Comic Book Films: Love 'em Or Hate 'em?

[Joey Fuckup]

Wanted to start up this discussion because there has been so many to hit the big screens, and I was curious on what your thoughts were on certain ones. Some you may love, some you may hate, what you would have done differently if you were the director. As a comic book fan from the '70's and early '80's, I must admit I really have liked many of them because it is interesting to see these characters brought to life. Even if I wasn't necessarily into some of the series, it was cool to see the adaptations. But not all were "amazing", and instead of me going down the list of all the ones I didn't like or really dug, I'd rather see what you guys think and comment on that...As of this posting, I read two reviews for "Green Lantern", and they both were bad. That's not going to stop me from going to see it, because hell, I have loved movies that critics hated! The last comic book film I saw was "Thor", and I did like it. Of course, I liked Thor comics as a kid, so I liked the way his history translated over into celluloid. Which brings up another question-If you liked a particular superhero, did it annoy you if the screenwriters decided to change their origin? Or was it a good idea? And are you more partial to Marvel or DC? Plus, I'd rather keep this discussion grounded in comic book films from the '90's to the present, and leave the '80's and before behind. (Yes, I know you all loved "Howard the Duck", I mean, who didn't? Ha ha) And I'd also like to keep TV series out of this as well (Although if you're making a point about a film and need to reference a series, go for it.)

[Rockin Rod Strychnine]

Ghost Rider must have done well somwhere (DVD rentals?) because it's now back on the big screen with a sequel.

[Joey Fuckup]

I know the sequel comes out in Feb., but it's being shown with the first one? I really liked the first one, but I really don't need to sit through it again just so I can see #2. I'm sure it's just special showings, of course. Yes, the first one did do quite a bit of box office dollars, and even though I enjoyed it, I'm surprised it did well. I know it was questionable if Nicholas Cage would return, since he claims he doesn't do sequels, but I'm kind of assuming his financial troubles eased him into that decision. Even though he never would have been my pick for the role, I'm glad he is returning and there being the issue of having it re-cast like what was done with "The Punisher: War Zone" (which I've still never seen). Like I've said before on this thread, if future "Ghost Rider" films are going to be made and Cage opts to not participate, the scripts should involve the '90's Danny Ketch storylines (which I never got into).

Rockin Rod Strychnine said:

Ghost Rider must have done well somwhere (DVD rentals?) because it's now back on the big screen with a sequel.

[Rockin Rod Strychnine]

I meant Ghost Rider the character, not the first movie.  Sorry if it sounded like I inplyed that.  I just didn't think it had done well enough to warrent a sequel but I'm pretty out of the loop since I don't read comic gossip mags and blogs anymore.

joey fuckup said:

I know the sequel comes out in Feb., but it's being shown with the first one? I really liked the first one, but I really don't need to sit through it again just so I can see #2. I'm sure it's just special showings, of course. Yes, the first one did do quite a bit of box office dollars, and even though I enjoyed it, I'm surprised it did well. I know it was questionable if Nicholas Cage would return, since he claims he doesn't do sequels, but I'm kind of assuming his financial troubles eased him into that decision. Even though he never would have been my pick for the role, I'm glad he is returning and there being the issue of having it re-cast like what was done with "The Punisher: War Zone" (which I've still never seen). Like I've said before on this thread, if future "Ghost Rider" films are going to be made and Cage opts to not participate, the scripts should involve the '90's Danny Ketch storylines (which I never got into).

Rockin Rod Strychnine said:

Ghost Rider must have done well somwhere (DVD rentals?) because it's now back on the big screen with a sequel.

[Joey Fuckup]

Gotcha...yeah, I'm thinking it did well over $160 million domestically and even more overseas, plus I'm sure the high dvd sales helped out as well. I've been tempted to pick up the extended "Director's Cut" before the sequel comes out to get a little refresher.

Rockin Rod Strychnine said:

I meant Ghost Rider the character, not the first movie.  Sorry if it sounded like I inplyed that.  I just didn't think it had done well enough to warrent a sequel but I'm pretty out of the loop since I don't read comic gossip mags and blogs anymore.

joey fuckup said:

I know the sequel comes out in Feb., but it's being shown with the first one? I really liked the first one, but I really don't need to sit through it again just so I can see #2. I'm sure it's just special showings, of course. Yes, the first one did do quite a bit of box office dollars, and even though I enjoyed it, I'm surprised it did well. I know it was questionable if Nicholas Cage would return, since he claims he doesn't do sequels, but I'm kind of assuming his financial troubles eased him into that decision. Even though he never would have been my pick for the role, I'm glad he is returning and there being the issue of having it re-cast like what was done with "The Punisher: War Zone" (which I've still never seen). Like I've said before on this thread, if future "Ghost Rider" films are going to be made and Cage opts to not participate, the scripts should involve the '90's Danny Ketch storylines (which I never got into).

Rockin Rod Strychnine said:

Ghost Rider must have done well somwhere (DVD rentals?) because it's now back on the big screen with a sequel.

[Joey Fuckup]

So has anyone seen the second "Ghost Rider" film yet? I'm almost on the fence about going, now that I know that Marvel is inacting legal action against the comic character's original creator. Years ago he sold off the rights to Marvel, and throughout the years, he's made some measly profit money showing up at comic conventions. Well, they want ALL his profits he's made (I think it's in the neighborhood of $17,000.00), and they want him to keep his mouth shut about being the creator. Sheesh, talk about greed, and this guy will never see a dime from any licensed item nor from the film itself. Hell, I may go see it, at least some of the money will go to Nicholas Cage, since after all he had to file for bankruptcy (Ok, bad joke).

I've seen the latest trailer for "The Avengers", and I must say, I was quite impressed. However, I did have a couple of issues with what I have seen. One is the Hulk's look. I don't think he will ever look totally believable in any film, but I still think he looked the best and most authentic in Ang Lee's adaptation. They used Industrial, Light, & Magic, and I don't know why they were never used again. The Hulk just looked way too CG in the second film, so it's hard for me to try and watch that version (still have never watched it the whole way through). Perhaps the second Hulk film had a lower budget? And now, here in his third big screen appearance, he does look better than the second time, but pales in comparison to his first dash on the silver screen.

I know the Black Widow was a major character in "Iron Man 2", but other than setting her up as being in "The Avengers", I'm not that sure she was really all that necessary. I never really read the Avengers comics, but was she ever one of them? So in the trailer, she's shown a lot, but does she add THAT much (other than being eye candy)? There's also the inclusion of Hawkeye, who we all know was an Avenger, but he just doesn't seem like he belongs, neither (perhaps because he just looks bland). He had a small appearance in "Thor", but he just doesn't seem to add much. I know in the '60's Avengers (#1), the superhero line-up was Captain America, Hulk, Iron Man, and Thor, and I think they should have stuck with that. The movie doesn't come out until May, so I guess I will have to wait and see, and hope the Black Widow and Hawkeye just aren't characters thrown in for the hell of it, getting in the way, and creating too many subplots.

[Rockin Rod Strychnine]

Never been a huge Ghost Rider fan but that is messed up.  I remember back in the 70s that a foundation or something was set up to protect creators and to get some back pay (not much but some).  This was done before the first Christopher Reeve Superman movie and DC wasn't about to include Seigle and Shuster in on the celebration.  I think Neal Adams (best known for doing Batman and Green Lantern in the early 70s) was behind this.  Since then, Superman and Batman each have their creators name on the front page (if that is still going on).

I really don't have too much of a problem with the CGI look for the Hulk and Spiderman.  If it helps them move around quickly like they are supposed to, then I don't mind.  Hulk does look a little flat though so you are right that he needs demension and the lighting helps.

As for Black Widow and Hawkeye in the Avengers, I feel they were just thrown in as well.  Black Widow was a Russian agent in the 60s Iron Man comics and had tricked Hawkeye into joining her against him (he thought he was in love with her).  He was in the Avengers as a probation type of thing when Captain America needed to put together a new team after the original went their own ways (the Hulk was only an Avenger for the first 2 issues).  But these movies have changed a lot of their histories and even now they have changed the whole Spider-man story again for his upcoming movie.  Mary Jane has been dropped and they've decided to have Gwen Stacy be his girl friend once again.  Maybe when they redo him again, they'll remember Liz Allan or even Betty Brant.

[Joey Fuckup]

If I remember correctly in the Spiderman history, Gwen Stacy was Peter's first "real" girlfriend (not counting his crush on Liz), but died during a violent scenario involving the Green Goblin. This scene was replicated in the first "Spiderman" film, but involved Mary Jane of course. It wasn't until after Gwen died that Peter met Mary Jane, so maybe this new retelling will follow the original '60's storylines more so than what Sam Raimi did.

Thanks for clarifying the back story of Black Widow, because I've only known her as a guest star in other comics. Like I said, I never really followed the Avengers, but I did like the Iron Man comics, although I had stopped reading them by the time Tony Stark became an alcoholic. I was more of a "Defenders" fan, one of the most mix-matched group of superheroes ever (Hulk, Dr. Strange, Howard the Duck, Nighthawk, and other various off-the-wall characters).

Rockin Rod Strychnine said:

Never been a huge Ghost Rider fan but that is messed up.  I remember back in the 70s that a foundation or something was set up to protect creators and to get some back pay (not much but some).  This was done before the first Christopher Reeve Superman movie and DC wasn't about to include Seigle and Shuster in on the celebration.  I think Neal Adams (best known for doing Batman and Green Lantern in the early 70s) was behind this.  Since then, Superman and Batman each have their creators name on the front page (if that is still going on).

I really don't have too much of a problem with the CGI look for the Hulk and Spiderman.  If it helps them move around quickly like they are supposed to, then I don't mind.  Hulk does look a little flat though so you are right that he needs demension and the lighting helps.

As for Black Widow and Hawkeye in the Avengers, I feel they were just thrown in as well.  Black Widow was a Russian agent in the 60s Iron Man comics and had tricked Hawkeye into joining her against him (he thought he was in love with her).  He was in the Avengers as a probation type of thing when Captain America needed to put together a new team after the original went their own ways (the Hulk was only an Avenger for the first 2 issues).  But these movies have changed a lot of their histories and even now they have changed the whole Spider-man story again for his upcoming movie.  Mary Jane has been dropped and they've decided to have Gwen Stacy be his girl friend once again.  Maybe when they redo him again, they'll remember Liz Allan or even Betty Brant.

[Rockin Rod Strychnine]

Gwen Stacy was Peter's first girlfriend that lasted more than a year which is why everyone remembers her best but technically, Betty Brant, Jonah's secretary, was Peter's first girlfriend soon he first started selling pictures to the Bugle.  It didn't last long though because he was always making up excuses why he couldn't keep dates and always disappearing and she also couldn't stand the thought that he was risking his life to take pictures of Spider-man.  The final straw was when Dr. Octopus exposed Spider-man (Peter had the flu so was easily beaten) in front of Jonah and Betty and Peter was under the mask.  Of course everyone thought that Peter was just posing in order to save Betty because he didn't trust the "real" Spider-man to show up in time.

Peter didn't meet Gwen until he started college so I think Gwen (like MJ in the previous movie series) is just taking Liz's place for the high school years and then changing into what the comics make them out to be.  The movie is including a backstory for Peter's parents this time but they are being changed.  Stan Lee back in the sixties revealed his parents to be Shield agents that were killed by the Red Skull (stupid story if you ask me) but somehow framed as traitors and Spider-man felt that it was his duty to clear their name.  I don't know what exactly happened as I only know the first part of the plot having never read the story (it's from a rare summer annual not part of the ongoing comic) but the story really reeks of fakeness.  By 1968, I think Stan ran out of ideas and just became too outlandish (Jack Kirby didn't even want to do the Silver Surfer comic that came out that year  because he added to much to his back story that didn't mesh with his intro from two years before).  The new movie makes more sense that his parents are scientists but then they throw in that they work with Curt Conners (EVERYTHING has to have a connection which ruined the Sandman story from the Toby McGuire movie for me).

For me, I'm more interested in the Avengers movie and the final Batman picture (of this run anyway) than I am in Ghost Rider or Spider-man.

joey fuckup said:

If I remember correctly in the Spiderman history, Gwen Stacy was Peter's first "real" girlfriend (not counting his crush on Liz), but died during a violent scenario involving the Green Goblin. This scene was replicated in the first "Spiderman" film, but involved Mary Jane of course. It wasn't until after Gwen died that Peter met Mary Jane, so maybe this new retelling will follow the original '60's storylines more so than what Sam Raimi did.

Thanks for clarifying the back story of Black Widow, because I've only known her as a guest star in other comics. Like I said, I never really followed the Avengers, but I did like the Iron Man comics, although I had stopped reading them by the time Tony Stark became an alcoholic. I was more of a "Defenders" fan, one of the most mix-matched group of superheroes ever (Hulk, Dr. Strange, Howard the Duck, Nighthawk, and other various off-the-wall characters).

Rockin Rod Strychnine said:

Never been a huge Ghost Rider fan but that is messed up.  I remember back in the 70s that a foundation or something was set up to protect creators and to get some back pay (not much but some).  This was done before the first Christopher Reeve Superman movie and DC wasn't about to include Seigle and Shuster in on the celebration.  I think Neal Adams (best known for doing Batman and Green Lantern in the early 70s) was behind this.  Since then, Superman and Batman each have their creators name on the front page (if that is still going on).

I really don't have too much of a problem with the CGI look for the Hulk and Spiderman.  If it helps them move around quickly like they are supposed to, then I don't mind.  Hulk does look a little flat though so you are right that he needs demension and the lighting helps.

As for Black Widow and Hawkeye in the Avengers, I feel they were just thrown in as well.  Black Widow was a Russian agent in the 60s Iron Man comics and had tricked Hawkeye into joining her against him (he thought he was in love with her).  He was in the Avengers as a probation type of thing when Captain America needed to put together a new team after the original went their own ways (the Hulk was only an Avenger for the first 2 issues).  But these movies have changed a lot of their histories and even now they have changed the whole Spider-man story again for his upcoming movie.  Mary Jane has been dropped and they've decided to have Gwen Stacy be his girl friend once again.  Maybe when they redo him again, they'll remember Liz Allan or even Betty Brant.

[Joey Fuckup]

Yeah, I did notice in the newer "Amazing Spiderman" trailer that they were playing on the connection of Peter's parents being involved with Dr. Connors. I got the impression that maybe Peter already had something done to him when he was a child, and it (whatever it was) lay dormant in his DNA for years until he gets bit by the spider in the lab. Which makes me feel like (if this is what happens in the film) that the writers are sort of ripping off Ang Lee's "Hulk" story treatment. So, if this is the case, I guess the film is way off the mark from his origin in the '60's issues.

Rockin Rod Strychnine said:

Gwen Stacy was Peter's first girlfriend that lasted more than a year which is why everyone remembers her best but technically, Betty Brant, Jonah's secretary, was Peter's first girlfriend soon he first started selling pictures to the Bugle.  It didn't last long though because he was always making up excuses why he couldn't keep dates and always disappearing and she also couldn't stand the thought that he was risking his life to take pictures of Spider-man.  The final straw was when Dr. Octopus exposed Spider-man (Peter had the flu so was easily beaten) in front of Jonah and Betty and Peter was under the mask.  Of course everyone thought that Peter was just posing in order to save Betty because he didn't trust the "real" Spider-man to show up in time.

Peter didn't meet Gwen until he started college so I think Gwen (like MJ in the previous movie series) is just taking Liz's place for the high school years and then changing into what the comics make them out to be.  The movie is including a backstory for Peter's parents this time but they are being changed.  Stan Lee back in the sixties revealed his parents to be Shield agents that were killed by the Red Skull (stupid story if you ask me) but somehow framed as traitors and Spider-man felt that it was his duty to clear their name.  I don't know what exactly happened as I only know the first part of the plot having never read the story (it's from a rare summer annual not part of the ongoing comic) but the story really reeks of fakeness.  By 1968, I think Stan ran out of ideas and just became too outlandish (Jack Kirby didn't even want to do the Silver Surfer comic that came out that year  because he added to much to his back story that didn't mesh with his intro from two years before).  The new movie makes more sense that his parents are scientists but then they throw in that they work with Curt Conners (EVERYTHING has to have a connection which ruined the Sandman story from the Toby McGuire movie for me).

For me, I'm more interested in the Avengers movie and the final Batman picture (of this run anyway) than I am in Ghost Rider or Spider-man.

joey fuckup said:

If I remember correctly in the Spiderman history, Gwen Stacy was Peter's first "real" girlfriend (not counting his crush on Liz), but died during a violent scenario involving the Green Goblin. This scene was replicated in the first "Spiderman" film, but involved Mary Jane of course. It wasn't until after Gwen died that Peter met Mary Jane, so maybe this new retelling will follow the original '60's storylines more so than what Sam Raimi did.

Thanks for clarifying the back story of Black Widow, because I've only known her as a guest star in other comics. Like I said, I never really followed the Avengers, but I did like the Iron Man comics, although I had stopped reading them by the time Tony Stark became an alcoholic. I was more of a "Defenders" fan, one of the most mix-matched group of superheroes ever (Hulk, Dr. Strange, Howard the Duck, Nighthawk, and other various off-the-wall characters).

Rockin Rod Strychnine said:

Never been a huge Ghost Rider fan but that is messed up.  I remember back in the 70s that a foundation or something was set up to protect creators and to get some back pay (not much but some).  This was done before the first Christopher Reeve Superman movie and DC wasn't about to include Seigle and Shuster in on the celebration.  I think Neal Adams (best known for doing Batman and Green Lantern in the early 70s) was behind this.  Since then, Superman and Batman each have their creators name on the front page (if that is still going on).

I really don't have too much of a problem with the CGI look for the Hulk and Spiderman.  If it helps them move around quickly like they are supposed to, then I don't mind.  Hulk does look a little flat though so you are right that he needs demension and the lighting helps.

As for Black Widow and Hawkeye in the Avengers, I feel they were just thrown in as well.  Black Widow was a Russian agent in the 60s Iron Man comics and had tricked Hawkeye into joining her against him (he thought he was in love with her).  He was in the Avengers as a probation type of thing when Captain America needed to put together a new team after the original went their own ways (the Hulk was only an Avenger for the first 2 issues).  But these movies have changed a lot of their histories and even now they have changed the whole Spider-man story again for his upcoming movie.  Mary Jane has been dropped and they've decided to have Gwen Stacy be his girl friend once again.  Maybe when they redo him again, they'll remember Liz Allan or even Betty Brant.

[Rockin Rod Strychnine]

Is that right.  That just sounds lame if Peter was a victim of experimentation like Bruce Banner was in the Hulk's first film.  It made sense there but does that have to be the case everytime now?  Even though the 1960s stories were unbelivable, they were comics and people just survived accidents and it was acceptable.

joey fuckup said:

Yeah, I did notice in the newer "Amazing Spiderman" trailer that they were playing on the connection of Peter's parents being involved with Dr. Connors. I got the impression that maybe Peter already had something done to him when he was a child, and it (whatever it was) lay dormant in his DNA for years until he gets bit by the spider in the lab. Which makes me feel like (if this is what happens in the film) that the writers are sort of ripping off Ang Lee's "Hulk" story treatment. So, if this is the case, I guess the film is way off the mark from his origin in the '60's issues.

[John Battles]

I know , I'm so tired of seeing actors get bumped off by CGI ...All they'd need is a muscle boy in a wig , painted green. Lou Ferrigno was no Olivier , but , he pulled it off...Of course , he seemed more sympathetic because he could'nt hear , and was just learning to talk , in real life....Of course "Captain America" HAD CGI  graphics, but no actors lost their jobs.

I did'nt even know there WAS a "Ghost Rider" sequel , nor that it sold as well as it did....I'm sure Suicide's song STILL was'nt used , either.
 
joey fuckup said:

So has anyone seen the second "Ghost Rider" film yet? I'm almost on the fence about going, now that I know that Marvel is inacting legal action against the comic character's original creator. Years ago he sold off the rights to Marvel, and throughout the years, he's made some measly profit money showing up at comic conventions. Well, they want ALL his profits he's made (I think it's in the neighborhood of $17,000.00), and they want him to keep his mouth shut about being the creator. Sheesh, talk about greed, and this guy will never see a dime from any licensed item nor from the film itself. Hell, I may go see it, at least some of the money will go to Nicholas Cage, since after all he had to file for bankruptcy (Ok, bad joke).

I've seen the latest trailer for "The Avengers", and I must say, I was quite impressed. However, I did have a couple of issues with what I have seen. One is the Hulk's look. I don't think he will ever look totally believable in any film, but I still think he looked the best and most authentic in Ang Lee's adaptation. They used Industrial, Light, & Magic, and I don't know why they were never used again. The Hulk just looked way too CG in the second film, so it's hard for me to try and watch that version (still have never watched it the whole way through). Perhaps the second Hulk film had a lower budget? And now, here in his third big screen appearance, he does look better than the second time, but pales in comparison to his first dash on the silver screen.

I know the Black Widow was a major character in "Iron Man 2", but other than setting her up as being in "The Avengers", I'm not that sure she was really all that necessary. I never really read the Avengers comics, but was she ever one of them? So in the trailer, she's shown a lot, but does she add THAT much (other than being eye candy)? There's also the inclusion of Hawkeye, who we all know was an Avenger, but he just doesn't seem like he belongs, neither (perhaps because he just looks bland). He had a small appearance in "Thor", but he just doesn't seem to add much. I know in the '60's Avengers (#1), the superhero line-up was Captain America, Hulk, Iron Man, and Thor, and I think they should have stuck with that. The movie doesn't come out until May, so I guess I will have to wait and see, and hope the Black Widow and Hawkeye just aren't characters thrown in for the hell of it, getting in the way, and creating too many subplots.

[John Battles]

DID ANYBODY EVER SEE THE UNAUTHORIZED , R-RATED VERSION OF "ARCHIE" ? I'm not kidding. It was called "Hot Times" , and it used to air on cable , sometimes , in The 80's. It was made around '73. It was basically about Archie and the gang in sexual situations. They were all called by the same names as in the comics , except I think Jughead was called "Mughead".

I don't know how the people who did it did'nt get sued out of existense.