Why the needless hostility?
Marvel Movies Thread - Holy Shitballs
-
Why the needless hostility?
-
This is awesome! I wonder what kind of deal they broke?
-
They probably just agreed to more or less the terms they had already.
Not a shock, of course this was going to work itself out.
-
We knew it probably would work out, but it's nice to get a confirmation.
-
Looks like Spidey will get written out in the next MCU film. The 3rd solo Spidey movie was already part of the previous deal so technically it's one extra movie. I definitely see Spidey make his exit there and make appearances in the MCU when or if Sony allows it. I really hope they add more to Holland's character or put Miles from Spidey-verse into the live action. Miles from Spidey-verse is so much better than Peter in the MCU movies. If Sony can translate Mile's style, relationships, culture, hardships, etc. into live action, I'd be so down to shelving Holland's Peter for the time being. Mile's black and red suit, his outfit with the Jordan's and jacket over his suit, his invisibility and electric abilities, his parkour, along with an awesome soundtrack would be AMAZING to see.
-
Spiderverse already did Miles as good as he can possibly be done. They don't need to drag him into the live action verse until they're ready to kill Peter off. (And SPiderverse already did that story pretty well too.) And they cast Holland young so he could pay the part forever.
Let Miles shine as his own lead in the animated ones, as opposed to just being the eventual replacement in the movies.
-
Spiderverse already did Miles as good as he can possibly be done. They don't need to drag him into the live action verse until they're ready to kill Peter off. (And SPiderverse already did that story pretty well too.) And they cast Holland young so he could pay the part forever. Let Miles shine as his own lead in the animated ones, as opposed to just being the eventual replacement in the movies.
This is hilarious to me since he was the oldest in the crop of candidates and still looks like a teenager at 23. He isn't going to look much older than he does now for a long time, which will be pretty funny for whenever they decide he should be an adult in the story. I just imagine him being like Martin Freeman in the british Office as a 35 year old spidey and chuckle.
-
Spiderverse already did Miles as good as he can possibly be done. They don't need to drag him into the live action verse until they're ready to kill Peter off. (And SPiderverse already did that story pretty well too.) And they cast Holland young so he could pay the part forever.
Let Miles shine as his own lead in the animated ones, as opposed to just being the eventual replacement in the movies.
They wouldn’t need to replace Peter. Spider-Verse literally shows us Miles can be on his own or with other Spider people like Peter Parker. I’d love to see other versions of Spidey in live-action.
Most people pay more attention to live action. Miles would shine brighter if they brought him over while still doing the animated stuff. And technically, Miles is a replacement Spider-Man.
-
This is hilarious to me since he was the oldest in the crop of candidates and still looks like a teenager at 23. He isn't going to look much older than he does now for a long time, which will be pretty funny for whenever they decide he should be an adult in the story. I just imagine him being like Martin Freeman in the british Office as a 35 year old spidey and chuckle.
Hair and makeup. They can make the same actor look ten years older or ten years younger no problem.
@•Ace•:
They wouldn’t need to replace Peter. Spider-Verse literally shows us Miles can be on his own or with other Spider people like Peter Parker.
Live action is never going to dilute the Spider-pool and have him be less unique. Comics and a crazy animated thing can get away with having multiples, but the live action is going to want to keep its focus and marketing on one guy… not to mention paying an actor top billing,until its time for that guy to leave.
-
Live action is never going to dilute the Spider-pool and have him be less unique. Comics and a crazy animated thing can get away with having multiples, but the live action is going to want to keep its focus and marketing on one guy… not to mention paying an actor top billing,until its time for that guy to leave.
IF there is something that makes MCU Peter less unique than Miles, it's because he is less unique than Miles from Spidey-verse. Sony has already established Spidey-Verse to contain other parallel universes which makes it easier to bring other Spidey's into live-action and other mediums without the movies conflicting with each other unless Sony wants universes to do a crossover. Spidey-Verse style movies is our best shot of having multiple versions of Spidey to a much bigger audience. And because that style exists, MCU Peter can still exist as a separate entity while bringing other great and better characters into the live-action. I'd love it if they brought PS4 Peter into the mix as well since he's a much better Peter Parker than Holland's version and he exists in the Spidey-Verse! And the great thing about the Spidey-Verse is that it's able to show and explore more mature content such as killing off Peter Parker, the struggles of another Peter Parker as an adult, and killing off AUNT MAY in the game. At the very least, I would love if Sony explored other aspects of Spidey's universe(s) in the live-action where most people have their attention. It's a sad reality when the best version of Spidey in film made less money than the worse Spidey movie.
-
I'm perfectly fine with the idea of them not making another Spider-Verse anything. With the fact there's three different versions unless I've ignored any others.
-
I'm perfectly fine with the idea of them not making another Spider-Verse anything. With the fact there's three different versions unless I've ignored any others.
And thats a shame. PS4 Peter and Spidey-Verse Miles are miles better than MCU Spidey. I hope eventually Sony realizes the potential of Spidey's universe from Spidey-Verse and take risks like they did with Spidey-Verse.
-
-
God damn he's just so perfect.
-
So is JJJ the Alex Jones of the Marvel world? Or is Alex Jones the JJJ of our world?
…I'm sorry, that was uncalled for. JJJ is way cooler than Alex Jones.
-
-
I love this so much. I think it was the only right choice to bring him back this way. Only wish they'd kept the hairstyle!
-
SPIDER-MAN is POISONING the local WATER SUPPLY, and turning all the FROGS GAY
-
Only wish they'd kept the hairstyle!
1-That's J.K.'s actual hairstyle
2-They might want it different just to differentiate it from the Raimi films, even though its the same actor.
-
@Cyan:
SPIDER-MAN is POISONING the local WATER SUPPLY, and turning all the FROGS GAY
Spider-Man says Trans Rights!
-
So, given the next two films are going to be prequels in the MCU timeline, anyone think the studio might be trying to slow things down so that the five-year gap in Endgame is not so significant and the films that take place in the present era will be closer to our years? I mean, it'll only dial the MCU to real-world time gap down by a year, maybe a year and a half, but does it seem like they're trying to do that or is it a coincidence?
-
Also also, the Raimi spiderman films are iconic and beloved and that Goblin and that Doc Ock are well loved. Obviously they need to come around again eventually in some franchise, but they don't demand repeating.
Just wanted to say that PS4 ock has probably replaced raimi's and that it's entirely possible if the writing and characterization is there.
Which seems to be a thing for the MCU Spidey villains seeing how Vulture and Mysterio has more character than well..
Uhhhh
Huh. I'm not even sure what I'm comparing them with because other than Brock, Raimi films had great villain characterization.
Oh right there's amazing. None of them holds a candle and is probably the worst.But yes my point is that I hope to be able to live to see a Green Goblin done right on the big screen before I die.
Along with Harry and Peter storyline done right too because did I hated how Raimi did it.
Seriously though , I want a good green goblin and Norman Osbourne. -
So what crawled up Martin Scorsese's ass? Seriously I love his films but saying that super hero movies aren't real films just because it's not your cup of Tea is really ridiculous
-
Just wanted to say that PS4 ock has probably replaced raimi's and that it's entirely possible if the writing and characterization is there.
Which seems to be a thing for the MCU Spidey villains seeing how Vulture and Mysterio has more character than well..
Uhhhh
Huh. I'm not even sure what I'm comparing them with because other than Brock, Raimi films had great villain characterization.
Oh right there's amazing. None of them holds a candle and is probably the worst.But yes my point is that I hope to be able to live to see a Green Goblin done right on the big screen before I die.
Along with Harry and Peter storyline done right too because did I hated how Raimi did it.
Seriously though , I want a good green goblin and Norman Osbourne.I kind of want to see Norman Osborn headlining a Thunderbolts movie. If it does well then it can delve into his first becoming the Green Goblin and his downfall that leads him to becoming the leader of a Marvel brand Suicide Squad. And also a separate roster for the Sinister Six.
So what crawled up Martin Scorsese's ass? Seriously I love his films but saying that super hero movies aren't real films just because it's not your cup of Tea is really ridiculous
Jason Statham's also kind of in that boat. He's said he doesn't want to play in a superhero movie because 'anyone can be super' in them without having to work hard or do their own stunts or whatever.
-
Jason Statham's also kind of in that boat. He's said he doesn't want to play in a superhero movie because 'anyone can be super' in them without having to work hard or do their own stunts or whatever.
That one is even more surprising :blink: Like I don't agree with Martin Scorsese opinion here but I can understand why he thinks that based off the type of films he makes, but Super Hero movies seem like they would be right up Jason Statham's alley
-
That one is even more surprising :blink: Like I don't agree with Martin Scorsese opinion here but I can understand why he thinks that based off the type of films he makes, but Super Hero movies seem like they would be right up Jason Statham's alley
I wonder who sounds more stuck-up for their opinions, Scorcese or Statham. Not that I'm a Statham fan anyway so it's no big loss IMO not having him in any upcoming DC or Marvel or other projects based on superheroes.
-
I wonder who sounds more stuck-up for their opinions, Scorcese or Statham. Not that I'm a Statham fan anyway so it's no big loss IMO not having him in any upcoming DC or Marvel or other projects based on superheroes.
lol both seem petty to me, at the very least though Scorsese has made some of the greatest movies of all time that are both critically acclaimed and commercially successful and has won (or at least been nominated) for awards, the same can't be said for Statham who's movies and characters are all pretty similar (although I do actually like the actor)
-
Seriously though , I want a good green goblin and Norman Osbourne.
I actually really liked Willem Dafoe as Norman Osbourne, the problem was Green Goblin looked . . . . not that great. A good costume and a little tweaking here and there, and Dafoe would have been the perfect Green Goblin.
-
Jason Statham's also kind of in that boat. He's said he doesn't want to play in a superhero movie because 'anyone can be super' in them without having to work hard or do their own stunts or whatever.
Everybody can't look cool doing hi dives or dancing oddly
that F&F money got him acting brand new.
-
I actually really liked Willem Dafoe as Norman Osbourne, the problem was Green Goblin looked . . . . not that great. A good costume and a little tweaking here and there, and Dafoe would have been the perfect Green Goblin.
If it were up to me, I'd have given Willem Dafoe the rubber mask from the comics, only it would be done like Batman's cowl where he still has his actual mouth exposed and just use face paint to make the rest of his face match the mask. I think Dafoe could have benefited from letting us see his actual verbalized taunts and that creepy, wicked smile, but let his crazy eyes hide behind those yellow eye holes. They kind of went too minimalist with the Dane Dehaan version of Harry's Goblin, though, not quite making him the monstrous Ultimate Comics version of the Osborns when they're in Goblin form, which was kind of pointless, really. We did get to see that one, though, in Into the Spider-Verse. So if we get to see a proper Green Goblin, I think my original idea for the Goblin's mask would be the best way to portray it rather than a completely fixed mask like the one from the Raimi movie.
BTW, anyone have any idea who's supposed to be playing Taskmaster in Black Widow yet? I think I read that back when they were planning on having him in that cancelled show Most Wanted, he was going to be played by Oded Fehr from the Mummy and Resident Evil movies.
-
-
As the superhero film industry gets more saturated..The only ones worthy will be those who are able to portray Oscar worthy inner turmoils of the superhero.
Not that it currently is bad but come on, Martin Scorsese is right to a certain extent.I like RaiMi goblin for giving me nightmares as a kid.
It was a fine green goblin but nothing too impressive.
Memorable enough partially because the costume was so weird and he spoke like my grandma.
Oh and being the first villain in the first superhero movie that took the world by storm? Yeah.Now what I want is a Norman/Harry descend to chaos and the dark side of Science taken too far.
People tend to mistake Goblin for Joker because batshit minds but no, the Green Goblin is a far more complicated character that is the condensation of rage, genius and unadulterated malice to ruin spider man life.
That. That is the Green Goblin I want. -
As the superhero film industry gets more saturated..The only ones worthy will be those who are able to portray Oscar worthy inner turmoils of the superhero.
Not that it currently is bad but come on, Martin Scorsese is right to a certain extent.I like RaiMi goblin for giving me nightmares as a kid.
It was a fine green goblin but nothing too impressive.
Memorable enough partially because the costume was so weird and he spoke like my grandma.
Oh and being the first villain in the first superhero movie that took the world by storm? Yeah.Now what I want is a Norman/Harry descend to chaos and the dark side of Science taken too far.
People tend to mistake Goblin for Joker because batshit minds but no, the Green Goblin is a far more complicated character that is the condensation of rage, genius and unadulterated malice to ruin spider man life.
That. That is the Green Goblin I want.One whose obsession with revenge and hatred for Spider-Man that he sets everything up he can to ensure that his son Harry, even at the cost of his own life, will continue the vendetta even after Norman breathes his last. That way we at least feel for Harry, it's been hard to do that in the last two portrayals.
-
Regarding Martin Scorsese, just watch the first 50 seconds
-
Ryan is now teasing us via Deadpool by just showing up at Marvel:
https://www.narcity.com/entertainment/ca/ryan-reynolds-deadpool-marvel-appearance-may-be-happening-sooner-than-we-thought?fbclid=IwAR0X4ikih8lKHWCFmnJW3aeeQ2nEacIxYqGGp_ZGPlfIQEmxn5gXADYWa4Q -
-
-
Not extremely suprising, but I'm very stocked about this, experiencing SpiderVerse on the big screen was such a visual feast and I can't wait to relive that experience.
Interested to see if it'll be a direct sequel or use different characters this time.
There are also the individual spin offs for Spider Gwen and company that I remember them talking about, wondering if this is related in any way.
–- Update From New Post Merge ---
It'll be a darn long wait until 2022, but it's understandable considering the amount of unique animation techniques and attention to detail that this movie will have to pack.
-
-
Let's hope it doesn't suffer sequelitis and have a significant drop in quality.
-
Let's hope it doesn't suffer sequelitis and have a significant drop in quality.
Track record for Superhero movies tends to be the second one doesn't have to deal with the origin and can hit the ground running and is the best one, then the third is the rough one, because the studio demands too much stuff be crammed in.
Exceptions do apply like Thor where the second one was super forgettable third one was by far the best, and Iron Man… in both cases they had NO idea what they were doing and were sort of spinning their wheels till the next Avengers film.
-
Track record for Superhero movies tends to be the second one doesn't have to deal with the origin and can hit the ground running and is the best one, then the third is the rough one, because the studio demands too much stuff be crammed in.
Exceptions do apply like Thor where the second one was super forgettable third one was by far the best, and Iron Man… in both cases they had NO idea what they were doing and were sort of spinning their wheels till the next Avengers film.
While I don't agree about Thor: The Dark World, I was definitely thinking about the Iron Man trilogy as the ideal example of things being ass-backwards.
-
So, am I the only one around here who is happy they announced Ant-Man 3? I know the Ant-Man films aren't the most popular part of the MCU and part two in particular was a little inconsequential, but I really like all of the characters and certainly want more Paul Rudd.
-
So, am I the only one around here who is happy they announced Ant-Man 3? I know the Ant-Man films aren't the most popular part of the MCU and part two in particular was a little inconsequential, but I really like all of the characters and certainly want more Paul Rudd.
Did they? I would have thought that would come up on my youtube algorithm. But yeah, I'm happy about it too. They've gone micro and macro now, so more shenanigans in the quantum realm seems like the logical extension of where to go next with it and not get stale and that sounds like a lot of Doctor Strange-esque fun. Would like to see Cassie get a costume this time around, that would be a good way to spice things up with a little more new blood. Bring the ending of Ant-Man and the Wasp where she said she wanted to grow up and be like her dad full circle.
I did kind of lament that they didn't have Laurence Fishburne become Goliath in the last movie, that would have been a great opportunity for him and Scott to get into a tussle inside a building and both of them enlarging at the same time and literally exploding the building (rather than just Scott bursting partially out of the already collapsed Avengers compound in Endgame). It would be even cooler if LF wasn't able to quite grow as large as Ant-Man, so that even though he's still a giant, you'd have one bigger giant fighting him, and using his smaller size and speed to his advantage. Maybe next time. The guy from the first Ant-Man who got away with a sample of those Cross Particles is probably still out there and could be responsible for another shrinking/growing suit.
-
Did they? I would have thought that would come up on my youtube algorithm.
Yep! It was actually a little difficult to find a non-German news source that reports on it: https://www.theverge.com/2019/11/1/20944376/ant-man-3-paul-rudd-peyton-reed-marvel-cinematic-universe-avengers-endgame-phase-4
-
Yep! It was actually a little difficult to find a non-German news source that reports on it: https://www.theverge.com/2019/11/1/20944376/ant-man-3-paul-rudd-peyton-reed-marvel-cinematic-universe-avengers-endgame-phase-4
From the article:
"The first Marvel movie in the post-Endgame universe is Scarlett Johansson’s Black Widow. It will be released on May 1st, 2020."Uh, did Spider-Man: Far From Home not count somehow? LOL. You can tell they're not a real fan. They could have said first in Phase 4 and that would have been accurate.
-
For anyone who still cares, Scorsese elaborates on his 'anti-Marvel' stance, essay below:
[hide]When I was in England in early October, I gave an interview to Empire magazine. I was asked a question about Marvel movies. I answered it. I said that I've tried to watch a few of them and that they're not for me, that they seem to me to be closer to theme parks than they are to movies as I've known and loved them throughout my life, and that in the end, I don't think they're cinema.
Some people seem to have seized on the last part of my answer as insulting, or as evidence of hatred for Marvel on my part. If anyone is intent on characterizing my words in that light, there's nothing I can do to stand in the way.Many franchise films are made by people of considerable talent and artistry. You can see it on the screen. The fact that the films themselves don't interest me is a matter of personal taste and temperament. I know that if I were younger, if I'd come of age at a later time, I might have been excited by these pictures and maybe even wanted to make one myself. But I grew up when I did and I developed a sense of movies - of what they were and what they could be - that was as far from the Marvel universe as we on Earth are from Alpha Centauri.
For me, for the filmmakers I came to love and respect, for my friends who started making movies around the same time that I did, cinema was about revelation - aesthetic, emotional and spiritual revelation. It was about characters - the complexity of people and their contradictory and sometimes paradoxical natures, the way they can hurt one another and love one another and suddenly come face to face with themselves. It was about confronting the unexpected on the screen and in the life it dramatized and interpreted, and enlarging the sense of what was possible in the art form.
And that was the key for us: it was an art form. There was some debate about that at the time, so we stood up for cinema as an equal to literature or music or dance. And we came to understand that the art could be found in many different places and in just as many forms - in The Steel Helmet by Sam Fuller and Persona by Ingmar Bergman, in It's Always Fair Weather by Stanley Donen and Gene Kelly and Scorpio Rising by Kenneth Anger, in Vivre sa vie by Jean-Luc Godard and The Killers by Don Siegel.
Or in the films of Alfred Hitchcock - I suppose you could say that Hitchcock was his own franchise. Or that he was our franchise. Every new Hitchcock picture was an event. To be in a packed house in one of the old theaters watching Rear Window was an extraordinary experience: It was an event created by the chemistry between the audience and the picture itself, and it was electrifying.
And in a way, certain Hitchcock films were also like theme parks. I'm thinking of Strangers on a Train, in which the climax takes place on a merry-go-round at a real amusement park, and Psycho, which I saw at a midnight show on its opening day, an experience I will never forget. People went to be surprised and thrilled, and they weren't disappointed.
Sixty or 70 years later, we're still watching those pictures and marveling at them. But is it the thrills and the shocks that we keep going back to? I don't think so. The set pieces in North by Northwest are stunning, but they would be nothing more than a succession of dynamic and elegant compositions and cuts without the painful emotions at the center of the story or the absolute lostness of Cary Grant's character.The climax of Strangers on a Train is a feat, but it's the interplay between the two principal characters and Robert Walker's profoundly unsettling performance that resonate now.
Some say that Hitchcock's pictures had a sameness to them, and perhaps that's true - Hitchcock himself wondered about it. But the sameness of today's franchise pictures is something else again. Many of the elements that define cinema as I know it are there in Marvel pictures. What's not there is revelation, mystery or genuine emotional danger. Nothing is at risk. The pictures are made to satisfy a specific set of demands, and they are designed as variations on a finite number of themes.
They are sequels in name but they are remakes in spirit, and everything in them is officially sanctioned because it can't really be any other way. That's the nature of modern film franchises: market-researched, audience-tested, vetted, modified, revetted and remodified until they're ready for consumption.
Another way of putting it would be that they are everything that the films of Paul Thomas Anderson or Claire Denis or Spike Lee or Ari Aster or Kathryn Bigelow or Wes Anderson are not. When I watch a movie by any of those filmmakers, I know I'm going to see something absolutely new and be taken to unexpected and maybe even unnameable areas of experience. My sense of what is possible in telling stories with moving images and sounds is going to be expanded.
So, you might ask, what's my problem? Why not just let superhero films and other franchise films be? The reason is simple. In many places around this country and around the world, franchise films are now your primary choice if you want to see something on the big screen. It's a perilous time in film exhibition, and there are fewer independent theaters than ever. The equation has flipped and streaming has become the primary delivery system. Still, I don't know a single filmmaker who doesn't want to design films for the big screen, to be projected before audiences in theaters.
That includes me, and I'm speaking as someone who just completed a picture for Netflix. It, and it alone, allowed us to make The Irishman the way we needed to, and for that I'll always be thankful. We have a theatrical window, which is great. Would I like the picture to play on more big screens for longer periods of time? Of course I would. But no matter whom you make your movie with, the fact is that the screens in most multiplexes are crowded with franchise pictures.
And if you're going to tell me that it's simply a matter of supply and demand and giving the people what they want, I'm going to disagree. It's a chicken-and-egg issue. If people are given only one kind of thing and endlessly sold only one kind of thing, of course they're going to want more of that one kind of thing.
But, you might argue, can't they just go home and watch anything else they want on Netflix or iTunes or Hulu? Sure - anywhere but on the big screen, where the filmmaker intended her or his picture to be seen.
In the past 20 years, as we all know, the movie business has changed on all fronts. But the most ominous change has happened stealthily and under cover of night: the gradual but steady elimination of risk. Many films today are perfect products manufactured for immediate consumption. Many of them are well made by teams of talented individuals. All the same, they lack something essential to cinema: the unifying vision of an individual artist. Because, of course, the individual artist is the riskiest factor of all.
I'm certainly not implying that movies should be a subsidized art form, or that they ever were. When the Hollywood studio system was still alive and well, the tension between the artists and the people who ran the business was constant and intense, but it was a productive tension that gave us some of the greatest films ever made ' in the words of Bob Dylan, the best of them were "heroic and visionary."
Today, that tension is gone, and there are some in the business with absolute indifference to the very question of art and an attitude toward the history of cinema that is both dismissive and proprietary - a lethal combination. The situation, sadly, is that we now have two separate fields: There's worldwide audiovisual entertainment, and there's cinema. They still overlap from time to time, but that's becoming increasingly rare. And I fear that the financial dominance of one is being used to marginalize and even belittle the existence of the other.
For anyone who dreams of making movies or who is just starting out, the situation at this moment is brutal and inhospitable to art. And the act of simply writing those words fills me with terrible sadness.[/hide]
-
Great read, I love essays, but it was unnecessary imo. I got what he meant the first time. I disagree with him. Some of these Marvel stans are taking it to the next level and proving some of his points right, but overall he is incorrect and he knows it.
-
I watched his original interview and his statement really wasn't as harsh as it was made out to be. It's basically his opinion and his taste, both of which I find respectable and understandable, even if I don't agree with him. My biggest problem I think is that he denies that one could have an actual emotional investment in the story or characters of Marvel movies, which imo is just plain not true. But I can understand his point of view and his fear that big franchise movies in general could prove to be a problem for smaller, more artistic projects. He does sound very respectful when he talks about the people who create Marvel movies. You got to kind of have to hate how simple opinions are blown out of proportion like this. Coppola was really douchey about the subject, though. Pretty rude for a guy that only made Godfather 3 in order to make a quick buck.