WatchmenComicMovie.com Forum

You make it sound horrible, but that's the sensible thing to do. I know it's what'd I'd do anyway.

Besides, why would they care about creating new characters for movies when they have so many good pre-existing characters that could have great movies made out of them?

_________________
"The world is a fine place and worth fighting for." I agree with the second part.

"There's a cello in your house now."

But it kind of is horrible.

Look, I understand that most mainstream films are made primarily because of money--I'm not stupid. However, I personally have a beef with how Marvel chooses to treat its movies--as a means to an end until they get to the big cross-over film event. Odds are, I'm probably going to really enjoy The Avengers, and I'll sit here and sing its praises like everyone else.

However, I shudder at the thought of having to go through another set of middling action films just to get to the next Avengers movie.

I think there is just way too much in even the main Civil war issues to put into one movie. Mainly in the form of Marvel Universe history that must be explained or else th emovie won't make sense.



Dr. Strange.

The problem with your statement is that pretty much every Marvel character has been an Avenger or an X-Man at SOME point, several have been both.

_________________
@RealSlimCAvery

Marvel, as in the whole outfit, was bought by Disney. As of now, Marvel Studios is a subsidiary of Disney. The Paramount logos that we see are bought licenses.It´s Disney that+s distributing this movie.
What Disney is doing,in association with Marvel, is what WB and DC could have done decades ago.
Don´t really think that Disney is gonna use Marvel Studios for anything less the comic book movies.

That being said, I think that you are on the money when it comes to starting a new IP with a movie, and the transition to a comic book. I just don´t see them making a live action movie in that particular case.Enter Marvel/Disney animation divisions...






The more "hardcore" properties would probably be optioned after the studios that bought them allowed the rights to expire.


As to the X-men,Fantastic Four and Spider-Man, I think that significant investment would have to be made, one that would probably deter Disney from buying them all at once.Spidey would be the priciest, with FF probably being the best short-term option.
But the most likely suiters for new movies are Shield (Samuel "I´m King Shit of Fuck Mountain" L. Jackson+Jeremy "bank robber or bomb disposal unit, doesn´t matter I´m still fucking badass" Renner+Scarlett "Stop looking at my ass Tom and Chris" Johanson=awesome), Ant Man and Strange.


That being said, I want them to stay the fuck away from Civil War, World War Hulk, and the likes of them. That´s stuff just can´t be adapted...

Closer than you think bro.

_________________
My Blog of Movie Reviews and Such

I'll be right back. I gotta go see a man about a mule.

I think Marvel is prepared to spend alot of money on one venture...
just saying...

_________________
My Blog of Movie Reviews and Such

I'll be right back. I gotta go see a man about a mule.

Yeah, it´s called Avengers...

Of course, all of that is getting broken down and sent over to Disneyland when the contracts expire. Just saying.

_________________
This is truly a madhouse. And I'm the lunatic running it. I've spent three years wondering if I should be proud or ashamed.

thats what I was getting at.

_________________
My Blog of Movie Reviews and Such

I'll be right back. I gotta go see a man about a mule.

Agreed, certain "events" just can't be done. For example, Shadowland would take way too much back story to do on screen, but as a comic mini it was amazing.

_________________
@RealSlimCAvery

What Marvel Universe history specifically ? The only issues I see with a Civil War movie are the Marvel heroes not copyrighted by Marvel (Spider-Man, Fantastic Four) and Namor, and they could just write him off completely, or introduce him properly =D !

Really, a lot of people believe Civil War is bigger simply because the tie-ins were just fucking great and actually did what a tie-in was supposed to do, it gave a larger sense of a fight when there was barely any.



You know what I mean smarty pants, not every Marvel character is a "real" avenger like Cap, Hulk, Thor and Iron Man or a "real" X-Man like Cyclops, Wolverine, Shadowcat and Nightcrawler. And frankly, it actually speaks terrible things of Marvel that they have whored every character of the universe into both of those teams

Consider characters like Nova, Misty Knight, Tarantula, Taskmaster, Shang Chi, Cloak & Dagger, Blazing Skull, Moebius, among dozens.

Could any of those get a chance at their own movie ?

_________________

Well, most of those guys kind of suck.

_________________
"The world is a fine place and worth fighting for." I agree with the second part.

"There's a cello in your house now."

If you were to make a small list of underrated Marvel characters, which would you name ?

Think if those characters you mention could possibly get a movie.

_________________

Are we agreeing on this?
And and, like...
wow.

_________________
My Blog of Movie Reviews and Such

I'll be right back. I gotta go see a man about a mule.

Goddamit Nitey you fucked it up

_________________

Also The New Warriors would need to be introduced and there has to be given enough history of all the property damage, then the Super Human holding facilities (plan 42) would need to be discussed, as well as Fury being in hiding and other people running S.H.I.E.L.D., couple that with all the heroes taking sides (and I mean all, if there are only like five heroes a side it's not really a "Civil War")

I will not argue that there is the main story that one can enjoy without all the tie ins, but I feel that if you walked up to someone with no knowledge of comics and gave them JUST the main mini, they wouldn't appreciate it as much as someone who knows a lot about the characters.

_________________
@RealSlimCAvery

Obviously some stuff could be easily cut, we're not seeing Hank and Janet Pym on May 4th aren't we ? That said, The New Warriors, or any other "cannon-fodder" characters, can either be introduced or replaced by a bunch of random supers, I don't see much issue with the Super Human Holding Facilities, isn't that Stark's prison in the Negative Zone ?

Nick Fury is probably the only issue, as his absence is key to the power balance in the story, unless they wrote him as being Pro-Registration, but I don't think that could work very well.

_________________

Feli, you don't even realize... but you're proving my point. Look at what you're saying: cutting, changing, reworking... if you have to do all that stuff to make a story filmable... it wasn't filmable to begin with.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lvjpm1mJXlE

_________________
@RealSlimCAvery

That's just called adapting source material. Look at what forum we're on, fool.

_________________
"The world is a fine place and worth fighting for." I agree with the second part.

"There's a cello in your house now."

Suuuuuuure, because nothing was done differently from the comics to acomodate The Avengers

Apart from Speedball, NONE of The New Warriors become relevant to the conflict, they choose their sides, but they become as random and as inconsequential to the conflict as anyone else not close to Iron Man or Captain America.

Therefore, in the same way that White Fury was replaced by Black Fury, or how Donald Blake was omitted from Thor, or how Hank and Janet Pym are not in The Avengers, or how Iron Man revealed his identity at the very first movie, or how Hawkeye didn't start out as a supervillain with a crappy purple mask.................so can some stuff be changed for a movie !

I congratulate you Brooklyn, you made a WISE choice in not going to law school

_________________