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.)

[Joey Fuckup]

I have never heard of this, nor seen anything remotely similar. The only "live action" Archie film I've seen was a really bad "reunion" TV movie of the gang, being older, and just being boring. Maybe the filmmakers did get sued, and that's why it's such an obscurity now?

John Battles said:

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.

[Rockin Rod Strychnine]

Maybe because you really can't show 3-D on TV, but the promos for THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN are far from Amazing.

[Joey Fuckup]

The more I've seen on this Spiderman re-boot, the more I'm starting to like it. I think this saga will be darker and more in-depth, and from what I've read about it, it's based on Marvel's re-tooling of the character with an all new comic book series that came out back in 2001 or so. I still think it was just too early to bring this all about, but since Sony/Columbia still had the film rights, they were going ahead with another Spiderman film while they still could. Apparently Marvel is impressed with what they've seen, and already a sequel and a Venom film is being planned.

Rockin Rod Strychnine said:

Maybe because you really can't show 3-D on TV, but the promos for THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN are far from Amazing.

[Joey Fuckup]

By the way, I saw "The Avengers" this past weekend, and was totally blown away! Every character was utilized in their own way (yes, even Black Widow and Hawkeye), and they all played off each other very well. Definately sit through the first set of credits at the end for a bonus scene that will be setting the stage for either an Avengers sequel and/or a second Thor film. There is a scene at the very end of the movie (after the second set of credits), but honestly it really is just a goofy kind of thing that doesn't have any real purpose as far as the actual film goes. However, if you haven't seen "Captain America" or "Thor", I highly recommend you watching them first since they are the lead-ins to "The Avengers".

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]

Hmm, I've read that the movie from 2002 had a bit of the retooled comic.  Like the Spider being geneticly altered as opposed to being radioactive.  And the scene from where the thief gets away after robbing the promoters of the wrestling match, also comes from Ultimate Spider-Man as well. 

joey fuckup said:

The more I've seen on this Spiderman re-boot, the more I'm starting to like it. I think this saga will be darker and more in-depth, and from what I've read about it, it's based on Marvel's re-tooling of the character with an all new comic book series that came out back in 2001 or so. I still think it was just too early to bring this all about, but since Sony/Columbia still had the film rights, they were going ahead with another Spiderman film while they still could. Apparently Marvel is impressed with what they've seen, and already a sequel and a Venom film is being planned.

Rockin Rod Strychnine said:

Maybe because you really can't show 3-D on TV, but the promos for THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN are far from Amazing.

[Rockin Rod Strychnine]

I thought it was great too.  And I always stay until the very end.  I think Ferris Bueler taught us to stay in our seats or you might just miss something.

joey fuckup said:

By the way, I saw "The Avengers" this past weekend, and was totally blown away! Every character was utilized in their own way (yes, even Black Widow and Hawkeye), and they all played off each other very well. Definately sit through the first set of credits at the end for a bonus scene that will be setting the stage for either an Avengers sequel and/or a second Thor film. There is a scene at the very end of the movie (after the second set of credits), but honestly it really is just a goofy kind of thing that doesn't have any real purpose as far as the actual film goes. However, if you haven't seen "Captain America" or "Thor", I highly recommend you watching them first since they are the lead-ins to "The Avengers".

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.

[Nero]

Got to say I have to agree with Mr Fuckup, I thought the Avengers was pretty damn good, and I'm no great fan of superhero movies in general (I just tend to think that comic books make better comic books than they do films). As further evidence of its superiority, I offer that the missus enjoyed it too, and considering the film's extreme running time and that she has no real interest in superheroics, that's a compliment of the highest order, so hats off to Joss Whedon. Guess I had some slight emotional investment in at as the Avengers was the first superhero comic I ever read, way back when, in the seventies in the UK, Marvel was reprinting the American comics in weekly b & w format. Previously, I'd only been aware of Superman and Batman as some shadowy figures appearing occasionally on tv or in a tattered hardback annual in a dentist's waiting room, so to come across this strange new world (with Steve Ditko's Dr Strange as a backup strip, no less) was somewhat mind-blowing, to say the least. And whilst the film doesn't bear much relationship to those sixties Stan Lee/Don Heck Avengers that I first read, I guess it did satisfy some small part of my soul that hankers after those innocent days. Incidently, I did have those feelings rekindled a few years ago when I stumbled across Mike Allred's sixties-inspired superhero-oddness comic 'The Atomics'. Worth a look if you like sixties-inspired superhero oddness. 

On a sidenote, we saw the film in 3D (first time for Honey, my wife, and only second time for me, Alice In Wonderland being the first) and we were both a bit underwhelmed by it. It looked good in fairly static long shots, but any close up shots with frenetic action (of which there are many) had a tendency to tear my head apart and feel confused. Still enjoyed the film, but would just as happily watched it in 2D. 

[Rockin Rod Strychnine]

My local theater is an old fashioned one screener and does not have 3-D capabilities so it was shown in 2-D which is fine by me.  I think it was much more enjoyable that way.

Nero said:

Got to say I have to agree with Mr Fuckup, I thought the Avengers was pretty damn good, and I'm no great fan of superhero movies in general (I just tend to think that comic books make better comic books than they do films). As further evidence of its superiority, I offer that the missus enjoyed it too, and considering the film's extreme running time and that she has no real interest in superheroics, that's a compliment of the highest order, so hats off to Joss Whedon. Guess I had some slight emotional investment in at as the Avengers was the first superhero comic I ever read, way back when, in the seventies in the UK, Marvel was reprinting the American comics in weekly b & w format. Previously, I'd only been aware of Superman and Batman as some shadowy figures appearing occasionally on tv or in a tattered hardback annual in a dentist's waiting room, so to come across this strange new world (with Steve Ditko's Dr Strange as a backup strip, no less) was somewhat mind-blowing, to say the least. And whilst the film doesn't bear much relationship to those sixties Stan Lee/Don Heck Avengers that I first read, I guess it did satisfy some small part of my soul that hankers after those innocent days. Incidently, I did have those feelings rekindled a few years ago when I stumbled across Mike Allred's sixties-inspired superhero-oddness comic 'The Atomics'. Worth a look if you like sixties-inspired superhero oddness. 

On a sidenote, we saw the film in 3D (first time for Honey, my wife, and only second time for me, Alice In Wonderland being the first) and we were both a bit underwhelmed by it. It looked good in fairly static long shots, but any close up shots with frenetic action (of which there are many) had a tendency to tear my head apart and feel confused. Still enjoyed the film, but would just as happily watched it in 2D. 

[Joey Fuckup]

I admit, I can't keep track of which elements came from which "Spiderman" comic series, ha! As far as the "Ultimate Spiderman" goes, I think a vast majority of it is the blueprint of this newer franchise. Did you happen to see an in-depth trailer on "The Amazing Spiderman"? One, I want to know who the shadowy guy is that says to Dr. Connors "Did you tell the boy about his father"? Was that Dr. Octavius? I'm almost sure I saw a quick glimpse of several arms crashing down on a floor...And if Oscorp is the backdrop for a lot of the plot, where is Norman? I was thinking in the comics he had sort of gone "missing", and had in fact went mad after injecting himself with performance enhancers.

Rockin Rod Strychnine said:

Hmm, I've read that the movie from 2002 had a bit of the retooled comic.  Like the Spider being geneticly altered as opposed to being radioactive.  And the scene from where the thief gets away after robbing the promoters of the wrestling match, also comes from Ultimate Spider-Man as well. 

joey fuckup said:

The more I've seen on this Spiderman re-boot, the more I'm starting to like it. I think this saga will be darker and more in-depth, and from what I've read about it, it's based on Marvel's re-tooling of the character with an all new comic book series that came out back in 2001 or so. I still think it was just too early to bring this all about, but since Sony/Columbia still had the film rights, they were going ahead with another Spiderman film while they still could. Apparently Marvel is impressed with what they've seen, and already a sequel and a Venom film is being planned.

Rockin Rod Strychnine said:

Maybe because you really can't show 3-D on TV, but the promos for THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN are far from Amazing.

[Joey Fuckup]

I saw it in 2-D because I had heard that you didn't need to see it in 3-D. I did go see "Thor" in 3-D, and it really didn't add much, neither.
Nero said:

Got to say I have to agree with Mr Fuckup, I thought the Avengers was pretty damn good, and I'm no great fan of superhero movies in general (I just tend to think that comic books make better comic books than they do films). As further evidence of its superiority, I offer that the missus enjoyed it too, and considering the film's extreme running time and that she has no real interest in superheroics, that's a compliment of the highest order, so hats off to Joss Whedon. Guess I had some slight emotional investment in at as the Avengers was the first superhero comic I ever read, way back when, in the seventies in the UK, Marvel was reprinting the American comics in weekly b & w format. Previously, I'd only been aware of Superman and Batman as some shadowy figures appearing occasionally on tv or in a tattered hardback annual in a dentist's waiting room, so to come across this strange new world (with Steve Ditko's Dr Strange as a backup strip, no less) was somewhat mind-blowing, to say the least. And whilst the film doesn't bear much relationship to those sixties Stan Lee/Don Heck Avengers that I first read, I guess it did satisfy some small part of my soul that hankers after those innocent days. Incidently, I did have those feelings rekindled a few years ago when I stumbled across Mike Allred's sixties-inspired superhero-oddness comic 'The Atomics'. Worth a look if you like sixties-inspired superhero oddness. 

On a sidenote, we saw the film in 3D (first time for Honey, my wife, and only second time for me, Alice In Wonderland being the first) and we were both a bit underwhelmed by it. It looked good in fairly static long shots, but any close up shots with frenetic action (of which there are many) had a tendency to tear my head apart and feel confused. Still enjoyed the film, but would just as happily watched it in 2D. 

[Joey Fuckup]

That bonus scene had me! I kept trying to figure out who this damn smiling being was, so I immediately looked up some info, only to find out that it was Thanos. Truly a pain-in-the-ass, and according to his "history", his first appearance was in the Iron Man comics. So obviously he'll be the main villain in an Avengers sequel, but I'm wondering if he'll factor in the second "Thor" film. After all, this race that Loki was allied with will be seeking revenge on him for everything going awry on Earth. And if they're pals with Thanos, will he go aid them in attacking Asgard? Loki has already been confirmed for "Thor 2", so I can only imagine that the plot will revolve around Thor having to protect him.
Rockin Rod Strychnine said:

I thought it was great too.  And I always stay until the very end.  I think Ferris Bueler taught us to stay in our seats or you might just miss something.

joey fuckup said:

By the way, I saw "The Avengers" this past weekend, and was totally blown away! Every character was utilized in their own way (yes, even Black Widow and Hawkeye), and they all played off each other very well. Definately sit through the first set of credits at the end for a bonus scene that will be setting the stage for either an Avengers sequel and/or a second Thor film. There is a scene at the very end of the movie (after the second set of credits), but honestly it really is just a goofy kind of thing that doesn't have any real purpose as far as the actual film goes. However, if you haven't seen "Captain America" or "Thor", I highly recommend you watching them first since they are the lead-ins to "The Avengers".

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]

I think it's more out of curiosity than excitement that I'm anticipating the new Spider-Man movie.  I understand it's an update and the characters are going to be much different and look different (Peter Parker with Ross Geller (character from FRIENDS) hair really bugs me) but it doesn't seem like MY comic book anymore.  I guess that's what I liked about the AVENGERS movie is that it still felt like the 60's/70's comic in a way but still being apart of the 21st century.

I'm really looking forward to the new Batman movie, to be honest.  

joey fuckup said:

I admit, I can't keep track of which elements came from which "Spiderman" comic series, ha! As far as the "Ultimate Spiderman" goes, I think a vast majority of it is the blueprint of this newer franchise. Did you happen to see an in-depth trailer on "The Amazing Spiderman"? One, I want to know who the shadowy guy is that says to Dr. Connors "Did you tell the boy about his father"? Was that Dr. Octavius? I'm almost sure I saw a quick glimpse of several arms crashing down on a floor...And if Oscorp is the backdrop for a lot of the plot, where is Norman? I was thinking in the comics he had sort of gone "missing", and had in fact went mad after injecting himself with performance enhancers.

Rockin Rod Strychnine said:

Hmm, I've read that the movie from 2002 had a bit of the retooled comic.  Like the Spider being geneticly altered as opposed to being radioactive.  And the scene from where the thief gets away after robbing the promoters of the wrestling match, also comes from Ultimate Spider-Man as well. 

joey fuckup said:

The more I've seen on this Spiderman re-boot, the more I'm starting to like it. I think this saga will be darker and more in-depth, and from what I've read about it, it's based on Marvel's re-tooling of the character with an all new comic book series that came out back in 2001 or so. I still think it was just too early to bring this all about, but since Sony/Columbia still had the film rights, they were going ahead with another Spiderman film while they still could. Apparently Marvel is impressed with what they've seen, and already a sequel and a Venom film is being planned.

Rockin Rod Strychnine said:

Maybe because you really can't show 3-D on TV, but the promos for THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN are far from Amazing.