Gotham....and other comic book series.

[36524]

I liked Ben Affleck's "Daredevil." Hell, I liked Jennifer Garner's Elektra, too.

Tim Burton's vision of Batman, for it's time, was a breath of fresh air. I'd even suggest we have Burton (and Reeve's Superman) to thank for the resurgence of superhero movies.

Here's an interesting Wikipedia page that lists American superhero movies:
List of American superhero films

I feel Burton captured Gotham the right way. It looked like a moving comic, no modern special-effects whatevers to make up for weak characters, I really love those movies.

 

[PennLady]

The second Captain America movie rocked.

Have you seen Guardian's of the Galaxy? Hilarious.

Yes, CA2 was great. Haven't seen GOTG, but it's on the list. Recently saw Spider-Man 2, and although it had its moments, it wasn't all that. I also read an article the other day about Marvel trying to get all of its properties under one banner -- Sony has Spider-Man, Fox has X-Men, Marvel itself (I think) has Avengers, etc. -- and that could be interesting from a business POV.

I think they finally figured out that yes you can do this stuff, but you have to approach it with the basics -- good plot, good writing, etc.

 

[36524]

Gotham, Arrow, and Flash are all VERY good shows...

I am a HUGE DC/Batman fan so my standards are pretty high...

Keaton SUCKED as Batman because he sucked as Bruce Wayne. Bruce Wayne is like 6'3, 225 lbs and very muscular...

Bale was better but still not tall enough as Bruce Wayne...

I honestly feel Affleck will be the best Batman/Bruce Wayne YET!

Really? Physique is a "HUGE DC" fan's concentration? lol

 

[StrangeLife]

So I know there are some Walking Dead fans here, but wondering who's checking out.....

Agents of Shield

Got tired of it after a while. Hot chicks kicking ass can't make up for a boring script...

The brand new Flash series

I've only seen 1 episode so far, but it looks interesting. I am worried that they might be spending too much of the time with Barry Allen in order to save on the sfx budget though, but we shall see.

Gotham

Feels like the Batman edition of Smallville, where they get around the tight restrictions in the use of big-name characters by using their alter egos in a prequel. It looks ok, but...

... why oh why does Hollywood love origin stories so much???

How many different versions have we seen of Bruce Wayne's parents getting shot? How many times have we watched Jor-El rescue Superman from the exploding Krypton? How many times have Peter Parker been bit by a radioactive spider?

We get it, ok?

It seems like every single scriptwriter in Hollywood is convinced that people will say "Who is that flying guy in the blue suit and red cape" unless they begin every movie-series with an origin story.

Because so many people have no idea who Superman or Spiderman or Batman is.

ok... rant off...

.

But for me....I cannot wait for Constantine. They are even starting with the New Castle Exorcism and best of all....Unlike the movie version this guy looks like John Constantine

Me too. And this guy can actually emote...

 

[lovecraft68]

Got tired of it after a while. Hot chicks kicking ass can't make up for a boring script...





I've only seen 1 episode so far, but it looks interesting. I am worried that they might be spending too much of the time with Barry Allen in order to save on the sfx budget though, but we shall see.





Feels like the Batman edition of Smallville, where they get around the tight restrictions in the use of big-name characters by using their alter egos in a prequel. It looks ok, but...

... why oh why does Hollywood love origin stories so much???

How many different versions have we seen of Bruce Wayne's parents getting shot? How many times have we watched Jor-El rescue Superman from the exploding Krypton? How many times have Peter Parker been bit by a radioactive spider?

We get it, ok?

It seems like every single scriptwriter in Hollywood is convinced that people will say "Who is that flying guy in the blue suit and red cape" unless they begin every movie-series with an origin story.

Because so many people have no idea who Superman or Spiderman or Batman is.

ok... rant off...





Me too. And this guy can actually emote...

Funny you mention the origin. I almost shut Gotham off when I saw it was another version of the Wayne's being killed. But glad I stuck with it.

Hollywood and comics like to continuously give us origins because this is a lazy generation. In the past if something was started and you liked it you would go back and find out about it.

Now everything has to be taken from the top because people can't be bothered with the effort of hunting something down.

Remember when comic book series would go on and on and people collected them. "I have 59-70 and 72-90 I need number 71!

Yeah, that's over. Every series keeps getting put back to number one and every storyline is six issues so it will fit into a trade paper back so people who are to impatient or lazy to wait for each issue just wait to buy it in one book

This has watered the shit out of story arcs because all the writers need to make every story six issues worth. Remember stand alone comics? Thor's in town, Hulk shows up, they beat each other up, they leave? Yeah right, now its two issues to explain how Thor got there....

And the comics have long since gone from being for kids. the story lines are way too adult. Gang rapes, gore galore, torture extreme violence. Harmless fantasy has become as nasty as your average horror novel.

Because only adults can afford them at $3.99 a whack and every story line now forces you to buy every title in that publishers line. Apparently they think this is an ecnomy that people can afford $40 week on comics. BUt...they can because you can subscribe to online comics and read limitless for one price.

Death of the brick and mortar store.....

Now, that is a rant.

 

[PennLady]

... why oh why does Hollywood love origin stories so much???

How many different versions have we seen of Bruce Wayne's parents getting shot? How many times have we watched Jor-El rescue Superman from the exploding Krypton? How many times have Peter Parker been bit by a radioactive spider?

We get it, ok?

This may sound a bit cynical, or like I'm defending the studios -- which I'm not -- but here goes. First off: origin stories and superhero movies are now reliable money-makers for the studios. With other means of entertainment so easily at hand, most studios aren't going to take a big risk on an "unknown" property.

Take Spider-Man. It's a Marvel character, but Sony owns the rights, and to keep them, they have to make a movie within a certain time frame. So even though Sam Raimi's movies were successful (whether you liked them or not), to keep the rights to the character, they needed to make yet another movie.

Since at this point they pretty much have to bring in all new people all around, they go for a "reboot." Spider-Man is a known commodity, so they have a built-in audience. There's not a lot of risk. And -- as they studio would say -- kids who missed the Raimi movies will now get their "own" Spider-Man. (Not endorsing this, but it was the explanation I saw at one point.)

Also, antiheroes are quite the thing at the moment, so you can't just have someone who's cool with their powers or abillties. They have to be troubled, if not tortured, by something in the past. Batman is probably the epitome of that (or, well, maybe Ghost Rider if you like), but you have to change a bit for Spider-Man and especially Superman, because (AFAIK) they were never quite that dark. So you get a "new" story there -- note how MJ Watson was not even a character in the two most recent Spider-Man movies.

I knew a guy who was a big Superman fan years ago, and he said at one point that Batman and Superman are opposites. Superman is light (literally, he's solar-powered) and Batman is the dark. Trying to make Superman dark changes a lot, but it gives you something new to sell to the audience.

It seems like every single scriptwriter in Hollywood is convinced that people will say "Who is that flying guy in the blue suit and red cape" unless they begin every movie-series with an origin story.

Because so many people have no idea who Superman or Spiderman or Batman is.

ok... rant off...

It's not the scriptwriters, it's the studios. They want recognizable properties and they want recognizable actors and they want a recognizable formula in telling the story. Even my 10yo son has noticed this, and he is not wrong.

I think what happens -- and I could be wrong -- is the studios say, "hey, [Superhero] is popular and we own the rights. People know [Superhero], they'll come to the movie." Then they go find someone to write it. Since scriptwriters want to get paid like everyone else, they will find someone to do it.

And there actually *is a book* on how to write these types of action screenplays, telling you when to hit certain beats with certain themes. The problem should be revealed on p7, the hero should hit bottom on p90, the gathering of the group to fight should be on pXX. I've read that a page of script is about a minute on screen, and they will tailor the scripts to this. So seven minutes in -- p7 -- you have the main problem revealed, and so on.

It's a bit of a self-perpetuating problem. The studios make these movies, and we keep going to see them, so the studios keep making them because they are a) businesses and b) generally risk-averse when it comes to making money. And that's not to say these movies aren't well-done or enjoyable (I've loved most of Marvel's Avengers movies myself). But I keep coming back to the fact that the studios are businesses, perhaps even more so now when they are owned by huge multi-national conglomerates, and strangely, that fact explains a lot but seems to get lost in the discussion.

Sorry, went on for a while myself. Here are two articles you might find interesting (or frustrating).

From the AV Club, about Marvel's properties: http://www.avclub.com/article/marvels-dealings-spider-man-x-men-and-fantastic-fo-210241

From Slate.com, on the book about screenwriting: http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/...snyder_s_screenwriting_book_save_the_cat.html

 

[PennLady]

Now, that is a rant.

My rant might beat yours. Although mine was more of an explanation than a rant, I guess. Okay, you win.

Although again, I have to go back to the fact that the comic businesses are *businesses.* They are going to put out what sells and although I agree with you that since adults can afford comics, that's who they will aim them at, they are still businesses whose first priority (I would imagine) is to make a profit. They are apparently doing that.

The only thing any of us can really do to express our displeasure with that is not buy the stuff.

I would also say that just because the business has changed doesn't mean it's changed for the worst. You may think so, and I don't blame you, but it just means the business changed. That happens all the time.

I would imagine when stores opened to sell mass-produced clothes, tailors who made clothes for people were not pleased. It would cost them business. Big shifts are no fun and someone always suffers as a result, but the shifts themselves can't be helped. And whether you like the shift or not probably mostly depends on whether you benefit or not from it personally.

 

[soflabbwlvr]

Yes, CA2 was great. Haven't seen GOTG, but it's on the list. Recently saw Spider-Man 2, and although it had its moments, it wasn't all that. I also read an article the other day about Marvel trying to get all of its properties under one banner -- Sony has Spider-Man, Fox has X-Men, Marvel itself (I think) has Avengers, etc. -- and that could be interesting from a business POV.

Marvel might like to get Spiderman and X-Men back, but it isn't happening. 20th Century Fox has grossed over $3 billiion off it's X-Men titles so far. They are never giving up that gravy train. Never.

Despite the poor domestic performance of Spiderman 2, Sony isn't getting out of the Spiderman business any time soon. Their total gross to date is almost $4 billion. They already have two more projects in place, and plans for more. Unless and until they see red ink, Spidey isn't going any where. He may take a break for a few years while the Sinister Six and Venom take a turn, but Sony is not giving that property back to Marvel.

Funny you mention the origin. I almost shut Gotham off when I saw it was another version of the Wayne's being killed. But glad I stuck with it.

Hollywood and comics like to continuously give us origins because this is a lazy generation. In the past if something was started and you liked it you would go back and find out about it.

This may sound a bit cynical, or like I'm defending the studios -- which I'm not -- but here goes. First off: origin stories and superhero movies are now reliable money-makers for the studios. With other means of entertainment so easily at hand, most studios aren't going to take a big risk on an "unknown" property.

Take Spider-Man. It's a Marvel character, but Sony owns the rights, and to keep them, they have to make a movie within a certain time frame. So even though Sam Raimi's movies were successful (whether you liked them or not), to keep the rights to the character, they needed to make yet another movie.

Since at this point they pretty much have to bring in all new people all around, they go for a "reboot." Spider-Man is a known commodity, so they have a built-in audience. There's not a lot of risk. And -- as they studio would say -- kids who missed the Raimi movies will now get their "own" Spider-Man. (Not endorsing this, but it was the explanation I saw at one point.)

Also, antiheroes are quite the thing at the moment, so you can't just have someone who's cool with their powers or abillties. They have to be troubled, if not tortured, by something in the past. Batman is probably the epitome of that (or, well, maybe Ghost Rider if you like), but you have to change a bit for Spider-Man and especially Superman, because (AFAIK) they were never quite that dark. So you get a "new" story there -- note how MJ Watson was not even a character in the two most recent Spider-Man movies.

I knew a guy who was a big Superman fan years ago, and he said at one point that Batman and Superman are opposites. Superman is light (literally, he's solar-powered) and Batman is the dark. Trying to make Superman dark changes a lot, but it gives you something new to sell to the audience.



It's not the scriptwriters, it's the studios. They want recognizable properties and they want recognizable actors and they want a recognizable formula in telling the story. Even my 10yo son has noticed this, and he is not wrong.

I think what happens -- and I could be wrong -- is the studios say, "hey, [Superhero] is popular and we own the rights. People know [Superhero], they'll come to the movie." Then they go find someone to write it. Since scriptwriters want to get paid like everyone else, they will find someone to do it.

And there actually *is a book* on how to write these types of action screenplays, telling you when to hit certain beats with certain themes. The problem should be revealed on p7, the hero should hit bottom on p90, the gathering of the group to fight should be on pXX. I've read that a page of script is about a minute on screen, and they will tailor the scripts to this. So seven minutes in -- p7 -- you have the main problem revealed, and so on.

It's a bit of a self-perpetuating problem. The studios make these movies, and we keep going to see them, so the studios keep making them because they are a) businesses and b) generally risk-averse when it comes to making money. And that's not to say these movies aren't well-done or enjoyable (I've loved most of Marvel's Avengers movies myself). But I keep coming back to the fact that the studios are businesses, perhaps even more so now when they are owned by huge multi-national conglomerates, and strangely, that fact explains a lot but seems to get lost in the discussion.

Sorry, went on for a while myself. Here are two articles you might find interesting (or frustrating).

From the AV Club, about Marvel's properties: http://www.avclub.com/article/marvels-dealings-spider-man-x-men-and-fantastic-fo-210241

From Slate.com, on the book about screenwriting: http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/...snyder_s_screenwriting_book_save_the_cat.html

The plague of origin stories in movies is due to the studios hiring big name or up and coming directors who do not want to be weighted down by what their predecessors did. These guys are signed on for multiple picture deals, and they want to tell their story with a beginning, a middle, and an end. That's why Nolan had an origin story and a "death." That's why Webb rebooted Spiderman. Trank was brought in specifically to reboot The Fantastic Four.

I think Marvel did the smart thing with The Hulk. They didn't do another origin story, they just pretended the first movie never existed. Since then, they have been knocking everything out of the park. I can't wait to see what they do with Dr. Strange, and even though I had no interest in an Ant Man movie, I'm optimistic about their chances of pulling it off.

 

[PennLady]

Marvel might like to get Spiderman and X-Men back, but it isn't happening. 20th Century Fox has grossed over $3 billiion off it's X-Men titles so far. They are never giving up that gravy train. Never.

Despite the poor domestic performance of Spiderman 2, Sony isn't getting out of the Spiderman business any time soon. Their total gross to date is almost $4 billion. They already have two more projects in place, and plans for more. Unless and until they see red ink, Spidey isn't going any where. He may take a break for a few years while the Sinister Six and Venom take a turn, but Sony is not giving that property back to Marvel.

Oh, I don't expect Marvel to get those properties back, at least not totally. I could see some kind of deal being struck, but I'm sure, as you say, that Sony and 20CF will hold onto Spider-Man and X-Men for as long as they can.

The plague of origin stories in movies is due to the studios hiring big name or up and coming directors who do not want to be weighted down by what their predecessors did. These guys are signed on for multiple picture deals, and they want to tell their story with a beginning, a middle, and an end. That's why Nolan had an origin story and a "death." That's why Webb rebooted Spiderman. Trank was brought in specifically to reboot The Fantastic Four.

I don't disagree, but like anything in a business that big, they are going to hedge their bets and there are many factors go into it. It's funny when you look at the Marvel movie directors. Some are big(ger) names, some are not, but most are probably well-known within the biz. Kenneth Branagh directing Thor? Who would have thought? Anyway, of course the directors want to put their mark on things, but from much of what I've read, there's a lot of pressure from above to conform to a formula.

I think Marvel did the smart thing with The Hulk. They didn't do another origin story, they just pretended the first movie never existed. Since then, they have been knocking everything out of the park. I can't wait to see what they do with Dr. Strange, and even though I had no interest in an Ant Man movie, I'm optimistic about their chances of pulling it off.

I haven't seen the first Hulk yet, but I'd like to. I'd agree that they did the best thing by ignoring that one, though, in terms of the movie starring Ed Norton. For one thing, he looks nothing like Eric Bana.

I am actually very impressed with what Marvel has done. This was definitely a risk, and even though they could have stopped if Captain America was a flop to start with, I think it's obvious they've put both thought and money into this whole project and they are looking very long-term. At this point, they could probably survive a flop, if there is one.

But there are also cynical, or at least pragmatic reasons why things get rebooted. Actors don't want to return, or they age, or they cost too much to get back. The latter reason is in part why we get a rebooted X-Men franchise (not a bad thing; I thought First Class was great). But James MacAvoy and Michael Fassbender cost less than Patrick Stewart and Ian McKellan, and so there you go. Instead of X-Men 4, you get X-Men the Prequel and you can use cheaper actors.

 

[BuckyDuckman]

I get tired of origin stories being retold, too. I'm never sure where I fall as far as fan-boys when they complain about changes. Sometimes, that's me. (Like with Spidey's webslingers.) Other times, I'm like, "Okay, big deal. Who cares?" It's fun to see Robin, the Boy Wonder, portrayed as an acrobat and wearing his original costume. I enjoy those winks at the fan boys.

Retelling the origin stories, I think, is the uber extension of rebooting. "Man of Steel's" take on Superman as a boy was interesting. He IS an outsider and it was interesting seeing a take on that.

I think part of the trouble with the constant sequels is maintaining the quality of the story. X-Men 1 was great. X-Men 2 even better because they had established the world. I think we saw an improvement between Spidey 1 & 2 (with Tobey Maguire) - but then the train wreck of Spidey 3 happened.

I think the best job done with a re-occurring superhero - James Bond, the ultimate Time Lord.

 

[StrangeLife]

This turned out be quite the enlightening thread - thanks for the links Penn. I have put "Save The Cat" high on my reading list.

It is also a bit depressing though, because now that I see the mechanisms that drives the studios more clearly, I also realise that they will likely continue in the same pattern indefinitely. With a budget close to $200 million for a Batman movie a single box office dud could bring a studio in the red for the rest of the year, and make a franchise they have invested big bucks in toxic for decades. I am a nerd, but I am also living in a real world of dollars and cents.

There is no doubt that they will continue in the same mould, and when we reach the year 2500 Bruce Wayne's parents will have been murdered 352 times by various badguys and Peter Parker will have been bitten by a wide assortment of radioactive and genetically modified spiders. Each new director of course being totally convinced that they have "a unique and clever spin" on the story.

*sigh*

The sad thing is though, that they don't know what they are missing. When you buy a Spiderman franchise, you buy a huge library of stories with a diversity that varies from slice-of-life teen romance to epic sci-fi in deep space. The origin story is like a small chapter in a very thick book. Marvel and DC were never afraid of giving talented writer free reins with their properties, and it shows. There is so much great Spiderman material that is completely ignored for the sake of re-telling that origin story for the umphtienth time, and I don't think the studios realize this. They are basically paying for a Ferrari, but only using it for grocery shopping.

So it's not just about me being sick of watching the same story over and over again. It is also the fact that we never move beyond the coming-of-age stage of the various super heroes. We never get to see all the cool stuff they do later in life on the big screen. I think that's sad.

And on a related note - do they honestly believe that a young audience who are interested in Spiderman haven't watched the Toby McGuire movies already? Or that young Superman fans haven't watched Christopher Reeves fleeing Krypton? If we ignore Superman 3 & 4 (I think everybody should) they hold up fairly well. It's not like the older movies are going anywhere in this age of Netflix streaming. Future generations of young Batman fans will have watched Christian Bale lament his dead parents at least once before before taking in a new movie.

 

[lovecraft68]

I get tired of origin stories being retold, too. I'm never sure where I fall as far as fan-boys when they complain about changes. Sometimes, that's me. (Like with Spidey's webslingers.) Other times, I'm like, "Okay, big deal. Who cares?" It's fun to see Robin, the Boy Wonder, portrayed as an acrobat and wearing his original costume. I enjoy those winks at the fan boys.

Retelling the origin stories, I think, is the uber extension of rebooting. "Man of Steel's" take on Superman as a boy was interesting. He IS an outsider and it was interesting seeing a take on that.

I think part of the trouble with the constant sequels is maintaining the quality of the story. X-Men 1 was great. X-Men 2 even better because they had established the world. I think we saw an improvement between Spidey 1 & 2 (with Tobey Maguire) - but then the train wreck of Spidey 3 happened.

I think the best job done with a re-occurring superhero - James Bond, the ultimate Time Lord.

Spider Man 3? Oh, come on, you didn't like that awesome spin of Sandman being there when Uncle Ben was shot, that there were two guys involved?

That was something that did not need to be touched, that and the multiple villains are also a mistake.

But what really scarred me was "disco Pete" in the middle of it.

 

[Verdad]

What, no one mentions Loki?

(Er, hi, guys. Long time no see. Who could spot a thread like this and resist it, though? )

Seriously, anyone reading Loki: Agent of Asgard?

No TV series yet, but the popularity of Tom Hiddleston’s portrayal in the movies has spurred quite a bit of interest in the character. Fangirls have even organized a petition for a Loki movie and collected some 50k signatures.

I don’t know that anything will come out of that, but Marvel isn’t completely oblivious to the interest. Hence the said comic book series, starring a pretty Loki, with a female reader-surrogate among the supporting cast.

Personally, I’m not sure how I feel about the series—it’s a great idea and I like the illustrator well enough, but the writing’s not quite to my taste.

 

[Verdad]

Also, ‘cause someone’s gotta beat the DC drum, what’s the latest state of the Sandman movie rumors? Last I heard, there was serious talk of Joseph Gordon-Levitt producing, directing, and starring in the movie.

My reaction:

 

[lovecraft68]

What, no one mentions Loki?

(Er, hi, guys. Long time no see. Who could spot a thread like this and resist it, though? )

Seriously, anyone reading Loki: Agent of Asgard?

No TV series yet, but the popularity of Tom Hiddleston’s portrayal in the movies has spurred quite a bit of interest in the character. Fangirls have even organized a petition for a Loki movie and collected some 50k signatures.

I don’t know that anything will come out of that, but Marvel isn’t completely oblivious to the interest. Hence the said comic book series, starring a pretty Loki, with a female reader-surrogate among the supporting cast.

Personally, I’m not sure how I feel about the series—it’s a great idea and I like the illustrator well enough, but the writing’s not quite to my taste.

Loki is the shit, certainly an intriguing character I have always enjoyed. But I don't think Marvel has matured enough to give a series to a villain.

Besides why spend time on Loki when that time could be spent on more.....Wolverine! have you heard he once had the infinity Gauntlet and created the entire Marvel universe?

You know you've had it with a character when you sit there and worte up quick scenarios where he dies.

In Civil war he resurrected himself from the few atoms that were left of him. I am not making that up.

Sorry, beating the my bitter against the modern marvel drum.

 

[PennLady]

Also, ‘cause someone’s gotta beat the DC drum, what’s the latest state of the Sandman movie rumors? Last I heard, there was serious talk of Joseph Gordon-Levitt producing, directing, and starring in the movie.

My reaction:

I think mostly it's all just talk at this time. Adapting Gaiman's stuff is problematic at best, most of the time, although "Mirrormask" was well done, and I really like "Neverwhere" even with the classic-Dr-Who-era sets.

Seriously, I think the last thing I read, even JGL himself said it was in very early stages and anything else at this point is just guessing.

 

[lovecraft68]

I think mostly it's all just talk at this time. Adapting Gaiman's stuff is problematic at best, most of the time, although "Mirrormask" was well done, and I really like "Neverwhere" even with the classic-Dr-Who-era sets.

Seriously, I think the last thing I read, even JGL himself said it was in very early stages and anything else at this point is just guessing.

I agree I think Gaiman is better read than seen, if that makes sense. I doubt TV or a movie could really capture him well.

 

[PennLady]

It is also a bit depressing though, because now that I see the mechanisms that drives the studios more clearly, I also realise that they will likely continue in the same pattern indefinitely. With a budget close to $200 million for a Batman movie a single box office dud could bring a studio in the red for the rest of the year, and make a franchise they have invested big bucks in toxic for decades. I am a nerd, but I am also living in a real world of dollars and cents.

Yes, this is the thing. Like I said, these are businesses, and their goal is to maximize profits for their owners, shareholders, whatever. You will still find some willing to take chances, like New Line on the LOTR movies. However even then, they were working with a known property; I think the real risk was that fantasy movies don't tend to do so well.

There is no doubt that they will continue in the same mould, and when we reach the year 2500 Bruce Wayne's parents will have been murdered 352 times by various badguys and Peter Parker will have been bitten by a wide assortment of radioactive and genetically modified spiders. Each new director of course being totally convinced that they have "a unique and clever spin" on the story.

It's funny, I think I'm a little more cynical here. I think the directors/writers are under a lot of pressure from the studios above them to adhere to certain structures or ideas. So yes, they no doubt want to make their mark, but at the same time the studio is saying, "It can be a *little* different, but not too different." So Maguire's Spider-Man can generate his own webbing, but Garfield had to make up a formula.

There is so much great Spiderman material that is completely ignored for the sake of re-telling that origin story for the umphtienth time, and I don't think the studios realize this. They are basically paying for a Ferrari, but only using it for grocery shopping.

Again I'll get more cynical. They don't care about the vast library of material (and I agree there's a ton there, in all of these story lines, to go for). They care about butts in seats, and about making back their budget (and marketing is often as much or more than the movie budget). They are aiming for a certain demographic that spends money, and right now that is the 18-34 or 18-49 male, and that demo will apparently go back again and again to see origin stories.

Spider Man 3? Oh, come on, you didn't like that awesome spin of Sandman being there when Uncle Ben was shot, that there were two guys involved?

Actually I did like that. What I hate in the Spider-Man movies is that they've gotten excellent actors to play Uncle Ben, but then they have to kill them off... sigh.

 

[caramelheat]

I just saw this thread and love it! Here are my two cents: Gotham is alright could be better but still watching. Flash was surprisingly good. I read the Walking Dead and it's an awesome comic, I don't mind the show changing characters and plots it actually makes it more interesting when you don't know what's coming. I am loving z nation on SyFy based on World War Z book by Max Brooks awesome book.

Marvel comic I read is Deadpool who fucking rocks. I am reading the death of Wolverine but it's a forced read. I read Loki: agent of asgard, haven't decided if I like it or not.
The best comics out there don't involve your DC or Marvel superheroes. Locke and Key by Joe Hill was good and I'm currently in love with Saga by Brain K. Vaughan. Also Neil chairman came out with Sandman overture last year, it's suppose to be Sandown before he got captured at the beginning of the original Sandman. I haven't read that one still reading the originals.
I was wondering how ya'll were writing so much, now I see. I could say more.

 

[lovecraft68]

I just saw this thread and love it! Here are my two cents: Gotham is alright could be better but still watching. Flash was surprisingly good. I read the Walking Dead and it's an awesome comic, I don't mind the show changing characters and plots it actually makes it more interesting when you don't know what's coming. I am loving z nation on SyFy based on World War Z book by Max Brooks awesome book.

Marvel comic I read is Deadpool who fucking rocks. I am reading the death of Wolverine but it's a forced read. I read Loki: agent of asgard, haven't decided if I like it or not.
The best comics out there don't involve your DC or Marvel superheroes. Locke and Key by Joe Hill was good and I'm currently in love with Saga by Brain K. Vaughan. Also Neil chairman came out with Sandman overture last year, it's suppose to be Sandown before he got captured at the beginning of the original Sandman. I haven't read that one still reading the originals.
I was wondering how ya'll were writing so much, now I see. I could say more.

I'd been a fan of marvel since I was around 5/6 and eventually some DC titles, but never really their superheroes, for em it was their horror comics like Witching hour, House of Mystery....and swamp thing when they created Vertigo I read a lot of that.

So I was a fan of mainstream marvel right up until just before I closed my comic shop and read the Spider man storyline :One more day" That was the most ludicrous, bullshit story I had ever read in 35 years of reading comics and was so sickeningly stupid I tossed it away(ate $1.50 my cost on trashing the book) and have never read a Marvel comic since. I do still read back issues from the sixties through eighties, but that's it.

Walking Dead I stayed with until recently and Zenescope's Grimms fairy tales is excellent as well, but no more mainstream for me. The writers are full of themselves to say the least Bendis thinks he deserves a pulitzer.

As for the Death of Wolverine? Seriously? They're never killing him, they couldn't go a month without him in the 12 titles he appears in. So again, cash cow that will be reversed a month after it finishes.

 

[lovecraft68]

Not a comic book show(unless you think of it in terms with Grimm fairy tales series) but is anyone watching "Once Upon a Time" my wife and I are on season three and it is really clever, they have some great spins on fairy tale and Disney characters. Its one of those fun "so who is this supposed to be" any time someone new shows up.

 

[caramelheat]

Tried to watch once upon a time, got through the first 6/7 episodes. I hate when they drag a show out, so I stopped. I watch the first few episodes of Penny Dreadful, that was pretty good. I don't have cable so didn't finish it. You ever checked out American Vampire , I think it's Vertigo. Really good.

 

[lovecraft68]

Tried to watch once upon a time, got through the first 6/7 episodes. I hate when they drag a show out, so I stopped. I watch the first few episodes of Penny Dreadful, that was pretty good. I don't have cable so didn't finish it. You ever checked out American Vampire , I think it's Vertigo. Really good.

Penny Dreadful has awesome atmosphere almost a steampunk feel, but for some reason I couldn't get into it.

Sleepy Hollow is a guilty pleasure.

 

[caramelheat]

Almost forgot, DC and Marvel animation movies are awesome. Son of Batman, Assault on Arkham, planet Hulk,etc.

 

[caramelheat]

Couldn't get into Sleepy Hollow, didn't like the chicks acting skills.