Page 6 of 8 FirstFirst ... 2345678 LastLast
Results 76 to 90 of 109
  1. #76
    Senior Member Fast's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    4,362

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr_Wayne View Post
    EXACTLY, Legato. This conversation was summed up quite beautifully.



    Responsibility? It's not that serious. Chill. Besides, if you're only counting the Marvel Studios banner films then you have to count Hulk too. Which SUCKED. It may not count in the Marvel Cinematic Universe (which theoretically it should because Incredible Hulk was a sequel despite what fanboys think) but they still own the rights so your precious Marvel isn't without blemish. By the way, Marvel Studios agrees with Legato and myself. Just sayin'.
    For comparison's sake Beenox is making a new Spider-Man game corresponding to the ASM movie coming out. Looking at their track record to guess how this game will be you look at Shattered Dimensions and Edge of time (and maybe non-spidey games like monsters v aliens) you don't look at other spider-Man games like Spider-Man 2 made by Treyarch. At least that is how I look at it.

  2. #77
    Senior Member Titan76's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    California
    Posts
    2,412

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IamtheRock3 View Post
    werent GHOST RIDER 2, and Punisher War Zone..after Iron man.
    Both Ghost Riders were done by Sony, and both Punishers were done by Lionsgate.
    do we discount that
    Yes.
    Also the Hulk movies were meh..both of them
    No, one was meh, the other flat out suck.
    I mean dont we also got to discount the good movies like BLADE and spiderman then
    Yes.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr_Wayne View Post
    Responsibility? It's not that serious. Chill.
    I would advise the same for you, as you seem to be getting real caught up in this.

    Besides, if you're only counting the Marvel Studios banner films then you have to count [I]Hulktoo. Which SUCKED.
    Yes, it did suck, and no, we aren't counting it for this reason;
    It may not count in the [I]Marvel Cinematic Universe
    Not may, it just doesn't count. While Marvel, or technically Avi Arad who was Marvel's CEO at the time, was a producer on most of the films, he didn't have what you might say, actual power. I mean, he couldn't tell Bryan Singer if he didn't put said character in the X-films, he would shut down production, because didn't have that kind of power.
    (which theoretically it should because Incredible Hulk was a sequel despite what fanboys think)
    Its not about what fanboys think, its what is shown and is told to us by the people who made it. Gale Anne Hurd, who produce both Hulk films, has said that its not really a sequel, but its not really a robot either. While Ed Norton, who star and wrote the vast majority of the movie, has said he just igonre Ang Lee's Hulk movie. Given how the second movie starts, I would say it pretty much wasn't a sequel.

    but they still own the rights so your precious Marvel isn't without blemish.
    Like I said, you should follow your own advice in chilling out. And yes, Marvel does now own the rights to the Hulk, but that was after Universal gave it back to them.
    By the way, Marvel Studios agrees with Legato and myself. Just sayin'.
    I'm sorry, but did you even bother reading your own link.

    Films Co-productions:
    Year Film
    1994 The Fantastic Four
    1998 Blade
    2000 X-Men
    2002 Blade II
    Spider-Man
    2003 Daredevil
    X2: X-Men United
    Hulk
    2004 The Punisher
    Spider-Man 2
    Blade: Trinity
    2005 Elektra
    Man-Thing
    Fantastic Four
    2006 X3: The Last Stand
    2007 Ghost Rider
    2007 Spider-Man 3
    2007 FF4: Rise of the Silver Surfer
    2008 Punisher: War Zone
    2009 X-Men Origins: Wolverine
    2011 X-Men: First Class
    2012 Ghost Rider 2



    Independent productions
    Iron Man 1 and 2, The Incredible Hulk, Thor, Captain America, The Avengers

    I would like to think you know the difference between co-productions and Independent productions is.

    As for the actual topic, put me in the camp of, I'll believe it when I see it. Meaning, when I actually see an official trailer of the movie, then I will believe it. Otherwise, this is just the same as the last JL movie they tried to do. Close by no cigar.

  3. #78
    Immortal. So far so good! Treqqor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Canadian, eh
    Posts
    2,282

    Default

    So the Warner Bros. president thinks “To go forward we need to make it a little edgier and darker with more emphasis on action." will solve the problems.

    Since what works for Batman works for every hero.

    Poor WB, you have no clue at all...

  4. #79
    Elder Member The Batman's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Otisburg, USA.
    Posts
    10,131

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Treqqor View Post
    So the Warner Bros. president thinks “To go forward we need to make it a little edgier and darker with more emphasis on action." will solve the problems.

    Since what works for Batman works for every hero.

    Poor WB, you have no clue at all...
    What's that saying about everything looking like a nail when all you've got is a hammer? This isn't even the first time WB's tried to go down this road with the DC characters.

  5. #80
    Elder Member Mat001's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    11,997

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Titan76
    Not may, it just doesn't count. While Marvel, or technically Avi Arad who was Marvel's CEO at the time, was a producer on most of the films, he didn't have what you might say, actual power. I mean, he couldn't tell Bryan Singer if he didn't put said character in the X-films, he would shut down production, because didn't have that kind of power.
    According to Sam Raimi, he did on "Spider-Man 3" as it was Arad's decision to have Venom in that film and Sony backed him up on it. Raimi wanted the Vulture and was overruled.

  6. #81
    Senior Member Titan76's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    California
    Posts
    2,412

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mat001 View Post
    According to Sam Raimi, he did on "Spider-Man 3" as it was Arad's decision to have Venom in that film and Sony backed him up on it. Raimi wanted the Vulture and was overruled.
    Actually, the bold part is the reason Avi got his way and Raimi didn't. Like I said, Avi lent his ideas for the movies, but unless the Studio who owns the rights backs him, he doesn't have any actual power.

  7. #82
    Veteran Member Lancerman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    5,403

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Treqqor View Post
    So the Warner Bros. president thinks “To go forward we need to make it a little edgier and darker with more emphasis on action." will solve the problems.

    Since what works for Batman works for every hero.

    Poor WB, you have no clue at all...
    Well they made Green Lantern light hearted and it underperformed.

  8. #83
    In the Evil Force of Evil Chiasm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    13,410

    Default

    N/m . . . . . . .
    Last edited by Chiasm; 06-10-2012 at 06:32 PM.

  9. #84
    Elder Member The Batman's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Otisburg, USA.
    Posts
    10,131

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lancerman View Post
    Well they made Green Lantern light hearted and it underperformed.
    Sure, but not because it was "light hearted."

  10. #85
    Born under a wandrin Star Tobias March's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Bulli
    Posts
    10,730

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Batman View Post
    Sure, but not because it was "light hearted."
    True, but you can imagine the great logicians of the internet claiming that is the reason.

    "Superheroes need to be badass and dark" goes the cry. In fact, here's a quote from another website on just this topic -

    when first created, comic book super heroes were dark and violent, comics were originally “intended” to replace mainstream novels, & give art teams more bank. -i see this trend as a GOOD THING. its supposed to be serious. not colorful, nor funny. i wont buy a book, comic book, or a dvd about silliness. i likewise wont go see a film, with a light hearted tone, involving my fave heroes & villains. most “good” comic book characters come from a dark place…& the stories about them, should remain mostly DARK & somewhat realistic. we have disney for light-hearted b.s.

  11. #86
    Senior Member Fast's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    4,362

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Titan76 View Post
    Actually, the bold part is the reason Avi got his way and Raimi didn't. Like I said, Avi lent his ideas for the movies, but unless the Studio who owns the rights backs him, he doesn't have any actual power.
    Yeah I just listened to the How did this get made podcast where Lexi the director of Punisher War zone was on their. She specifically stated that Marvel was barely involved and that most of her involvement was with Lionsgate. They gave some input now and then and she talked with Feige but Lionsgate was the 'Man' there.

  12. #87
    Elder Member The Batman's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Otisburg, USA.
    Posts
    10,131

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tobias March View Post
    True, but you can imagine the great logicians of the internet claiming that is the reason.

    "Superheroes need to be badass and dark" goes the cry. In fact, here's a quote from another website on just this topic -
    Man, that's kinda funny and kinda sad. One thing's for sure, if he ever looks back on it once he grows up, the kid that wrote that is probably gonna feel embarrassed.

  13. #88
    BANNED kmeyers's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    In madness we dwell
    Posts
    5,255

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tobias March View Post
    True, but you can imagine the great logicians of the internet claiming that is the reason.

    "Superheroes need to be badass and dark" goes the cry. In fact, here's a quote from another website on just this topic -
    when first created, comic book super heroes were dark and violent, comics were originally “intended” to replace mainstream novels, & give art teams more bank. -i see this trend as a GOOD THING. its supposed to be serious. not colorful, nor funny. i wont buy a book, comic book, or a dvd about silliness. i likewise wont go see a film, with a light hearted tone, involving my fave heroes & villains. most “good” comic book characters come from a dark place…& the stories about them, should remain mostly DARK & somewhat realistic. we have disney for light-hearted b.s.
    Well, that's fine, those people have no souls...or clues how to write anything other than angry emo fan fic.

  14. #89
    Born under a wandrin Star Tobias March's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Bulli
    Posts
    10,730

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Batman View Post
    Man, that's kinda funny and kinda sad. One thing's for sure, if he ever looks back on it once he grows up, the kid that wrote that is probably gonna feel embarrassed.
    You're assuming that poster was a minor....brrrr.

  15. #90
    Rargh! Alex's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Woo!
    Posts
    29,001

    Default

    Come on guys, don't you remember when everything became dark and gritty in comics? That worked out didn't it?
    Didn't it?
    Guys with Blood in their name and stuff...

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •