Yes We Can! Chris Evans Is Captain America - Page 3

Thor and Daredevil are on the exact same level of comic-book awareness.

Didn't Daredevil make decent money? (Regardless of our feelings about it.)

Daredevil was also a long time ago now, audiences don't find superheroes as fresh as they did 7 years ago. Thor alos looks a helluva long way from a traditional comic book superhero movie, hence my prediction of a possible 'wtf?' from audiences.

People also knew Ben Affleck, who the hell is this guy?



ETA:
Watchmen, Hancock, the F4 films, Superman Returns, The Incredible Hulk, Punisher War Zone, Wolverine: it's not like its been one decade-long lovefest with the genre by the mainstream

I'm not saying Thor will definately tank, hell, it's wacky enough that I'd kinda like to see it catch on - and maybe if a film of high mythical adventure like Clash Of The Titans does well, it just might - I'm just saying it could be a big ask is all.

Perfect. Perfect, perfect, perfect. Now I feel like I have a solid reason to go see Captain America when it comes out.

Thor is...Terrific. He is definitely one of Marvel's...A List characters. There is a reason that Thor has produced over 600 issues, and that people like reading the book. Thor is different from most superheroes as well. He does not just defend those on...Midgard (Earth), he defends all...9 realms, and fights frost giants, his EEEEEEEEEEvil 1/2 brother Loki, Ego The Living Planet as well as Supervillains of Earth, and other worlds. I cannot wait for both...Thor and Captain America to hit the silver screen. I say the...Nay, to misgivings about Thor, as his Asgardian hammer will smite other box office foes, as easilly as it does defeat a comic book supervillain!

If the Hulk is in the Avengers he should always be the Hulk, lumbering through Avengers mansion and knocking shit over and pissing off Jarvis.

You might need to look twice. A few of those films underperformed (Superman Returns (though it still limped to 200 million dollars domestic and was the sixth highest grossing film that year), Watchmen, and of course Punisher: War Zone but given the way that film was marketed they were expecting a flop from the get-go), but by and large the rest were reasonably solid performers. Most of those films (excepting Punisher and Watchmen) were in the top 20 highest (domestic) grossing films of their respective years, a couple of them even in the top 10.

So yes...it kinda has been a decade-long lovefest with the genre by the mainstream. Even the "low performers" (excepting outliers like War Zone and Watchmen) are usually still among the highest grossing of any given year, even if they're not all mega-blockbusters like Dark Knight or Iron Man.

Yeah just stick with Hulk and expand his vocabulary a little.
I want to hear stuff like "LONG HAIR!" (thor), "BAH!" and "FLAG-MAN!"

Also, add Doctor Strange and The Silver Surfer and just call it Capt. America and The Defenders.

What was his cute nickname for Iron Man?

I was going to say Shell Head, but everyone called him that.
I always liked his name for Sub-Mariner, Fish Man.

He should just call everyone DUMB MAGICIAN.

Didn't he call Doctor Strange, "Dumb Magician"?

Edit - Damn, wadew beat me too it.

Okay, so who will play Union Jack?
I mean, i cant be the only guy who'd watch the hell out of a superhero killing nazi vampires in WWII London during the blitz.

It should be Michael Fassbender.

Now my concern is with Joe Johnson, director of Capt. America. I hope he will be able to deliver a good film, and because Capt. America doesn't have the same name recognition as Superman, Spider-man, and Batman, I think his origin movie is crucial in getting moviegoers to get to know him and like him. Iron Man had the same problem, but its movie is fantastic, with RDJ in top form once again. I hope both Thor and Cap will enjoy similar success.

What I love about The Avengers is how forward-thinking it is in terms of a model for a story and a business model. Quite a few people, for example, have brought up the question of what happens if Thor tanks. You'd have two members of the original roster with non-starter franchises. With this model, it doesn't really matter.

They're basically using The Avengers franchise as a synergistic franchise to promote all their franchises in this series and this series in all their franchises. If Thor and Hulk prove they can't shoulder a series and two actually marketable series spring up later down the road, they can do what the comics do all the time: change the roster. Goodbye Hulk and Thor, hello marketable heroes X and Y.

It also works as the franchises normally wear out and the actors age out of their roles. Instead of having to reboot the main franchises constantly, they can just let Iron Man and Captain America leave the team and put whatever characters hold the position of their top franchises in their places.

Moreover, this model can work for every single Marvel team and the teams that share founding members save production costs. The example of The Defenders comes up. You can throw the Hulk into a Defenders film at a fraction of the cost you would have to if he hadn't already been developed by the studio. Also, Defenders could become Avengers and vice versa. If they play their cards right, this series--and series built around their other teams--could play infinitely.

The only thing that kind of throws a wrench into the machinery of that model is they've signed away all their other A-list teams and their flagship character indefinitely.

I'm sure Disney & Marvel are exploring ways to get their licenses back from other studios down the line. But even if they can't, those studios will need to keep making movies out of those properties, which means that we will be keep getting new Marvel superhero movies on a regular basis, although it also mean they won't be able to control the quality of those films as well.

Speaking of that, how long does Fox have to put out another Daredevil film, before they lose the rights?

I think Devin was saying that the studios only need to have the properties in development. So all Fox or Sony need to do to keep the rights is have some hack writing a script somewhere. Doesn't matter if the script is production-worthy.

Really? What a ridiculous system. As a DD fan I was hoping for him to get another shot on the silver screen at some point. (And of course he still may, but I thought they had to make one.)

They've got to be getting close to the deadline if not already past it. I thought the usual deal was that there had to be a film in production every five years or so (though I don't know what degree of "production" is necessary, so maybe just "in development" works).

I think I vaguely recall reading somewhere that Marvel was expecting to get Daredevil back, but I can't for the life of me remember where or if it was a genuine news source or just somebody speculating on a message board or whatever.

I'd think Daredevil's a likely candidate to drop back to Marvel. Punisher is probably a given (though short of maybe using him as an antagonist I doubt they'd do much with him). Fantastic Four, even with this talk of "reboot" might be about 50/50 at this point. The ones we know for sure won't go anywhere for a looooooong time are Spider-Man and the X-Men.

I thought Punisher: War Zone was already Marvel-owned?

Punisher is owned by Marvel. Punisher War Zone was a Marvel film. Edit: Luca beat me.

I like to imagine that War Zone was already in the Movieverse continuity. Think about it: why would Cap etc. be troubled with a vigilante the NYPD is quietly condoning anyway? It just kinda happens in the background.

The really shitty thing about PWZ tanking--besides the fact that they managed to make a FUCKING AWESOME film from a truly terrible script--is that it puts a bullet in the head of the Marvel Knights label. That was going to be Marvel's Tribeca, the label they put the grown-up fare on. On the other hand, given that Disney just bought Marvel, they could just shove everything they had mapped out for the Marvel Knights line to Tribeca and see how the individual projects do.

"Grown up fare" and Punisher War Zone really don't belong in the same sentence.

So Fox just needs to have this "in production" tag on DD without making a movie, and they will never lose the right? What was Marvel thinking when they wrote that agreement with Fox? This is utter stupity.

I don't think that a film in which a guy is thrown into a glass crusher and another guy has a chair literally pushed through his face qualifies as a children's film.

They were thinking, "HOLY FUCK WE'RE BANKRUPT!! HOLY FUCK! GET US MONEY! I DON'T CARE HOW, GET US MONEY!"

Im pretty sure Tom Rothman has an orgasm whenever something like that gets typed, anywhere.

Oh right, so by "grown up fare" you meant the Marvel Knights line would be Marvel's dumping ground for retardedly violent action movies? Well, I guess it would be catering directly to the current Marvel readership.

Ahh, Punisher: War Zone. Went to go see it on opening night with a bunch of friends, all of us well and truly buzzing from an evening of knocking back beers. Ended up being one of the most entertaining nights at the movies I'd ever had...made more so by the fact that our group was basically the only ones in the theater.

Whenever anyone asks me about it I have the same response: Some movies are so bad they're good. Punisher: War Zone is so bad it's TOTALLY AWESOME.

Speaking of this, I know comic book fans who thought PWZ was bad because it wasn't a serious Punisher movie.

War Zone is a send-up of retardedly violent action movies. The parkour guy getting taken out by a missile sort of tips their hand in that regard. There's a difference between being violent for the sake of being violent and laughing at the people who go to movies for the sake of violence.

It may have given them some money back then, but how is a movie "in production" but not developed into a movie give them any money now? They are still stupid.

I'm sure if they showed Jennifer Garner or Thomas Jane flying through the air with a giant badass hammer, kicking the shit out of Norse dragons and ogres, and calling down lightning from the sky, those movies probably would've made more money:





I don't think we'll be getting this guy:



P.S. Sorry for going all PK there with the images, but I wanted to drive home a point.

Not enough fire hydrant action?

When the business you spent your whole life building is about to go down the drain, you don't generally take a long-view approach to the situation. Plus, they get money from these properties, they just don't get creative control. It's not a total financial loss, it's just a fraction of the financial win controlling the property utterly would be.

Well, as a DD fan, it's nice to know that we may never get another DD movie, and if we do get a reboot it will be from Fox and the heavy-handed way they treat all their properties (except by Cameron). Btw, I'd rather not have any DD movie in the future than another turd like the first one.

I know (well, internet-know) of at least one fellow who thought the 04 Punisher was better, yes. I can't even comprehend this.

Herc supports BTSMGL's suggestion:



Also, as for the Punisher, even if you think Warzone was bad, it could had been worse:



Much.. much worse.

DD could be great "requel" a la "Incredible Hulk"; fire Tom Rothman (from a cannon, into the sun, if possible) get a good director, adapt "Born Again" and you're there.

Eminem was revealed to have been high school buddies with Barracuda!!

what.

Did Barracuda rape him? please tell me he did.

I'm a longtime Punisher fan, and after three tries, I have to concede that the character just doesn't work on film. The best Punisher comics (The Max run that Ennis wrote) featured a lot of first person captions. He narrates his own adventures, and Frank's head is an interesting place to be.

They used to use his 'war journal' entries for this purpose, then they dropped that and just had him narrate. Otherwise, it's just a guy killing people. (Which I can enjoy. The extreme violence in PWZ was entertaining.) But we need to hear what's he's thinking as we do in the comics for it to really be the Punisher to me. The only time the Jane film felt like a Punisher story was toward the end when we hear his VO as he writes a journal entry. That's what's missing.

Anyway, sorry, back to Cap.

So, the Shield. I'm hoping for a lot of fancy-cool richochet shots, no matter how unrealistic that may be. I prefer the circular shield to the triangular WW2 one. We'll probably see both.

As for his fighting sytle, I like what they did with Tim Roth in Incredible Hulk. For a long time, Cap was the 'peak of human conditioning', and not super human, but for the movie I think a limited measure of super strength would be cool, like what he had in the Ultimates.

More like the character hasn't worked on film, not that he can't. The problem with the last two films is that, among other mistakes, they tried to turn him into a hero, which is not the appropriate way to go to get the most out of the character. Ennis understood that.

Looking at some exclusively comic book geek talkbacks at Newsarama and the like, it's funny (and disconcerting) to see that so many nerds think that Evans' range begins and ends at "smirking wisecracker".

Blade? I'm inclined to think that movies based on Marvel characters can be successful regardless of if the character's a top tier character, if the story is well made and good.

Which, you know, Fox.

Yeah, plus most of Marvel's female characters are so sexualized, it's sort of weird. (I remember my grandparents were kinded of weirded out when they walked in on us watching X-Men in the early 90s--the episode that begins with Storm freaking out in the danger room--it was only after I hit puberty that it occurred to me that they have the characters breasts bouncing in front of the camera for like three minutes during that sequence.) Making decent films with even the more obscure ones is sort of guaranteed to make money. Marvel seems to know that, given the approach to Black Widow.