Yeah that's nice, it would be cool if they did a nice box set, TIH will never be in the pack though, unless Universal and Paramount can work out some distribution deal.
Didn´t Disney buy the distributing rights to all elements of the Avengers?
Oh, and Paramount didn´t distribute the Avengers. It seems that after buying the rights from all the previous companies(Paramount and Universal) Disney wanted to avoid the backlash from the Marvel buy and lincensed the use of Paramount logos.
Yeah, I know, weird...
1. That's just...severely missing my point.
2. Now this is just an insane amount of wishful thinking. What happens when these actors have scheduling conflicts, or just tire of doing these same roles over and over again, or worse: Age or even die? Would you be fine with this supposed cinematic continuity with an entirely different actor in the role as Tony Stark? It's one thing to replace an artist or a writer in a comic book, it's another thing entirely to change the actual face of the character--especially in a film. I just don't buy this idea that Marvel Studios will be able to continually add to this universe without either severely changing their gameplan or rebooting.
The reason why the "Bond treatment" works for James Bond is because it isn't tied to some sort of "canon." MGM can reinvent the character anyway they see fit without worry of ignoring what came before.
The point is that there are as been multiple iterations of Batman even before Nolan´s movies, even some of them being truly shit(I´m looking at you Schumacher) and you don´t see people saying "Ah,not a another Batman movie", and in the grander scale "Ah,not another DC movie".
As to the second paragraph, first and foremost, yes, I would be ok with every single actor being replaced. They won´t have the look and prowess for the roles forever. On top of that, some will probably want to move on(Bale style), to do something diferent. As to the death bit that´s the strongest reason to replace an actor.Just ask the guys behind Harry Potter.
If they don´t want to fufill their contracts just say so in a timely fashion so that a replacement can procured. I´ve saved scheduling conflicts for last because that´s your only "bad"argument". If you look at it, theses guys built their schedule to acomodate these movies...
The Bond part was refering to a continuous refreshing of talent. That´s why I put the Bond bit first, and then the rest.
I posted it before,gonna post it again:http://www.slashfilm.com/robert-downey- ... an-marvel/
That being said, I´m with Ziller in the sense that they can´t go indefently. The question that should be asked is if the whole "building upon past events many movies behind" can start hurting the strenth of the IP, and when the audience as a whole will feel saturated by this product. Thing is, there nothing out there,with this size and with it´s particularities,to compare.
Dr. Brooklyn wrote:
I hunted down the scene as well, and the voice you hear is just a guy speaking to tall, purple, and macabre.
The dude that´s talking is the guy with the hood,and he appears in the regular movie. It seems that he´s played by Alexis Denisof.