like it either and I was a big fan of the early MK comics. I stopped collecting comics in the early/mid 90's so can't really speak to how the character has evolved, but didn't feel like they captured the character very well. He was supposed to have been a darker character, but didn't really get that with this series, just too goofy at times. I would have liked to see a Netflix take during their Marvel days, I think he would have fit in with their lineup well.

 

[DallasEast]

I didn't like it either and I was a big fan of the early MK comics. I stopped collecting comics in the early/mid 90's so can't really speak to how the character has evolved, but didn't feel like they captured the character very well. He was supposed to have been a darker character, but didn't really get that with this series, just too goofy at times. I would have liked to see a Netflix take during their Marvel days, I think he would have fit in with their lineup well.

Your feelings are correct. Moon Knight was not captured well. Oscar Isaac's acting skill was captured extremely well. Unfortunately for the series and people who watched it, Isaac dominated screen time and performed like it was Macbeth on Broadway. I have tons of respect for comic books and screenplays that translate the material for movies and television but it's not supposed to be freaking Shakespeare!

I was happy that Isaac was tabbed for the role but apprehensive after his Apocalypse. Now I would not mind if he was replaced.

 

[Roadtrip635]

I actually liked the Hawkeye series, and as superheroes go, he's pretty cool, because he's at least somewhat realistic.

I liked Hawkeye too. The one small thing I don't care for, is her taking the "Hawkeye" name, I know it's like that in the comics, but let her have her own name, her own identity. Other than that small niggle, I liked her as the new Hawkeye.

 

[Runwildboys]

I liked Hawkeye too. The one small thing I don't care for, is her taking the "Hawkeye" name, I know it's like that in the comics, but let her have her own name, her own identity. Other than that small niggle, I liked her as the new Hawkeye.

Yes, the only reason I can see for a character carrying on the name of the hero they're replacing is to make it seem as if the hero is eternal, a la the Dread Pirate Roberts, in The Princess Bride.

Since nobody will mistake her for Clint, she should take on a new name.

 

[Roadtrip635]

Your feelings are correct. Moon Knight was not captured well. Oscar Isaac's acting skill was captured extremely well. Unfortunately for the series and people who watched it, Isaac dominated screen time and performed like it was Macbeth on Broadway. I have tons of respect for comic books and screenplays that translate the material for movies and television but it's not supposed to be freaking Shakespeare!

I was happy that Isaac was tabbed for the role but apprehensive after his Apocalypse. Now I would not mind if he was replaced.

Same here, wouldn't mind if he was recast. Now who would you recast him with?
I just watched "Black Bird" and Taron Egerton would be great, but he's up for a much bigger MCU role.

 

[DallasEast]

I liked Hawkeye too. The one small thing I don't care for, is her taking the "Hawkeye" name, I know it's like that in the comics, but let her have her own name, her own identity. Other than that small niggle, I liked her as the new Hawkeye.

I hope Bishop grows on you because I have the feeling audiences will see much more of Hawkeye after the announcements of future Avengers movies. And I doubt Renner will be a big part (if at all) in them.

 

[DallasEast]

Yes, the only reason I can see for a character carrying on the name of the hero they're replacing is to make it seem as if the hero is eternal, a la the Dread Pirate Roberts, in The Princess Bride.

Since nobody will mistake her for Clint, she should take on a new name.

Bishop has gone by other aliases but she has been Hawkeye for nearly 20 years in the comics. Anything is possible but I doubt a name change will be happening for Hailee Steinfeld's television and movie roles anytime soon.

 

[DallasEast]

Same here, wouldn't mind if he was recast. Now who would you recast him with?
I just watched "Black Bird" and Taron Egerton would be great, but he's up for a much bigger MCU role.

oh. Egerton would be a good good alternate. I could get behind that swap.

My choice would be Joel Edgerton. It is funny when I first read your mentioned of Egerton that I thought you got Edgerton's first name wrong.

 

[Runwildboys]

Bishop has gone by other aliases but she has been Hawkeye for nearly 20 years in the comics. Anything is possible but I doubt a name change will be happening for Hailee Steinfeld's television and movie roles anytime soon.

I agree, and it doesn't bother me much. I just think it makes more sense to rename the character, even if it's something small, like adding an 's' to the end.

If Natasha's sister takes over as Black Widow, I don't know if the world (in the MCU, not real life) is supposed to think it's the same person, or if they're supposed to know it's someone else. If it's the latter, it seems somewhat disrespectful to just forget Natasha ever existed. In that case, I'd like to see them change her name as well. Maybe even change her to "Red Widow", or something. (Just off the top of my head.)

 

[Roadtrip635]

I hope Bishop grows on you because I have the feeling audiences will see much more of Hawkeye after the announcements of future Avengers movies. And I doubt Renner will be a big part (if at all) in them.

I liked her just fine, just think she didn't need to take on the "Hawkeye" name. I hope to see more of her and liked the character, just let her have her own name.