Register  |   Log In  |  
Sign up to our weekly newsletter    
Follow us on   
Search   
Forum Home Register for Free! Log In Moderator Tickets FAQ Users Online

RE: Marvel vs. DC

 
Logged in as: Guest
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Movie Musings >> RE: Marvel vs. DC Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Marvel vs. DC - 25/6/2013 1:12:46 PM   
Dannybohy


Posts: 1374
Joined: 7/1/2009
Trying to make any comic book movie serious if ultimately a failure as its just not possible. Those such movies that realise this make for the best ones! . imo :)

_____________________________

'Man of Steel!,Man of Shit!' -fairyprincess

(in reply to giggity)
Post #: 31
RE: Marvel vs. DC - 25/6/2013 4:11:30 PM   
giggity

 

Posts: 292
Joined: 4/3/2012

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dannybohy

Trying to make any comic book movie serious if ultimately a failure as its just not possible. Those such movies that realise this make for the best ones! . imo :)


I would disagree, The first two X Men films by Bryan Singer proved that you could pull it off, Same with the first two Blade films and even though you're not a fan of the Nolan Batman films, they proved critically and commercially that you could do it.

Man Of Steel went with a more full-on sci fi take and also more serious, to people who were brought up on the Donner films, this was probably a huge jarring experience and it has divided opinion on the film but i'd say there's equal parts of people who hate it and people who love it.

There's just as many, if not more lighthearted 'fun' comic book movies that failed and were rubbish than ones that were serious.

(in reply to Dannybohy)
Post #: 32
RE: Marvel vs. DC - 25/6/2013 6:39:16 PM   
Olaf


Posts: 23709
Joined: 26/2/2007
From: 41N 93W

quote:

ORIGINAL: giggity


quote:

ORIGINAL: Olaf

Marvel are more appealing at the moment. Doing 'dark' versions of comic book characters has become a rather tedious way for filmmakers to create a shortcut to 'emotional resonance' without actually understanding why. An analogous phenomenon would be the incredible burst of creativity in American superhero comics in the mid/late-80s which actually produced emotionally complex/structurally innovative/formally self-reflexive books that had a mature tone *because* of those things. Followed soon after by a particularly grim period in the medium's history where the actual idea of having mature themes no longer appeared to require a mature tone. Since a 'grown-up' superhero film can never be truly 'adult', unlike comic books which has plenty of room for multiple demographics (since the main audience for the films is children and adolescents), the notion of making a realistic and grown-up superhero film has been pushed as far as it can go. This is why The Dark Knight's musings on the nature of chaos and order were largely sophomoric Philosophy 101 aphorisms and TDKR had a hopelessly half-cooked commentary on Occupy going on, because their attempts at producing a mature exploration of these ideas were hampered from the start by a (some would say quite patronising) viewpoint on the part of the screenwriters, studios etc that it can't be too difficult because kids and teenagers would be put off. If you insist on starting from the position that kids and teenagers aren't smart enough for that kind of thing, just focus on making a good exciting action adventure movie, which is what The Avengers was.

It's a shame because some of the characters mentioned already in this thread could make for a great grown-up movie (not 'grown-up' in the 90s comic industry sense of the term). As flawed as it is, Constantine was one of the better films based on a comic book property in recent times. A closer adaptation would be better, but it's unlikely innit.



Out of all of the DC comics films so far it's only The Dark Knight Trilogy that was dark and that was because it lent itself to the character. Man of Steel may have been serious and straight faced but it wasn't dark. Green Lantern was DC's attempt at a Marvel film and it was pretty lighthearted. A serious approach I think would be best for DC to differentiate itself from Marvel's output. Iron Man 3 and Avengers aside, all of Marvel studios films were pretty cookie cutter in terms of how they handled things. Hopefully it was just them seeing an origin template that worked and applied it to the rest of the films, but even though I enjoyed Captain America, by the end of summer 2011 I was getting tired out by superhero films because they were all basically the same movie.

"This is why The Dark Knight's musings on the nature of chaos and order were largely sophomoric Philosophy 101 aphorisms" - So what? It may be sophomoric but it's still a hell of a lot more substance than what we usually get in big budget blockbuster films. People said the same thing about The Matrix and how it's philosophy is something you could probably get in an evening class at college, but it's still aspiring to be something more than the usual blockbuster and I think with both films it works out quite well.

"TDKR had a hopelessly half-cooked commentary on Occupy going on" - See I don't think it's a commentary at all. If you look at the story of TDKR, it's all really about a revenge story on the villains part. They use the idea of people rising up against the rich but that's a story that's been used hundreds of times in fiction, the actual influence was A Tale of Two Cities. It's the fact that the film was released at the time of Occupy that people immediately associated the two, when actually the film was midway through shooting when Occupy started. That's an association brought on board from your perspective, not intentioned by the creators of the film.


I'll concede on the latter (even though attempting to divine authorial intent as an objective concept is for mugs innit), but I feel the point still stands for the former. Trying and failing to inject intellectual depth isn't a substitute for actually producing something with some intellectual depth, and 'at least you tried' shouldn't be our response to such attempts. To use an analogy from a different medium for a moment, I remember the videogame Heavy Rain being praised to the heavens for its great story, when if it was a film (it was going very much for a 'filmic' approach), it would have been laughably cheesy and plothole-ridden. 'It's a good story... for a videogame' essentially, a bit like 'it's intelligent... for a superhero movie'. It's an unfortunate situation since the comic book industry since the 80s has produced any number of stories that are not just 'good... for a comic book', but actually the intellectual equal of the novel or the play etc.

Instead, if we want better blockbusters, we shouldn't be settling for 'at least it TRIED to be smart, if it wasn't', we should be asking why it failed - are the filmmakers really too stupid to actually make a 'smart' film? I don't think so, because a film like Memento holds up to some genuine critical analysis. I actually think that Inception does as well, albeit not to the same degree, in addition to being more entertaining than TDK/TDKR. So instead the problem is in their approach; they could have made a genuinely intelligent and nuanced film about Batman (because they've shown the ability to do so before), but they pulled back - why? I'd say it's the (misplaced?) belief that their audience wouldn't 'get' it and they didn't want to compromise their (fictional) teenage demographic by actually making them think about the notion of chaos as an ideological tool etc etc. Batman Begins (still the best film in the trilogy incidentally) understood this and made its primary theme one that benefits from being presented directly and simplistically (that's a negative sounding word, but I mean it positively): framing the whole film as an exploration of fear is best served by depicting it as viscerally and as emotionally direct as possible, because that's how fear is experienced and processed. Trying to make some kind of philosophical/political/sociological point with the same lack of nuance doesn't work. Incidentally, TDK is a remarkably sterile film emotionally speaking; when Batman's girlfriend got blown up, I was like 'wow, I can't believe this latest step in the Joker's plan!', when the genuine response to that should be 'wow, that's really sad'. I felt like the whole film was pretty much about characters' relationships to abstract concepts, rather than their relationships to other characters, if that makes any sense.

On your other point: I do agree that the approach that Marvel have taken to date has been somewhat cookie-cutter - the first wave of the unified-universe stuff was all pretty generic looking in order to have some kind of stylistic continuity, but it served its purpose. I think that they've allowed for a more open approach in the next batch of films now that The Avengers is out of the way though - I'm not massively enthused about the new Thor/Cap movies, but I think the likes of Ant-Man and Guardians of the Galaxy could bring a fresh look to the genre. To me they could be the films that break out of the unfortunate binary that was described very well in the OP - right now you've got to be either (faux) dark and (faux) realistic, or you've got to fit the 'Marvel Studios look' in order to not confuse the viewer (my 'I feel like I'm being patronised' alarm is going off again).

_____________________________

I tried to groan, Help! Help! But the tone that came out was that of polite conversation.

Empire Top 100 Albums Poll 2013: CLICK HERE

(in reply to giggity)
Post #: 33
RE: Marvel vs. DC - 25/6/2013 7:20:50 PM   
vad3r


Posts: 4403
Joined: 3/9/2010
From: Close to Mod HQ



''How do you kill a man without fear? ...''

_____________________________

Single Virgin Mod Candidate 2013


quote:

ORIGINAL: horribleives
To paraphrase the great man himself:

Vad3r won't go anywhere near this.

(in reply to Olaf)
Post #: 34
RE: Marvel vs. DC - 25/6/2013 7:23:05 PM   
giggity

 

Posts: 292
Joined: 4/3/2012
quote:

ORIGINAL: Olaf


quote:

ORIGINAL: giggity


quote:

ORIGINAL: Olaf

Marvel are more appealing at the moment. Doing 'dark' versions of comic book characters has become a rather tedious way for filmmakers to create a shortcut to 'emotional resonance' without actually understanding why. An analogous phenomenon would be the incredible burst of creativity in American superhero comics in the mid/late-80s which actually produced emotionally complex/structurally innovative/formally self-reflexive books that had a mature tone *because* of those things. Followed soon after by a particularly grim period in the medium's history where the actual idea of having mature themes no longer appeared to require a mature tone. Since a 'grown-up' superhero film can never be truly 'adult', unlike comic books which has plenty of room for multiple demographics (since the main audience for the films is children and adolescents), the notion of making a realistic and grown-up superhero film has been pushed as far as it can go. This is why The Dark Knight's musings on the nature of chaos and order were largely sophomoric Philosophy 101 aphorisms and TDKR had a hopelessly half-cooked commentary on Occupy going on, because their attempts at producing a mature exploration of these ideas were hampered from the start by a (some would say quite patronising) viewpoint on the part of the screenwriters, studios etc that it can't be too difficult because kids and teenagers would be put off. If you insist on starting from the position that kids and teenagers aren't smart enough for that kind of thing, just focus on making a good exciting action adventure movie, which is what The Avengers was.

It's a shame because some of the characters mentioned already in this thread could make for a great grown-up movie (not 'grown-up' in the 90s comic industry sense of the term). As flawed as it is, Constantine was one of the better films based on a comic book property in recent times. A closer adaptation would be better, but it's unlikely innit.



Out of all of the DC comics films so far it's only The Dark Knight Trilogy that was dark and that was because it lent itself to the character. Man of Steel may have been serious and straight faced but it wasn't dark. Green Lantern was DC's attempt at a Marvel film and it was pretty lighthearted. A serious approach I think would be best for DC to differentiate itself from Marvel's output. Iron Man 3 and Avengers aside, all of Marvel studios films were pretty cookie cutter in terms of how they handled things. Hopefully it was just them seeing an origin template that worked and applied it to the rest of the films, but even though I enjoyed Captain America, by the end of summer 2011 I was getting tired out by superhero films because they were all basically the same movie.

"This is why The Dark Knight's musings on the nature of chaos and order were largely sophomoric Philosophy 101 aphorisms" - So what? It may be sophomoric but it's still a hell of a lot more substance than what we usually get in big budget blockbuster films. People said the same thing about The Matrix and how it's philosophy is something you could probably get in an evening class at college, but it's still aspiring to be something more than the usual blockbuster and I think with both films it works out quite well.

"TDKR had a hopelessly half-cooked commentary on Occupy going on" - See I don't think it's a commentary at all. If you look at the story of TDKR, it's all really about a revenge story on the villains part. They use the idea of people rising up against the rich but that's a story that's been used hundreds of times in fiction, the actual influence was A Tale of Two Cities. It's the fact that the film was released at the time of Occupy that people immediately associated the two, when actually the film was midway through shooting when Occupy started. That's an association brought on board from your perspective, not intentioned by the creators of the film.


I'll concede on the latter (even though attempting to divine authorial intent as an objective concept is for mugs innit), but I feel the point still stands for the former. Trying and failing to inject intellectual depth isn't a substitute for actually producing something with some intellectual depth, and 'at least you tried' shouldn't be our response to such attempts. To use an analogy from a different medium for a moment, I remember the videogame Heavy Rain being praised to the heavens for its great story, when if it was a film (it was going very much for a 'filmic' approach), it would have been laughably cheesy and plothole-ridden. 'It's a good story... for a videogame' essentially, a bit like 'it's intelligent... for a superhero movie'. It's an unfortunate situation since the comic book industry since the 80s has produced any number of stories that are not just 'good... for a comic book', but actually the intellectual equal of the novel or the play etc.

Instead, if we want better blockbusters, we shouldn't be settling for 'at least it TRIED to be smart, if it wasn't', we should be asking why it failed - are the filmmakers really too stupid to actually make a 'smart' film? I don't think so, because a film like Memento holds up to some genuine critical analysis. I actually think that Inception does as well, albeit not to the same degree, in addition to being more entertaining than TDK/TDKR. So instead the problem is in their approach; they could have made a genuinely intelligent and nuanced film about Batman (because they've shown the ability to do so before), but they pulled back - why? I'd say it's the (misplaced?) belief that their audience wouldn't 'get' it and they didn't want to compromise their (fictional) teenage demographic by actually making them think about the notion of chaos as an ideological tool etc etc. Batman Begins (still the best film in the trilogy incidentally) understood this and made its primary theme one that benefits from being presented directly and simplistically (that's a negative sounding word, but I mean it positively): framing the whole film as an exploration of fear is best served by depicting it as viscerally and as emotionally direct as possible, because that's how fear is experienced and processed. Trying to make some kind of philosophical/political/sociological point with the same lack of nuance doesn't work. Incidentally, TDK is a remarkably sterile film emotionally speaking; when Batman's girlfriend got blown up, I was like 'wow, I can't believe this latest step in the Joker's plan!', when the genuine response to that should be 'wow, that's really sad'. I felt like the whole film was pretty much about characters' relationships to abstract concepts, rather than their relationships to other characters, if that makes any sense.

On your other point: I do agree that the approach that Marvel have taken to date has been somewhat cookie-cutter - the first wave of the unified-universe stuff was all pretty generic looking in order to have some kind of stylistic continuity, but it served its purpose. I think that they've allowed for a more open approach in the next batch of films now that The Avengers is out of the way though - I'm not massively enthused about the new Thor/Cap movies, but I think the likes of Ant-Man and Guardians of the Galaxy could bring a fresh look to the genre. To me they could be the films that break out of the unfortunate binary that was described very well in the OP - right now you've got to be either (faux) dark and (faux) realistic, or you've got to fit the 'Marvel Studios look' in order to not confuse the viewer (my 'I feel like I'm being patronised' alarm is going off again).



I wasn't really saying 'at least they tried', I just meant that they weren't hugely in-depth but they did provide enough of an amount but which still made them a big difference from their counterparts in the other genre. The Matrix was Philosophy on a beginners level but it provided enough (along with it's anime influenced style) to give the film an interesting flavour from other big action films. I'm not sure if you're a fan or not but still 14 years after it was released The Matrix is viewed as one of the best action movies of all time. Same with The Dark Knight, it took the story we've seen before of Batman vs The Joker but added more of a psychological edge, displayed the 'Batman is just as crazy as his villains' idea and went more into the character of The Joker which displayed him as someone who gave his views on chaos and madness. It wasn't massively in depth but it still worked enough to make it very different from other superhero films. And even though you may not think of it too positively, it too was critically and commercially loved and is hailed as not just the best superhero film but a brilliant film in general. It may not offer the depth you were looking for but many people cite it as successful.

A film like Memento and The Dark Knight are very different but not in the sense of 'dumbing down' or watering down for teens or kids, TDK is a blockbuster and an action film so aswell as going deeper into the characters and story which we all ask for, it also needs to entertain on an action level aswell as making a story out of the created characters which will entertain fans. If they made a 2 hour film debating sanity then that wouldn't really be what Batman is, you need to have that adrenaline kick of action scenes too, not just too stop the common movie goer from saying 'this is shit' but it's part of the character. Memento, it wouldn't really matter that there's only a scene or two of action and the rest goes into memory and revenge, it's an independent neo-noir and those films aren't expected to have huge action scenes. TDK is a blockbuster so if it contained not much action and instead focused on a more cerebral level like Memento, it wouldn't be doing it's job and a lot of people would be disappointed. Same as having a comedy film with only a few laughs or a horror film with just a few scares. The film needs to primarily fulfil it's genre's needs. TDK also has the added benefit of having more substance than the average film (again, putting mine and your personal viewpoint on the film aside, it's widely considered successful at what it does).

To use quite a crude analogy. If a film like Memento was a posh 5-star restuarant and something like Transformers was McDonalds, not in terms of quality of film but what they're both trying to achieve. Then The Matrix and TDK would be Nando's. Something which is neither completely trash but also not something of exquisite depth, however it draws hallmarks from both of those to create an experience which is in the middle and attempts to satisfy both sides of the spectrum. Good examples of this approach are Matrix and TDK and a bad example of this would be Ang Lee's 'Hulk'.

EDIT: And yeah, with Marvel since 'phase 2' started it seems like there's more character to the films. Iron Man 3 was essentially kiss kiss bang bang but the comic book version. Thor 2 looks to be more of a fantasy travelling to different worlds (which the first film should have been) and hopefully cap 2 will be more of the political thriller they've been hinting at going with. At first I was hesitant toward Guardians of the galaxy because there's so many more famous and better characters I thought that should be adapted first like black panther, luke cage, iron fist, doctor strange, but the more and more i hear about the creative side with gunn as director, the eclectic cast and that GOTG will be more of a comedy with action similar to ghostbusters being a comedy with action, i'm quite looking forward to it. Ant-Man is probably my most anticipated purely because it's an edgar wright film and what makes me excited is it's the same reason Marvel are making the film. If it wasn't Edgar Wright making it then they wouldn't be focusing on the film, which explains why it's been 7 years since they announced him as a director and they haven't tried to change directors to make the film meet a specified date. It's his when he wants it in his own little corner of the Marvel universe.

< Message edited by giggity -- 25/6/2013 7:46:00 PM >

(in reply to Olaf)
Post #: 35
RE: Marvel vs. DC - 26/6/2013 11:02:35 AM   
Dannybohy


Posts: 1374
Joined: 7/1/2009

quote:

ORIGINAL: vad3r




''How do you kill a man without fear? ...''


With a paperclip?

_____________________________

'Man of Steel!,Man of Shit!' -fairyprincess

(in reply to vad3r)
Post #: 36
RE: Marvel vs. DC - 26/6/2013 2:28:31 PM   
Olaf


Posts: 23709
Joined: 26/2/2007
From: 41N 93W

quote:

ORIGINAL: giggity

I wasn't really saying 'at least they tried', I just meant that they weren't hugely in-depth but they did provide enough of an amount but which still made them a big difference from their counterparts in the other genre. The Matrix was Philosophy on a beginners level but it provided enough (along with it's anime influenced style) to give the film an interesting flavour from other big action films. I'm not sure if you're a fan or not but still 14 years after it was released The Matrix is viewed as one of the best action movies of all time. Same with The Dark Knight, it took the story we've seen before of Batman vs The Joker but added more of a psychological edge, displayed the 'Batman is just as crazy as his villains' idea and went more into the character of The Joker which displayed him as someone who gave his views on chaos and madness. It wasn't massively in depth but it still worked enough to make it very different from other superhero films. And even though you may not think of it too positively, it too was critically and commercially loved and is hailed as not just the best superhero film but a brilliant film in general. It may not offer the depth you were looking for but many people cite it as successful.

A film like Memento and The Dark Knight are very different but not in the sense of 'dumbing down' or watering down for teens or kids, TDK is a blockbuster and an action film so aswell as going deeper into the characters and story which we all ask for, it also needs to entertain on an action level aswell as making a story out of the created characters which will entertain fans. If they made a 2 hour film debating sanity then that wouldn't really be what Batman is, you need to have that adrenaline kick of action scenes too, not just too stop the common movie goer from saying 'this is shit' but it's part of the character. Memento, it wouldn't really matter that there's only a scene or two of action and the rest goes into memory and revenge, it's an independent neo-noir and those films aren't expected to have huge action scenes. TDK is a blockbuster so if it contained not much action and instead focused on a more cerebral level like Memento, it wouldn't be doing it's job and a lot of people would be disappointed. Same as having a comedy film with only a few laughs or a horror film with just a few scares. The film needs to primarily fulfil it's genre's needs. TDK also has the added benefit of having more substance than the average film (again, putting mine and your personal viewpoint on the film aside, it's widely considered successful at what it does).

To use quite a crude analogy. If a film like Memento was a posh 5-star restuarant and something like Transformers was McDonalds, not in terms of quality of film but what they're both trying to achieve. Then The Matrix and TDK would be Nando's. Something which is neither completely trash but also not something of exquisite depth, however it draws hallmarks from both of those to create an experience which is in the middle and attempts to satisfy both sides of the spectrum. Good examples of this approach are Matrix and TDK and a bad example of this would be Ang Lee's 'Hulk'.

EDIT: And yeah, with Marvel since 'phase 2' started it seems like there's more character to the films. Iron Man 3 was essentially kiss kiss bang bang but the comic book version. Thor 2 looks to be more of a fantasy travelling to different worlds (which the first film should have been) and hopefully cap 2 will be more of the political thriller they've been hinting at going with. At first I was hesitant toward Guardians of the galaxy because there's so many more famous and better characters I thought that should be adapted first like black panther, luke cage, iron fist, doctor strange, but the more and more i hear about the creative side with gunn as director, the eclectic cast and that GOTG will be more of a comedy with action similar to ghostbusters being a comedy with action, i'm quite looking forward to it. Ant-Man is probably my most anticipated purely because it's an edgar wright film and what makes me excited is it's the same reason Marvel are making the film. If it wasn't Edgar Wright making it then they wouldn't be focusing on the film, which explains why it's been 7 years since they announced him as a director and they haven't tried to change directors to make the film meet a specified date. It's his when he wants it in his own little corner of the Marvel universe.


You're right to say that a film needs to fulfil the expectations of its genre to a certain extent, an action film with no action is a failure on that score at the very least. I think that's a risk of developing a zero-sum game here though - obviously a film like Memento has more room to develop those themes and concepts, but with TDK the vague philosophical/political stuff didn't overlap with the action sequences. It was the 'talky' bits in between action sequences where Alfred spouts something faux-profound that felt underdeveloped to me, and those scenes could have been better without impacting on the amount of action in the film.

As it happens, The Matrix is a good example in a different sense - it's been a while since I've seen it, but I remember it utilising people like Baudrillard or Deleuze in an interesting fashion, albeit in a slightly 'beginner' way. I think that's a more effective (and perhaps more practical?) method for a big blockbuster action movie to do what I's like it to do: having actual reference points and developed philosophical ideas in the background of the film, rather TDK's attempts at the same thing, which don't really hold up to scrutiny beyond 'hey that sounds vaguely philosophical'. Though to return to the question of genre requirements for a moment, there's possibly an argument to be made (again, I haven't seen it for a while so this is going on what I remember of it haha) for The Matrix's action sequences being an extension of the film's ideas - the theory of the hyperreal/Baudrillard's concept of simulation, mediated spectacle via electronic communication etc etc. Does TDK's action sequences - as competently directed as they no doubt are - really relate to the themes the script's trying to push on us? The main centrepiece is the whole truck chase scene, which is amazing to watch for sure, but I don't think it said anything unique about Batman or the Joker. It reminds me of a friend of mine who hates superheroes but loves TDK because it's basically 'Heat with a guy in body armour chasing a crazy guy in a suit'.

I think your analogy's a good one, but I'd like to tighten it to illustrate my point if that's alright. If Nando's was to put a sign over its door saying 'Michelin-star restaurant here', and you went in and ended up getting a Nando's, you wouldn't say 'well, it's not McDonalds, which is good'. You'd be saying 'where's my quail egg and foie gras damn it', and you'd have a right to feel a bit cheated. Think of it this way: if the five-star restaurant and the Nando's were the same price, you'd probably pick the restaurant right? Sometimes I just want to eat McDonalds and watch Transformers (well, maybe not Transformers. I'll say Deep Blue Sea since I watched it last night and it's still amazing/awful). Sometimes I want to watch Memento and eat at a restaurant. I don't think it follows that people would say 'I want to watch something smart, but not TOO smart' - TDK has been sold as the fancy restaurant when it's really a Nando's. And while you're completely correct to point out the general response to the film (I don't want to suggest that I'm objectively right or that my view is the majority one), I get the feeling that people would definitely take the five-star option if it was offered to them.

_____________________________

I tried to groan, Help! Help! But the tone that came out was that of polite conversation.

Empire Top 100 Albums Poll 2013: CLICK HERE

(in reply to giggity)
Post #: 37
RE: Marvel vs. DC - 27/6/2013 1:32:26 PM   
paolo verdi


Posts: 171
Joined: 30/12/2005
DD is now back with Marvel and I think they should reboot the character through the forthcoming SHIELD series. Maybe start with rumours, or stories in the press about a new hero/vigilante, or have Nelson & Murdoch's law practice integral to a storyline (a post Dexter Michael C. Hall may be an interesting choice) and sow the seeds for a stand alone film.

_____________________________

"You have to know, not fear, that someday you are going to die. Until you know that and embrace that you are useless."

(in reply to vad3r)
Post #: 38
RE: Marvel vs. DC - 27/6/2013 9:31:19 PM   
DickReckard

 

Posts: 3
Joined: 27/6/2013
Anyone else want to see Marvel filmify the Wolverine: Old Man Logan storyline? Probably one of the best comic series I've ever read.

Old Man Logan

(in reply to paolo verdi)
Post #: 39
RE: Marvel vs. DC - 28/6/2013 5:10:49 PM   
bydabeachman


Posts: 81
Joined: 29/5/2013
From: USA
I really like the casting with Michael C. Hall as Daredevil. Wow I can totally see him being incredible.

_____________________________

Take the time to say your mind.

Sign Twirlers


(in reply to paolo verdi)
Post #: 40
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2]
All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Movie Musings >> RE: Marvel vs. DC Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Movie News|Empire Blog|Movie Reviews|Future Films|Features|Video Interviews|Image Gallery|Competitions|Forum|Magazine|Resources
Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.063