|
|
Post by coldenhaulfield on May 8, 2017 1:09:27 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by gomezaddams666 on May 8, 2017 1:10:05 GMT
But NOT people that look like teenagers, tho. Who the **** was the genius that saw "Project X" and said: "You know? That guy would make a great Reed Richards..." And Andrew Garfield? WT F ? Ruining ONE Marvel character is not enough? You need actors that convey the characters in a believable way, and IF the actor is appropriate I'd choose "younger" people like: Reed Richards - Kit Harington Sue Storm - Alice Eve Johnny Storm - KJ Apa Ben Grimm - Luke Evans (and I'm not a an of his) Victor Von Doom - Nikolaj Coster-Waldau Just a thought. Garfield's Spider-man (character) was better than Tobey's. The second movie might not have been good, but that would be the fault of Sony and, probably, Webb over extending themselves. And Kit Harrington? That guy is more wooden than Keanu Reeves. He was The Amazing Twilight-Guy, really. He was more emo than emo Maguire, and that's an accomplishment on its own. In fact, those movies are the worst thing that happened to Spider-Man after the Ultimate version. Look, I'm a huge Spider-Man fan (if that's not obvious  ), and saying some jokes here and there did not make him better In My Honest Opinion. Tom Holland looks very promising and we may FINALLY see the REAL Spidey on screen. As for The Fantastic Four movies the only worth while is the unreleased Roger Corman movie made for under $1M, had the producers really cared to make a better movie it would have been much better than anything FOX has made. Garfield to me is just like Tom Hardy... severely overrated. |
|
|
|
Post by ThatGuy on May 8, 2017 1:10:49 GMT
Want some fries to go with that salt? He'd probably prefer a more concentrated salt lick.   Well, he does say the DC stands for Dallas Cowboys. |
|
|
|
Post by gomezaddams666 on May 8, 2017 1:11:48 GMT
Want some fries to go with that salt? He'd probably prefer a more concentrated salt lick. DC-Fan's tongue is Zack Snyder's toilet paper. |
|
|
|
Post by Atom(ica) Discord on May 8, 2017 1:17:16 GMT
He'd probably prefer a more concentrated salt lick. Well, he does say the DC stands for Dallas Cowboys. Does he? Well, that old song, Mamas' don't let your babies grow up to be [Dallas] cowboys [fans], was never more poignant. |
|
|
|
Post by ThatGuy on May 8, 2017 1:18:28 GMT
Garfield's Spider-man (character) was better than Tobey's. The second movie might not have been good, but that would be the fault of Sony and, probably, Webb over extending themselves. And Kit Harrington? That guy is more wooden than Keanu Reeves. He was The Amazing Twilight-Guy, really. He was more emo than emo Maguire, and that's an accomplishment on its own. In fact, those movies are the worst thing that happened to Spider-Man after the Ultimate version. Look, I'm a huge Spider-Man fan (if that's not obvious ), and saying some jokes here and there did not make him better In My Honest Opinion. Tom Holland looks very promising and we may FINALLY see the REAL Spidey on screen. As for The Fantastic Four movies the only worth while is the unreleased Roger Corman movie made for under $1M, had the producers really cared to make a better movie it would have been much better than anything FOX has made. Garfield to me is just like Tom Hardy... severely overrated.Oh, no doubt, Holland does look to be the better of the two. The only thing that came off as Twilight-y is his hair. And it wasn't just the jokes and sense of humor. He seemed more scientific than Maguire's, who came off more nerdy than smart. I really got the feel of Spider-man from him. I hope they continue the running of the mouth that Holland's does in Civil War, in Homecoming. He's suppose to be like Deadpool (before Deadpool was Deadpool) where he just keeps talking at you and joking (a lot of the times corny). |
|
|
|
Post by Atom(ica) Discord on May 8, 2017 1:20:20 GMT
He'd probably prefer a more concentrated salt lick. DC-Fan's tongue is Zack Snyder's toilet paper. Ouch! I take it you know DC-Fan well. That said, the big Z should consider switching to P12 sandpaper for something far less abrasive. |
|
|
|
Post by coldenhaulfield on May 8, 2017 1:22:31 GMT
SO basically: there's as much chance of seeing the Fantastic Four team up with the JLA as the Avengers on the big screen, innit? Or it innit?
|
|
|
|
Post by gomezaddams666 on May 8, 2017 1:23:17 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on May 8, 2017 1:26:11 GMT
Do you know what an Easter egg is? It's something hidden in the background that a fan would pick up The Emergency Medical Hologram doctor from Voyager wasn't hidden in the background in Star Trek: Generations. But he wasn't central to the plot of the movie. Bruce Wayne stood in front of the Robin suit case. He didn't walk by it for a quick glimpse And the open pod was not an Easter egg. It was just an open pod in the movie. And neither the Robin suit nor the open mod in MoS were central to the plot of the movie. By contrast, the origin of the Fantastic Four (how they got their powers, how they became a team) is central to the plot of a Fantastic Four movie, especially since most people aren't familiar with the origin of the Fantastic Four like they are with the origin of Batman. did you read the post where I gave an example of how they can do a F4 origin in the MCU? Did you see how I made them SHIELD agents and scientists that steal a quinjet to go off into space? Sounds lame. One of the problems with some people not wanting an origin is that Fox keeps rebooting them Nothing wrong with that. I've seen the origin of Superman done 5 times: 1. In the pilot episode of the George Reeves TV series 2. In Superman: The Movie3. In the pilot of episode of the Lois & Clark TV series 4. In the Smallville TV series 5. In Man of SteelThere's nothing wrong with doing origin stories. Another problem is that people want them to be the 1st superheroes in the MCU. So they want them already around. Too late for that. MCU has already released 15 movies. They can't just ret-conned their cinematic universe to say that the Fantastic Four were the 1st superheroes in their universe. If MCU wanted the Fantastic Four to be their 1st superheroes, then they should've waited until they negotiated a deal with Fox to get the rights to Fantastic Four. Then they could've had the rights to Dr. Doom, Silver Surfer, and Galactus as well. But they wanted to rush in and ended up making a bunch of crappy movies with weak and forgettable villains. |
|
|
|
Post by gomezaddams666 on May 8, 2017 1:28:26 GMT
He was The Amazing Twilight-Guy, really. He was more emo than emo Maguire, and that's an accomplishment on its own. In fact, those movies are the worst thing that happened to Spider-Man after the Ultimate version. Look, I'm a huge Spider-Man fan (if that's not obvious ), and saying some jokes here and there did not make him better In My Honest Opinion. Tom Holland looks very promising and we may FINALLY see the REAL Spidey on screen. As for The Fantastic Four movies the only worth while is the unreleased Roger Corman movie made for under $1M, had the producers really cared to make a better movie it would have been much better than anything FOX has made. Garfield to me is just like Tom Hardy... severely overrated.Oh, no doubt, Holland does look to be the better of the two. The only thing that came off as Twilight-y is his hair. And it wasn't just the jokes and sense of humor. He seemed more scientific than Maguire's, who came off more nerdy than smart. I really got the feel of Spider-man from him. I hope they continue the running of the mouth that Holland's does in Civil War, in Homecoming. He's suppose to be like Deadpool (before Deadpool was Deadpool) where he just keeps talking at you and joking (a lot of the times corny). Oh I know, he IS the original mouthy asshole, which is never funnier than in the "Avengers v X-Men" crossover. And to me Garfield just looked a bit too emo for my taste, I feel Webb wanted to ride the Twilight-wave... and I would say TASM2 is ALMOST as bad as Catwoman, Batman & Robin or Superman Returns. As for Holland it seems they are keeping his mouthy side. |
|
|
|
Post by ThatGuy on May 8, 2017 2:14:22 GMT
Do you know what an Easter egg is? It's something hidden in the background that a fan would pick up The Emergency Medical Hologram doctor from Voyager wasn't hidden in the background in Star Trek: Generations. But he wasn't central to the plot of the movie. Bruce Wayne stood in front of the Robin suit case. He didn't walk by it for a quick glimpse And the open pod was not an Easter egg. It was just an open pod in the movie. And neither the Robin suit nor the open mod in MoS were central to the plot of the movie. By contrast, the origin of the Fantastic Four (how they got their powers, how they became a team) is central to the plot of a Fantastic Four movie, especially since most people aren't familiar with the origin of the Fantastic Four like they are with the origin of Batman. did you read the post where I gave an example of how they can do a F4 origin in the MCU? Did you see how I made them SHIELD agents and scientists that steal a quinjet to go off into space? Sounds lame. One of the problems with some people not wanting an origin is that Fox keeps rebooting them Nothing wrong with that. I've seen the origin of Superman done 5 times: 1. In the pilot episode of the George Reeves TV series 2. In Superman: The Movie3. In the pilot of episode of the Lois & Clark TV series 4. In the Smallville TV series 5. In Man of SteelThere's nothing wrong with doing origin stories. Another problem is that people want them to be the 1st superheroes in the MCU. So they want them already around. Too late for that. MCU has already released 15 movies. They can't just ret-conned their cinematic universe to say that the Fantastic Four were the 1st superheroes in their universe. If MCU wanted the Fantastic Four to be their 1st superheroes, then they should've waited until they negotiated a deal with Fox to get the rights to Fantastic Four. Then they could've had the rights to Dr. Doom, Silver Surfer, and Galactus as well. But they wanted to rush in and ended up making a bunch of crappy movies with weak and forgettable villains. But I still wouldn't call him an Easter Egg. The EMH is a thing in Star Trek. He should show up when they need him (even Robert Picardo). That established continuity. Just like all the other stuff that we said that came from the show. The movies are big screen continuations of the show(s). But the Robin suit was a focal point. Same with him looking at the open pod (even if it was shorter than the Robin suit). The Robin suit had nothing to do with the plot, but they spent too long on it and, like I said before, had him stand in front of it and stare at it. No, it sounds like close to what happened in the original comics. The F4 was denied a trip into space. So they stole the shuttle and went up anyway. Have it that the cosmic anomaly is coming toward Earth and they are denied access to go up and study it by higher ups (Talbot/Ross). They steal a space worthy quinjet and go up anyway. Have them working for SHIELD to make it easier for them to get a hold of the quinjet (those are the premiere craft in the MCU and are shown to be able to go into space on Agents of SHIELD). Then have then transported somewhere else. Have all this happen in the beginning of the movie so the rest of the movie can be the adventure. And they'll only be associated with SHIELD for the reason to get them together and a means to get them into space. After that they'll be on their own. But those Superman origins are across different media and time. And they also establish the type of Superman movie/tv show it is going to be. Smallville was entirely about Superman's origins. Man of Steel's plot came from his origins (codex). Superman '78 introduced the character again... and did they have his origin in the George Reeves show? Or did they just say it in the opening to the show. Supergirl pretty much redid Lois and Clark... But the F4 have been retconned as the 1st sueprheroes in the comics. They are the first family, though. That can still be a thing. Nope. They are doing just fine. The villains aren't what is important to the MCU. The heroes are. I mean, look at the DCEU the villains in those movies aren't all that memorable. I mean, can you tell me the 3 villains of Suicide Squad? The villains in Man of Steel and BvS are the same villains we've had in other Superman movies. Lex was a bigger character in Superman Returns than Superman who barely spoke. The MCU villains are mostly one and done. The only villain that has been in more than one movie is Loki. Do you think people would care for Magneto the way they do if he wasn't the main character in 6 X-men movies? Who were the villains in Logan? It doesn't matter because the movie was about Logan. |
|
|
|
Post by ThatGuy on May 8, 2017 2:18:10 GMT
Oh, no doubt, Holland does look to be the better of the two. The only thing that came off as Twilight-y is his hair. And it wasn't just the jokes and sense of humor. He seemed more scientific than Maguire's, who came off more nerdy than smart. I really got the feel of Spider-man from him. I hope they continue the running of the mouth that Holland's does in Civil War, in Homecoming. He's suppose to be like Deadpool (before Deadpool was Deadpool) where he just keeps talking at you and joking (a lot of the times corny). Oh I know, he IS the original mouthy asshole, which is never funnier than in the "Avengers v X-Men" crossover. And to me Garfield just looked a bit too emo for my taste, I feel Webb wanted to ride the Twilight-wave... and I would say TASM2 is ALMOST as bad as Catwoman, Batman & Robin or Superman Returns. As for Holland it seems they are keeping his mouthy side. I wouldn't say ASM2 was close to those. What made it bad was that they wanted a cinematic universe and tried to make it right then and there without putting in the work. They were trying to hard to make the Sinister 6 in 2-3 movies. I bet he would have been fighting the Sinister 6 in ASM3. |
|
|
|
Post by gomezaddams666 on May 8, 2017 3:06:52 GMT
Oh I know, he IS the original mouthy asshole, which is never funnier than in the "Avengers v X-Men" crossover. And to me Garfield just looked a bit too emo for my taste, I feel Webb wanted to ride the Twilight-wave... and I would say TASM2 is ALMOST as bad as Catwoman, Batman & Robin or Superman Returns. As for Holland it seems they are keeping his mouthy side. I wouldn't say ASM2 was close to those. What made it bad was that they wanted a cinematic universe and tried to make it right then and there without putting in the work. They were trying to hard to make the Sinister 6 in 2-3 movies. I bet he would have been fighting the Sinister 6 in ASM3. Oh yes, it was. First off, Electro was the imbecile child of Doctor Manhattan and Mister Freeze, Jamie Foxx either phoned it or the writers are to blame. And the Goblin? WT F was that? Not to mention the death of Gwen that was actually cringe worthy, I will say w/o hesitation that loving the character for decades that movie is in my TOP 5 WORST CBM. ------- Now, Holland gives me real hope. |
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on May 8, 2017 4:00:16 GMT
But the Robin suit was a focal point. Same with him looking at the open pod (even if it was shorter than the Robin suit). The Robin suit had nothing to do with the plot, but they spent too long on it and, like I said before, had him stand in front of it and stare at it. He stood in front of the Robin suit for about 5 seconds. That's probably shorter than the combined amount of screentime that Stan Lee had in GotG2. The Robin suit and even the pod in MoS weren't central to the plot of the movie. But the origin of the Fantastic Four (how they got their powers and how they formed a team) is central to a Fantastic Four movie. No, it sounds like close to what happened in the original comics. Have them working for SHIELD to make it easier for them to get a hold of the quinjet (those are the premiere craft in the MCU and are shown to be able to go into space on Agents of SHIELD). Then have then transported somewhere else That wasn't what happened in the original comics. did they have his origin in the George Reeves show? Or did they just say it in the opening to the show. Yes, they showed Superman's origin in the George Reeves TV series. In fact, if I recall correctly, the first 3 episodes were about baby Kal-El being put in the spaceship and being sent to Earth and being found by the Kents and growing up on the Kent farm and Jonathon Kent dying from a heart attack and Clark getting a job at the Daily Planet (by scooping Lois on a story). But the F4 have been retconned as the 1st superheroes in the comics. They are the first family 1st, that's not a ret-conn. The FF were always the first superhero team in Marvel. Stan Lee created the FF because his boss saw how popular the Justice League comics were so Stan Lee's boss told Stan Lee to create a superhero team for Marvel. In the Superheroes Decoded documentary that just premiered on the History Channel last weekend, Stan Lee even says in Part 2 that he created the FF because his boss told him to create a superhero team after he saw how popular the JL comics were and if he hadn't created the FF, he would've been fired. The villains aren't what is important to the MCU. Because MCU doesn't have any good villains. All the best villains in Marvel comics belong to either the X-Men or the Fantastic Four. |
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on May 8, 2017 13:22:24 GMT
No, MCU just doesn't take the lazy way out and make their villains the stars of the show.
Anyways the FF origin can be handled quickly in the opening titles. Maybe a news report or newspaper articles over what happened.
And the FF didn't need the Justice League to exist, that's revisionist history. Especially because the Justice League weren't the first Superhero team either.
|
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on May 8, 2017 15:20:07 GMT
CAST Reed Richards/Mr. Fantastic - Andrew Garfield Susan Storm/Invisible Woman - Emma Roberts Johnny Storm/Human Torch - Glenn Powell Ben Grimm/The Thing - Jack O'Connell Victor Von Doom/Doctor Doom - Adam Driver Annihilus - Bill Nighy (voice) I don't personally care to see the F4 in the MCU outside of the thought of bringing Dr Doom into the MCU. I will say however Andrew Garfield is a great call for Reed. It might be a bit of the Ioan Gruffudd talking but I thought he made a GREAT Reed in the original F4 movies and Garfield seems like a younger version of him. In all honesty the casting for the original F4 films were pretty good outside of Alba and McMahon. I honestly have zero clue who Powell or O'Conell are so those I can't judge. Emma Roberts I wouldn't be able to buy as Sue though as to me she just has this resting bitch face that I wouldn't be able to buy into her as anything other than a villain. Then with Adam Driver. My only knowledge of him is his role in Star Wars and I don't care for him at all. He just reeks of emo/hot topi/goth that I can't associate with Dr Doom. Glenn Powell could easily be either Human Torch or Green Lantern;charismatic af. Jack O'Connell hasn't had a huge role like this since Unbroken but he's been good in what I've seen him in. |
|
|
|
Post by judgejosephdredd on May 8, 2017 15:29:03 GMT
Because they didn't need to be teenagers, when the book first took off they started out as such but when it got retooled some years later they were all aged up and the majority of their storylines are what helped define the X-Men in the public eye since. Spider-Man however has mostly been portrayed as pretty young for most of his publication history, most identify him as being high school to college age.
|
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on May 8, 2017 15:30:33 GMT
And also back in 2000 the idea of using an actual teenager for a superhero role was too "forward thinking".
|
|
|
|
Post by gomezaddams666 on May 8, 2017 17:57:33 GMT
And also back in 2000 the idea of using an actual teenager for a superhero role was too "forward thinking". Tho not a superhero, Kirsten Dunst was 19/20 when she shot Spider-Man |
|
? Ruining ONE Marvel character is not enough?
), and saying some jokes here and there did not make him better In My Honest Opinion. Tom Holland looks very promising and we may FINALLY see the REAL Spidey on screen.
