http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimate_Spider-Man_(TV_series" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;)dx23 wrote:Which animated show?
He hasn't appeared in that one yet, so that is why I ask. The Spectacular Spider-Man one was more like the Ultimate universe character but every other TV incarnation has been just a faithful adaptation of this:jindianajonz wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimate_Spider-Man_(TV_series" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;)dx23 wrote:Which animated show?
From what I hear, it's not based too much on the Ultimate comic series, but then again I've never seen it myself so I can't be too certain.
The '90s Spiderman where he was Russian and had a different costume amongst other things.dx23 wrote:Which animated show?
That one was an interesting but complicated take on Electro as he was a German impersonating a Russian and was also the son of the Red Skull. I doubt the producers of this film will go in that route.knives wrote:The '90s Spiderman where he was Russian and had a different costume amongst other things.dx23 wrote:Which animated show?
I understood what you meant. I think we will see a new version of the character that just has the same powers and name of the comic book counterpart but probably a completely new origin.knives wrote:I didn't mean it would be that version, but that like that version they could have it be the character in name only.
David clarifies his comments.flyonthewall2983 wrote:This bit from an interview with David Cronenberg and Robert Pattinson talking about Cosmopolis has been getting some attention. I respect Cronenberg, and he has a fair point at the end, which I think is directed at the uber-fanboys but I don't think he's seeing the forest from the trees on this subject.
David, you've done drama and horror. Some fairly formidable directors have branched out into superhero movies pretty beautifully —is that something you would consider doing?
DC: I don't think they are making them an elevated art form. I think it's still Batman running around in a stupid cape. I just don't think it's elevated. Christopher Nolan's best movie is "Memento," and that is an interesting movie. I don't think his Batman movies are half as interesting though they're 20 million times the expense. What he is doing is some very interesting technical stuff, which, you know, he's shooting IMAX and in 3-D. That's really tricky and difficult to do. I read about it in "American Cinematography Magazine," and technically, that's all very interesting. The movie, to me, they're mostly boring.
Do you think the subject matter prohibits the elevated art form?
DC: Absolutely. Anybody who works in the studio system has got 20 studio people sitting on his head at every moment, and they have no respect, and there's no…it doesn't matter how successful you've been. And obviously Nolan has been very successful. He's got a lot of power, relatively speaking. But he doesn't really have power.
So that's a no.
DC: I would say that's a no, you know. And the problem is you gotta… as I say, you can do some interesting, maybe unexpected things. And certainly, I've made the horror films and people say, "Can you make a horror film also an art film?" And I would say, "Yeah, I think you can."
But a superhero movie, by definition, you know, it's comic book. It's for kids. It's adolescent in its core. That has always been its appeal, and I think people who are saying, you know, "Dark Knight Rises" is, you know, supreme cinema art," I don't think they know what the f**k they're talking about.
Too late.matrixschmatrix wrote:Ugh, the last thing I want to see is Nolan eating up his time producing a giant Zack Snyder movie.
I don't think they'll let it go that easy....dx23 wrote:My only hope is that this movie fall under Sony expectations and either the rights revert to Marvel or Marvel agrees to purchase the rights back.
There's still the Winter Soldier though. After Avengers 2, the Cap will no doubt search for him.jindianajonz wrote:Anyone have any thoughts about the Captain America film? I was surprised at how much acclaim it got (I saw "the definitive Super Hero movie!" bandied about) although in retrospect, this seems to happen with every big budget superhero movie. In addition to the typical super hero movie problems (fast cut action scenes shoehorned in, a plot that touches on "big issues" in the world without actually saying anything about them for fear of politically alienating certain members of the audience) I thought this movie, more than any other, was completely divorced from it's namesake. Other than the personal connection to Winter Soldier, any other Super Hero could have been slotted into the title role and the plot wouldn't have changed a bit. I guess this is a problem with Steve Rogers in general- Iron Man 3 is dependent on machines to do what he does, Thor has mythology to draw on, Batman has... Batman. But Captain America doesn't really have anything interesting to build on. The most interesting aspect of the character in comics I've read (mostly the Ultimates series) was the culture shock of a man being brought 50 years into the future, but I guess it's tough to build an action movie around that premise. The first one worked as a period piece, but now that Captain America is in the present, I don't think there's much for him to do.
Yes, but this still just feels tacked on in the movie universe- a Winter Soldier-like character could be added to any movie fairly easily. It still has nothing to do with who Captain America is. I guess the big problem with Captain America is that the obvious paths for the character to take- using him as a stand in for America itself, and seeing how the gung-ho exceptionalism that took the fight to Hitler has changed after Vietnam, the end of the Cold War, and 9/11- is too politically charged to feature prominantly in a mainstream movie. So instead we have Steve Rogers representing an America that is vaguely altruistic on a surface level but is afraid to delve deeper lest somebody gets offended. And I think that's how the movies have portrayed him- likeable, idealistic, and ostensibly inspiring- but in the end he suffers a bit from Superman syndrome, in that characters who are too perfect end up being kind of boring. The film plays lip service to the fact that he's a fish out of water in this time period, but once the punches start flying this is all quickly forgotten.Movie-Brat wrote:There's still the Winter Soldier though. After Avengers 2, the Cap will no doubt search for him.
But isn't this pretty much exactly what the new Captain America film does? I was actually surprised at how political the film was, albeit in a rather obvious sense. The narrative begins with the opposition between SHIELD's NSA/Homeland Security style vacuuming of personal data and Captain America's opposition to this project. The point of the film is that the "America" Captain America represents is completely unrecognizable post-9/11. So the twist of the film-jindianajonz wrote:I guess the big problem with Captain America is that the obvious paths for the character to take- using him as a stand in for America itself, and seeing how the gung-ho exceptionalism that took the fight to Hitler has changed after Vietnam, the end of the Cold War, and 9/11- is too politically charged to feature prominantly in a mainstream movie.
I would attribute this to the fact that we live in an interesting political climate, where Obama succeeded Bush but kept a large number of his policies intact. This makes criticisms of an overbearing government "safe" because the left will see it as a criticism of the beast that Bush foisted on the country, while the right will see it as Obama perverting the benevolent institutions that Bush started. Marvel has created a movie where the good guys and bad guys are vague enough that the audience can hang whatever political ideology they want on either side, and the rest of the movie will probably follow that reading. It's almost like a Choose Your Own Adven- er, Political Allegory.Satori wrote:I was actually surprised at how political the film was
jindianajonz wrote:This makes criticisms of an overbearing government "safe" because the left will see it as a criticism of the beast that Bush foisted on the country, while the right will see it as Obama perverting the benevolent institutions that Bush started. Marvel has created a movie where the good guys and bad guys are vague enough that the audience can hang whatever political ideology they want on either side, and the rest of the movie will probably follow that reading. It's almost like a Choose Your Own Adven- er, Political Allegory.
But I still think this criticism of the government is seperate from what Captain America represents. The movie would have worked out exactly the same if it had been Black Widow, the Hulk, Hawkeye, or any other character with government ties as the central character- in fact, Black Widow would have been the perfect character to explore the shady world of covert government operations, so it's good that she featured prominantly in this
To be sure, but I think this sort of ideological containment is required in such a film- it inherently has to end with Captain America saving the day, reestablishing American hegemony, ect. All Hollywood superhero blockbusters are rightwing if we look at their endings because normalcy must be restored. I think the key is to look at the slippages and the places where the film wasn't quite able to paper the ideological cracks. Here I would suggest that its linkages of U.S. policy and fascism are never quite resolved successfully.But as it stands, the Captain America in this film vindicates the outlook that if we will it enough, we can do anything- and the fact that it's use righteous military force instead of diplomacy that solves the problem gives this film a decidedly rightward slant in my eyes. Or to put it another way, the film seems to be arguing that our black-and-white WW2 attitude can still be used to solve the deeply grey problems of the world today, now that we've rescued our beacon of American Exceptionalism from the ice.
I dunno, I thought the first Iron Man did a pretty good job of it- The Military Industrial Complex realizes that its weapons and business practices are unethical and dedicates itself to the good of humanity.Satori wrote:On a more fundamental level, though, you are of course completely right- it is somewhat absurd to look for left political allegories in a Hollywood blockbuster.
That's not true. Most of the actors have a great pay and have renegotiated their deals to make even more money. Marvel was cheap at the beginning but the actors are certainly getting their money now that Disney is backing them up. Also, Robert Downey Jr is different because he renegotiated his deal to get one similar to what Nicholson had in Batman, where they get a percentage of the films' profit. That was his reward for taking the plunge with Iron Man.ianungstad wrote:Besides Robert Downey Jr. nobody seems to be making big bucks from these films. Marvel are notoriously cheap; locking in actors and talent into multi film deals with subpar pay (relative to performance). Also seems to be a creatively stifling environment with Marvel micro-managing everything.
Well there's some great PR- "This campaign is no longer available due to a trademark claim"Steven H wrote:If you enjoyed Guardians of the Galaxy, consider buying a rocket raccoon T-shirt to help Bill Lanto, the creator of the furry character, with his ongoing medical care (putting aside that maybe some of the film's profits should be set aside for the guy).