for every good superhero movie there is a pure stinker...the first Hulk movie
Shut yourself up blud! Apart from the ending Hulk is fantastic! It was a mistake to use the Absorbing Man as the villian because he's just a ludicrous character (there is, in theory, no limit to his power, which is something they realised later in the comics and had to kludge things to stop him destroying the world, which he should have been quite capable of doing), up to that point though I love it, it's the antithesis of everything that people complain about with superhero movies; they have no plot, no characterisation and just blast their way through, Hulk does completely the opposite and yet people complain about that as well! I was also quietly pleased to see in the Avengers Hulk leaping around like he did in Ang Lee's Hulk, so many people complained about that, saying that Hulk couldn't do that when he's been doing it in the comics for decades. They took that away in The Incredible Hulk (which was rubbish) and it ruined him, so I was quietly pleased to see that was back to a certain extent in Avengers.
plus a new Hulk movie coming our way.
Since when? Last I heard there were no plans for another Hulk film. I know the Gruffalo is signed up for a dozen films or something stupid but I've not seen any announcements. From what I understand they have no idea how to treat Hulk as a standalone character. The only things I could find online are vague comments which amount to no more than "we're thinking about it".
I fear studios are pumping money into these movies at the expense of more original movies simply because they are seen as a way to print money.
Of course they are, they've always done that, it's not always been comic book movies of course but sequels have always been favoured if the original did remotely well (or sometimes even when it didn't). The other point of course is that Marvel now have their own studio, so what else do you expect them to do? Further more Marvel's own films have been hugely better than the other studio's attempts (with the exception of Sony's Spider-Man films possibly), so now they've shown how they should be done the other studios are going to have another go at it (hence the ridiculous idea of rebooting The Fantastic Four again).
Don't get me wrong I love a superhero movie when they are done right but we are reaching saturation point when movies like Ant Man are now being made.
That was never planned apparently, Edgar Wright (Shaun of The Dead, Hot Fuzz, The World's End, Scott Pilgrim) was so keen to do it he produced a three minute visual sampler himself which went down so well with fans the studio decided they'd better give it a go. I think that one will be quite different to the rest of the Marvel output, so it might actually be worth keeping an eye on.
I really don't see why Guardians of the Galaxy is being made though, even I've never heard of them! AFAIK the title only existed for about two years in the early 90s, very odd choice.
Blud...really? Are you some sort of gangster wannabe or something lol? No offence intended btw.
That was the intended reaction, I needed a way of saying shut up that you would laugh at rather than get annoyed about.
I couldn't disagree more with you as The Incredible Hulk is far better than Hulk. The jumping and bounding in Hulk I found good as it does mirror the comic nicely and it was indeed a shame that was taken out of The Incredible Hulk but it's so poorly handled in so many other areas that it falls apart in my eyes and I did find Ang Lee a very strange directing choice from the start.
I guess that depends if you like him as a director, I love Crouching Tiger but I know a lot of people who find it too slow. Personally I was glad they gave it to him as it shows a willingness to take the material seriously. It was odd at the time but with the names attached to recent comic book movies (Branagh, Nolan etc) if they announced Lee now it wouldn't seem so odd.
My main criticisms with the movie is the choice of villain
Eric Bana as Bruce Banner who just seems to be not even trying
But that's the whole point of the character, the flashbacks show that he's had to control his emotions from a very early age, so of course he's going to be an emotionless person, that's the point.
But you need to slow it down in order to give more impact to the Hulk scenes. Otherwise it's just crash bang wallop and as many people who have reviewed Man of Steel have said that gets boring even if it's only the last half hour... I like the pacing, again it's Lee treating it as he would any other film, it's respecting the character and not saying this is just a comic book movie I don't need to bother with artistic considerations. It's the comic book Crouching Tiger for me, which is a good thing.
The grand idea of characterisation in film is to be commended but the execution is poor and simply not required in movie of this type as lets face it any film in which the main character is blasted with gamma rays and turns into a big green hulking monster when he gets angry is hardly a film of deep characters and storyline. Perhaps my love of the comics has blinded me but in a two hour movie you can't explore any comic book character in the way comics have for years?
Nonsense, read what they're discussing for the new movie, that it has to be more about Banner and LESS about Hulk, Banner is the character, not the Hulk (that's why they've ruled out a Planet Hulk film, as Banner doesn't appear at all), Banner is the deepest character in the Marvel universe. I was flicking through my Hulk's from about ten years ago, there are entire episodes that take place inside Banner's head, within his psyche, that's the important bit, without that it's just a mindless creature and Hulk was never that.
A new Hulk movie is on the Marvel film shedule but not for some time yet the last I heard and all rumours of a 2015 release seem way off the mark but what I do know is that mark Ruffalo has a six movie deal as The Hulk but two of those are the Avengers sequels with no details given as to the identity of the other four but it's entirely possible The Hulk could pop up in other Avenger characters sequels movies along with a Hulk movie of his own. Joss Whedon is keen to produce a Hulk movie but no plans are in place for him to do it but he has stated that Hulk is the hardest movie to make but after how he dealt with him in The Avengers I would ewarly love to see him do a standalone movie but right now no concrete plans are in place for a Hulk movie but it's inevitable no?
Not inevitable, if they can't come up with a good idea and decent script then Whedon certainly won't do it and I don't see Marvel allowing it either. The 6 movie deal is a standard contract as far as I can tell, it almost never means the actor actually does 6 movies. I can't really see Ruffalo doing bit part appearances, I think he wants to explore the character properly and he can't do that if he's just cameoing in other titles.
OK I understand your point about sequels and agree but the difference with comic book movies is the sheer volume of them now scheduled for release or up and coming which is surely going beyond the amount of sequels seen in the 80's and 90's and now even the far less well known characters are being primed for their own movies, Dr Strange and Black Panther are hardly the biggest characters now to most people are they?
No, they're not but I know them better than the Guardians of the Galaxy fregsample. Like I said Marvel's studio has to make films but they don't have the rights to the X-franchise or Spider-Man, so they have to come up with something. I don't think Marvel are expecting these lesser characters to be $billion hits but there is core audience that will watch them, like Thor had, without necessarily crossing over. As long as they're not losing money they'll be happy enough.
Even Justice league for that matter is far less well known to anyone without a passing interest in comics than The Avengers.
I'm not entirely convinced that the average non-comic book reader would know The Avengers particularly well either, in the UK at least, it may be different in the US (particularly as it's the Justice League of America). To be honest outside of Superman and Batman I'm not really a DC fan, I never took to their characters back in the 70s and 80s in the same way I did with Marvel, they just seemed too twee, Green this, Green that, Superboy, Supergirl. I don't particularly like Superman much really, other than the first two films, he's just far far too powerful, so you have to keep throwing in MacGuffinite to make him weak. There was a very amusing video I saw on the web the other week about what would actually happen if Superman punched you in the face (summary, a small thermonuclear explosion with a 1km blast radius where your head used to be) which sums up the problem quite neatly. This is why I really DON'T want to see the Superman/Batman film, how can they fight each other, nothing Batman can do will even make Superman flinch, unless he gets hold of krypt....zzzzzzzzzz...
What I should say is that despite my fears of saturation that doesn't stop me feeling optimistic that Jutsice League, Dr Strange and Black Panther would be good movies
I never read much Black Panther but if they get the social context right it could be a very good film. I'm not sure about Dr. Strange, all that mystical mumbo jumbo put me off him whenever he stumbled into someone else's titles, at least the rest of them are loosely based on science (even Thor now, which is good, I did like the references to Einstein-Rosen bridges as an explanation for the Rainbow bridge). Dr. Strange is a leap too far for me really.
as the geek inside me would love to see them but I'm torn...is there too many of them no? Will that then lead to dwindling interest and ticket sales and end up with alot of these movies never actually getting made? All are reasonable questions to ask.
It might do, if the quality drops, I think it sounds a lot when you list them all together but they'll be spread out over the next 5 years of so, so I don't think it'll be as congested as it seems. They haven't even started casting Ant Man yet, from what I understand.
As for Ant Man...yes I know Edgar Wright is behind it and I own all his movies to date on bluray and really enjoyed all of them (not seen World's End yet though) especially Scott pilgrim and I never said I wasn't looking forward to it, my point was that when films are being made about such niche characters is that a sign of the alarm bells being rung in terms of just how many more movies can be sustained in the long term? I loved the look of the footage shown at comicon and it's undeniable that it will be funny tounge firmly in cheek stuff but my concern is that as they are all churned out at ever increasing rates from more and more studios that public demand will fall and quality and budgets plummet or even that many movies are cancelled. I want to see comic book films produced with the same care and attention as the recent Batman films and the Avengers and not just churned out by studios want ing to make a quick buck which is what I beleive is starting to happen.
Most of these will be Marvel produced though and it's not in their interest to do things badly and they won't misunderstand the characters. If that happens it'll be the non-Marvel Marvel ones, that's already been seen with Spider-Man 3 and X-Men 3, which were poor, although First Class was enjoyable. Hopefully that lesson has been learned, outside of Marvel it's only Fox and Warners (I think) that have any of the rights (ignoring DC titles for the minute), they should have realised that they can't just bung any old trash out anymore because the public have been spoiled by the recent successes.
The new Wolverine movie is supposed to be an improvement on the last one for example, although I have to admit I quite enjoyed that, I didn't see what the big problem was with it.
There will always be good and bad movies in every genre but with the sheer number of movies coming I do fear that the comic book movies days are numbered and that's my real concern as a fan.
But there can only be a finite number made, there's only so many characters and it's unlikely that any of them are going to produce a Bond-type franchise run, so I guess it's a case of get in whilst the going's good. I mean after you've done 4 Iron-Mans, 3 Captain Americas, 3 Avengers, and all the other ones we've mentioned (and we haven't mentioned half of them!), what's left? Those are the marquee names, if they don't make them in the next few years they might never get the chance.