The Avengers: News and Speculation [Archive] - Page 19

Doctor Jones

08-05-2010, 10:11 AM

It's not necessarily the best way to approach it, but it's also not impossible to pull off or a death sentence to the film's quality.

So it's possible to fit six people on a team and multiple villains in one film? That would have to be around three hours or more. Can't happen. Focus on the Avengers. It's what the film is about and what the title says. Not how many villains we can fit in one film where an entire team has to form. It should be about the good guys getting together and dealing with being together. That comes first. The threat is what brings them together and shouldn't be too ambitious with that. Not when you're bringing all these heroes together for the first time. One villain is fine. Loki controlling Hulk is a good way to go if that's the plot they're going with. What the significance of having more than one villain? Everything should draw from the team first. Focus on that. Besides with multiple villains, you have even more to do with them, and most likely they wouldn't have much screentime. Which people would complain about. So what's the point?

Paroxysm

08-05-2010, 11:54 AM

AVENGERS TEASER TRAILER!!!! (http://spidermedia.ru/node/2834)

"The Avengers were born?"

Way to **** up the easiest tagline in comic-book history.

Doctor Jones

08-05-2010, 12:34 PM

How did he **** up?

Paroxysm

08-05-2010, 12:37 PM

How did he **** up?

Assembled...not born.

Whiskey Tango

08-05-2010, 12:41 PM

My copy of JLA/Avengers says "On that day the Avengers were born".

MultiPurposePon

08-05-2010, 12:49 PM

"The Avengers were born?"

Way to **** up the easiest tagline in comic-book history.

Way to not know the comics. The team tagline is "Avengers Assemble" but Sam/Fury was quoting the prologue of The Avengers comic

"And there came a day, a day unlike any other, when Earth's mightiest heroes and heroines found themselves united against a common threat. On that day, the Avengers were born — to fight the foes no single super hero could withstand! Through the years, their roster has prospered, changing many times, but their glory has never been denied! Heed the call, then — for now, the Avengers Assemble!"

— Prologue from The Avengers

Educate yourself

Whiskey Tango

08-05-2010, 12:51 PM

Yeah, ouch.

Paroxysm

08-05-2010, 12:55 PM

Way to not know the comics. The team tagline is "Avengers Assemble" but Sam/Fury was quoting the prologue of The Avengers comic

"And there came a day, a day unlike any other, when Earth's mightiest heroes and heroines found themselves united against a common threat. On that day, the Avengers were born — to fight the foes no single super hero could withstand! Through the years, their roster has prospered, changing many times, but their glory has never been denied! Heed the call, then — for now, the Avengers Assemble!"

— Prologue from The Avengers

Educate yourself

I'm sorry I'm not as nerdy as you. I really am.

MultiPurposePon

08-05-2010, 01:01 PM

I'm sorry I'm not as nerdy as you. I really am.

Wow, that's very insightful considering that we both post of an Avengers movie messageboard on a site specifically dedicated to superhero movies. At to that the fact that you have over 2,000 posts here while I'm at 100. Put your lightsaber away and absorb this logic:

Don't be so adamant claiming someone ****ed something up by the source material if you have no knowledge of the actual source material.

It makes it easier to save face down the road when you're proven wrong. But what do I know, I'm just a nerd

-

On another note, if I were on the design team for that teaser video (which I absolutely loved), I may have simply added Chris Evans' voice at the very end saying "Avengers Assemble!"

Whiskey Tango

08-05-2010, 01:01 PM

I'm sorry I'm not as nerdy as you. I really am.

So, first you b*tch about Marvel getting their own tagline wrong, and then when your error is pointed out, you attack the guy. Classy. :up:

Matt Mortem

08-05-2010, 01:23 PM

ANYWHO I really really liked that little teaser. It's sort of like a down payment to the fans. This is an exciting time for Comic Book Movies!!

The Question

08-05-2010, 01:28 PM

So it's possible to fit six people on a team and multiple villains in one film?

Yes, it is. Is it easy? Not particularly. Is it the best way to go about it? No, probably not worth the risk. But it is possible to have that many protagonists and that many antagonists in a two hour film and develop them well. It would just take a great deal of artistry and even the most talented writers would run the risk of making a mistake with it.

Matt Mortem

08-05-2010, 01:29 PM

In a perfect world I would want The Avengers to be a two part film.

LightningFlash

08-05-2010, 02:56 PM

I'm sorry I'm not as nerdy as you. I really am.

Irony - when you have a huge 'FAIL' signature, and when you fail yourself, you decide to come back by saying "I'm sorry I'm not as nerdy as you." when, these forums, belong to SuperHeroHype.com.

:up:

ArtTeacher

08-05-2010, 03:01 PM

One of my friends on CBM said a great thing about this teaser:

"Wait a minute, are people actually COMPLAINING about this?

You've got to be abso-*****ing-lutely kidding me! The movie hasn't even started PRE PRODUCTION yet; Marvel did this FOR THE FANS. It's not like you had to pay to watch this."

Well, your friend is a stud and you need to take him out for a beer.
Well said!

Vengeance of Bane

08-05-2010, 03:07 PM

My biggest fear is that the movie execs interfer too much with movie and don't let them tell a compelling story, but rather go for a mindless action film, like GI Joe. We've seen it time and time again, they release an inferior theatrical cut and then a diectors cut which is better in every way.

Squidboy

08-05-2010, 03:07 PM

I think ensemble movies like Fantastic Four, Watchmen, or even the Ocean's movies prove that you can juggle a bunch of characters without missing out on proper characterization. I'm hoping that the Hulk might be a threat to unite the team, but some larger force comes to light to make the team aware of the fact that their union can never just be a one-time deal. If the Ant-Man movie had been made by now, I'd say Ultron would be a very formidable foe, but maybe with Iron Man in the film, it'd be better to stray away from high-tech villains for now. Fin Fang Foom all the way!

Doctor Jones

08-05-2010, 03:37 PM

Yes, it is. Is it easy? Not particularly. Is it the best way to go about it? No, probably not worth the risk. But it is possible to have that many protagonists and that many antagonists in a two hour film and develop them well. It would just take a great deal of artistry and even the most talented writers would run the risk of making a mistake with it.

Yeah, they can do it in two hours. But only if they had less screentime and they wouldn't get that much development. It just wouldn't work. In a three hour plus film? Yeah, but not in two hours. There's no way the most talented writers can do that in a two hour film. Not unless they want it to be a trainwreck. Let's just make it simple with the villain. In the sequels with them already established move onto the villains more a little. But the focus should be the team and their development.

MultiPurposePon

08-05-2010, 03:40 PM

One of my friends on CBM said a great thing about this teaser:

"Wait a minute, are people actually COMPLAINING about this?

You've got to be abso-*****ing-lutely kidding me! The movie hasn't even started PRE PRODUCTION yet; Marvel did this FOR THE FANS. It's not like you had to pay to watch this."

Haha I didn't even notice this! Thanks for the quote, I still feel the same way :yay:

Parker Wayne

08-05-2010, 04:36 PM

I'm sorry I'm not as nerdy as you. I really am.

:dry:

http://nerdnirvana.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/MASSIVEFacepalm.jpg

LightningFlash

08-05-2010, 05:13 PM

Top three on that:

Jesus
Carl
Lord Zedd

Matt Mortem

08-05-2010, 05:25 PM

yeah Carl has the best facepalm ever

JeetKuneDo

08-05-2010, 05:27 PM

So it's possible to fit six people on a team and multiple villains in one film? That would have to be around three hours or more. Can't happen.

It is a valid concern, but it's been done well. The Dirty Dozen was a great movie...but it ran 2 hours and 30 minutes. 12 Angry Men was amazing and just 96 minutes, but it was confined to one room (a feat in itself).

Spider-Vader

08-05-2010, 05:29 PM

This is almost exactly, what I would of done for the teaser except I would of shown the characters doing an action shot. (Hawkeye shooting an arrow, Thor slamming his hammer into the ground, etc...)

Matt Mortem

08-05-2010, 05:31 PM

I'm sure when they get some footage we'll get something like that

Gin_Guilt

08-05-2010, 05:55 PM

Spider-Vader

08-05-2010, 06:17 PM

Eh, it gives him more time to work on Iron Man 3. If he starts working on it now we can get it in 2013.

Parker Wayne

08-05-2010, 06:20 PM

I don't believe it. Favreau repeatedly said he wasn't interested in directing the Avengers.

But I do believe some of the stuff that was said about Iron Man 2 though. It shows. Favreau and Downey saved that film from being a disaster.

Spider-Vader

08-05-2010, 06:28 PM

Really hope Marvel doesn't use IM3 to push any new projects now that Avengers would be out of the way.

Raiden

08-05-2010, 07:22 PM

Really hope Marvel doesn't use IM3 to push any new projects now that Avengers would be out of the way.

Same here. I like IM2 but that movie could've been so much more, if it didn't have a rush schedule and didn't have to set it up for the Avengers movie.

roach

08-05-2010, 07:42 PM

samsnee

08-05-2010, 07:50 PM

roach

08-05-2010, 08:05 PM

Man, Marvel is sounding more and more like a bunch of ***** with each movie.

well to be honest the idea of making a movie studio just for comic book heroes is pretty stupid. Sure Marvel is getting movies made their way and they are making money but their options on film are severely hampered. They have to be very frugal with the cash...unfortunately this causes situations where this happens. They have to promote Avengers in IM2. They have to have a few movies out a year because a studio that doesnt have a movie out is losing money. It will be interesting to see if anyone else is let go or disappointed Marvel's money grubbing

LightningFlash

08-05-2010, 08:29 PM

I don't know what to believe about Fav being unhappy with Iron Man 2. I thought he enjoyed the finished product.

Alex Logan

08-05-2010, 08:32 PM

Man, Marvel is sounding more and more like a bunch of ***** with each movie.

Yep, and I can't wait until the beloved fanboys come out and try to defend those bunch of *****.

I don't know what to believe about Fav being unhappy with Iron Man 2. I thought he enjoyed the finished product.

Only time will tell.

LightningFlash

08-05-2010, 08:39 PM

I guess so.

But, most likely he won't say anything just because he has a lot of time with him doing Iron Man 3.

Whiskey Tango

08-05-2010, 08:40 PM

Oh, it simply must be true. They're quoting "reliable sources". :whatever:

ElMariachi

08-05-2010, 08:46 PM

Man, Marvel is sounding more and more like a bunch of ***** with each movie.

recasting the Hulk and rushing a single movie. Wow, such jerks they are.

You people are too emotional and don't even know the full story.

Iron_Stark

08-05-2010, 08:48 PM

Oh, it simply must be true. They're quoting "reliable sources". :whatever:

This. :up:

LightningFlash

08-05-2010, 08:54 PM

Well, I don't know. What I do know is that Kevin Feige seems like a total ass, lol.

louiebling$

08-05-2010, 08:55 PM

Oh, it simply must be true. They're quoting "reliable sources". :whatever:
Yep that's where I'm at

Darkness Falls

08-05-2010, 09:29 PM

I'm sorry I'm not as nerdy as you. I really am.

The Irony in this post is baffling :facepalm:

Docker2.0

08-05-2010, 10:06 PM

"Unhappy With Iron Man 2, Jon Favreau Wanted To Direct The Avengers; Marvel Said No?" (http://**************.com/fansites/MarvelFreshman/news/?a=21139)

After What I saw in Iron Man 2,Terrence Howard,and Ed Norton?

Makes lots of sense to me.

Can't believe some of you guys take some garbage and run with it. From day one, Favreau has said he did not want to direct the Avengers. And judging by the way RDJ acted at SDCC, he didn't seem pissed at Marvel at all. Was IM2 rushed? No question! But to say that those guys are pissed at Marvel while quoting unnamed sources is bs. And again, getting rid of Norton and Howard was mostly due to money issues and arguebly being divas.

Sawyer

08-05-2010, 10:09 PM

**************s.com seems like a bull**** site to me. :o

Darkness Falls

08-05-2010, 10:20 PM

they get things right occasionally
but alot of the time its basic assumptions and speculation :/

Parker Wayne

08-05-2010, 11:05 PM

**************s.com seems like a bull**** site to me. :o
they get things right occasionally
but alot of the time its basic assumptions and speculation :/

I don't really have that many problems with CBM other than the obnoxious users in the comments. Some of them sound dumber than the usual youtube users.

roach

08-06-2010, 07:15 AM

honestly we dont know if this is true or not.

Alex Logan

08-06-2010, 07:34 AM

**************s.com seems like a bull**** site to me. :o

But that's not where the story came from, they only reposted it.

http://www.cinemablend.com/new/How-Iron-Man-2-Ruined-Jon-Favreau-s-Relationship-With-Marvel-20003.html

topdog1

08-06-2010, 12:11 PM

But that's not where the story came from, they only reposted it.

http://www.cinemablend.com/new/How-Iron-Man-2-Ruined-Jon-Favreau-s-Relationship-With-Marvel-20003.html

That makes it worse. Passing on a known lie to boost site hits is awfully low. Any site devoted to comic films knows this is complete BS if they've done any homework at all. It's either an intentional smear or a "ratings grabber" and both cases are despicable.

dark_b

08-06-2010, 03:08 PM

its BS what cineblend wrotte?

joking right?

Parker Wayne

08-06-2010, 04:39 PM

its BS what cineblend wrotte?

joking right?

I would say BS on the Avengers news since Favreau kept saying adamantly that he wasn't interested in directing the Avengers, though the Iron Man 2 problems is easy to believe and it shows in the film.

JeetKuneDo

08-06-2010, 05:31 PM

well to be honest the idea of making a movie studio just for comic book heroes is pretty stupid.

Or the best idea ever! :awesome:

LightningFlash

08-06-2010, 06:09 PM

Side-note, who wants to watch a Justice League movie without Batman and Superman? Lol.

http://**************.com/fansites/Poniverse/news/?a=21147

JeetKuneDo

08-06-2010, 06:17 PM

Side-note, who wants to watch a Justice League movie without Batman and Superman? Lol.

http://**************.com/fansites/Poniverse/news/?a=21147

Probably better without Batman. The movie version just won't fit in. Unless they change the movie character dramatically, Batman would be a fifth wheel. Unless they need someone to sit at the computer and be a dispatcher or something.

Not sure what the problem is with Superman though.

Parker Wayne

08-06-2010, 06:22 PM

Side-note, who wants to watch a Justice League movie without Batman and Superman? Lol.

http://**************.com/fansites/Poniverse/news/?a=21147

Yeah that's definitely BS too. WB wouldn't make even think of making a JL film without it 2 moneymakers. I can understand Batman, since he was retconned to not be a founding members and is only a part-time member, but they definitely wouldn't do it without Superman.

LightningFlash

08-06-2010, 06:24 PM

Parker Wayne

08-06-2010, 06:42 PM

Dang; I was trying to make fun of **************.com by posting that, but...I see your guys' point about Batman; and Superman is in the mix just because the Nolans will be behind the reboot, so that's probably a no-no for the Justice League to include Superman anytime soon.

The only way I can see Nolan's Batman working is if the rumors are true about a "Film Multiverse" starting with the Green Lantern film(due to Krona's supposed interference in the Green Lantern(s) final battle against Parallax). One hero in each universe.

The way make fun of comicbook movie to post the ridiculous (but serious) comments from there haha :hehe: like this one about Stan Lee:

Lee just wants attention (as usual). He had NOTHING to do with the creation of the character, yet he still tries to glom on! NOW will you people see 'The Man' for what he REALLY is - an arrogant, narcissistic old fart! Brent, your article should read "Legend in his own MIND..."

Idiots

Anyway, I prefer Batman to be in the Justice League film and if they do make a Justice League film Batman will be in it because WB will most likely won't accept a JL film without its biggest money earner.

I would go into it more, but its the Avengers thread.

Matt Mortem

08-06-2010, 07:09 PM

Why the **** do I keep reading about and hearing about how terrible IM2 was? I ****ING LOVED IT

Spider-Vader

08-06-2010, 07:10 PM

I really doubt Marvel will be having any money problems if Thor, Cap & Avengers are hits, Disney will give them however much money they want.

Parker Wayne

08-06-2010, 07:15 PM

Why the **** do I keep reading about and hearing about how terrible IM2 was? I ****ING LOVED IT

I liked the film too despite its flaws. Its definitely on the better side of good comic book superhero films than the bad side.

Spider-Vader

08-06-2010, 07:25 PM

Definitely, it could of been better. But it was a fun movie, hell it was better than every movie last year save Inglorious Basterds, District 9 & Up.

Sawyer

08-06-2010, 07:32 PM

Definitely, it could of been better. But it was a fun movie, hell it was better than every movie last year save Inglorious Basterds, District 9 & Up.

Hey hey hey!!!

Star Trek was better too. :o

S.A.A.D.

08-06-2010, 07:34 PM

Side-note, who wants to watch a Justice League movie without Batman and Superman? Lol.

http://**************.com/fansites/Poniverse/news/?a=21147

I wouldn't mind.

Parker Wayne

08-06-2010, 07:34 PM

Definitely, it could of been better. But it was a fun movie, hell it was better than every movie last year save Inglorious Basterds, District 9 & Up.

*coughs* Hangover *coughs*

But yeah, I'll add The Hangover and Star Trek to it. I'm not gonna add indies though because then it gets complicated.

S.A.A.D.

08-06-2010, 07:36 PM

well to be honest the idea of making a movie studio just for comic book heroes is pretty stupid. Sure Marvel is getting movies made their way and they are making money but their options on film are severely hampered. They have to be very frugal with the cash...unfortunately this causes situations where this happens. They have to promote Avengers in IM2. They have to have a few movies out a year because a studio that doesnt have a movie out is losing money. It will be interesting to see if anyone else is let go or disappointed Marvel's money grubbing

You're now dead to me!!! :cmad::csad:

Crimson King

08-06-2010, 07:37 PM

I'm calling BS on the CinemaBlend article. I distinctly remember people asking Favreau about the Avengers as soon as people got wind that the movie was happening. He said he didn't want to direct it because of the supernatural aspects of it. Add to that the interviews he's given post-IM2, where he discusses his plans for IM3 (Mandarin) and this "source" is looking a whole lot like a bucket of stupid.

roach

08-06-2010, 07:47 PM

You're now dead to me!!! :cmad::csad:

So in ten years is RDJ still going to be IM?
How many Avengers movies are they going to make???
Whats going to happen when the GA gets tired of superheroes???

roach

08-06-2010, 07:49 PM

That makes it worse. Passing on a known lie to boost site hits is awfully low. Any site devoted to comic films knows this is complete BS if they've done any homework at all. It's either an intentional smear or a "ratings grabber" and both cases are despicable.

How is this a known lie???
Do you know what Fav and company feel???
Lets be honest Fav and company will say anything to keep their working relationship in tact.

Parker Wayne

08-06-2010, 07:53 PM

So in ten years is RDJ still going to be IM?
How many Avengers movies are they going to make???
Whats going to happen when the GA gets tired of superheroes???

We go back to Westerns and restart the cycle!

How is this a known lie???
Do you know what Fav and company feel???
Lets be honest Fav and company will say anything to keep their working relationship in tact.

But the thing is its been pretty clear for a long time that he was never interested in the Avengers.

Alex Logan

08-06-2010, 07:54 PM

roach

08-06-2010, 08:00 PM

We go back to Westerns and restart the cycle!

But the thing is its been pretty clear for a long time that he was never interested in the Avengers.

We dont know all the behind the scenes stuff...look I dont know what happened behind closed doors...is this a false story..probably???
But the fact remains that no one on this site knows if this is true or false...

Alex Logan

08-06-2010, 08:03 PM

We dont know all the behind the scenes stuff...look I dont know what happened behind closed doors...is this a false story..probably???
But the fact remains that no one on this site knows if this is true or false...

Very true, but given Marvel's tack record what should we think is true?

roach

08-06-2010, 08:11 PM

Very true, but given Marvel's tack record what should we think is true?

so since we dont know if this is true or not then we shouldnt call it a blantant lie(i know you didnt do that) or call it the absolute truth

Parker Wayne

08-06-2010, 08:12 PM

We dont know all the behind the scenes stuff...look I dont know what happened behind closed doors...is this a false story..probably???
But the fact remains that no one on this site knows if this is true or false...

I can agree with that. This is all speculation and we don't know what happened behind closed doors.

roach

08-06-2010, 08:14 PM

I can agree with that. This is all speculation and we don't know what happened behind closed doors.

exactly..I say this since people were calling this a lie

Parker Wayne

08-06-2010, 08:15 PM

so since we dont know if this is true or not then we shouldnt call it a blantant lie(i know you didnt do that) or call it the absolute truth

I was just making an inference based on observations. Iron Man 2 had obvious flaws and a lot of deleted scenes and it was believed to be Marvel tampering before the article.

And Favreau said numerous times before wasn't interested in directing The Avengers. So I assumed that part to be false.

Still, it could be true and it could not be true. I was just making an inference.

Alex Logan

08-06-2010, 08:40 PM

so since we dont know if this is true or not then we shouldnt call it a blantant lie(i know you didnt do that) or call it the absolute truth

Honestly, I think it's somewhere in the middle. :yay:

S.A.A.D.

08-06-2010, 09:16 PM

So in ten years is RDJ still going to be IM?
How many Avengers movies are they going to make???
Whats going to happen when the GA gets tired of superheroes???

1) Yes(when you're watching certain Ironman movies)and when you see his likeness in merchandise,and no when ya know?

2) We don't know yet.

3) I wouldn't worry about that,there's a revolving door when it comes to the general audience,people still pro-create. Humanity isn't going extinct. Comic book movies will keep being made regardless,just like other kinds of movies people are tired of,which is all of the usual suspects. Horror,action,drama,comedies,kids,fantasy,sci-fi. There are people who are tired of those who are the general audience,the studios don't care at all since they know that they are replacable.

Whiskey Tango

08-06-2010, 09:24 PM

So in ten years is RDJ still going to be IM?

Maybe. Maybe not. If not, they recast. It's worked for Bond for decades.

How many Avengers movies are they going to make???

As many as they can. Hopefully more than one.

Whats going to happen when the GA gets tired of superheroes???

What was supposed to happen 7 or 8 years ago when people were saying comic book movies had run their course? I don't remember either, because it didn't happen and now there are more supers movies in the pipeline than ever. Audiences will never get tired of big budget action-adventure movies, as long as they're well made and continue to entertain.

S.A.A.D.

08-06-2010, 09:30 PM

Maybe. Maybe not. If not, they recast. It's worked for Bond for decades.

As many as they can. Hopefully more than one.

What was supposed to happen 7 or 8 years ago when people were saying comic book movies had run their course? I don't remember either, because it didn't happen and now there are more supers movies in the pipeline than ever. Audiences will never get tired of big budget action-adventure movies, as long as they're well made and continue to entertain.

Hell yeah!!! And as long as the trailers look captivating enough. Marvel isn't that dumb,in a way that they would spend 100 or more millions on each comic book movie they make or are going to make.

roach

08-06-2010, 09:34 PM

Whiskey Tango

08-06-2010, 09:37 PM

I dont recall anyone in the industry saying that it was going to run its course....right now the GA is being bloated with superhero movies.

There were plenty of people talking about how tired general audiences were going to get of all the comic book flicks, the sky is falling, etc. And this was way back around the time of Spidey 2/X-Men 2 and even before then.

S.A.A.D.

08-06-2010, 09:40 PM

I dont recall anyone in the industry saying that it was going to run its course....right now the GA is being bloated with superhero movies....and people in the industry are saying that the superhero movie doesnt have long to go

Meh,it's a normal phase when the GA is being bloated when it comes to movies. Maybe,or yes,they do think that(the people in the industry). But they don't make up a lot of the general audience.

Matt Mortem

08-06-2010, 11:21 PM

Honestly? I think that comic book films at their core are good sci-fi or horror or action or whatever genre they happen to be. The GA isn't tired of films based on regular ol' novels are they??

BizarroAids

08-08-2010, 12:43 AM

Honestly? I think that comic book films at their core are good sci-fi or horror or action or whatever genre they happen to be. The GA isn't tired of films based on regular ol' novels are they??

Not even close! Look at the Twilight books, now Eat Pray Love, and soon to be the the Tattoo Dragon Chick (or whatever it's called).

Seems like with each new superhero movie, it raises the bar for the next with it's gross. Obviously they are appealing alot. I don't see comic films being doomed any time soon.

Doctor Jones

08-08-2010, 12:54 PM

People actually want to see Eat Pray Love? I predict a flop for Roberts there.

Brian Braddock

08-08-2010, 01:10 PM

Honestly? I think that comic book films at their core are good sci-fi or horror or action or whatever genre they happen to be. The GA isn't tired of films based on regular ol' novels are they??

Bingo - I've always thought that too. The only difference is that as opposed to using novels as source material, now they use comic books; but it's all sci-fi as far as I'm concerned.

As Whiskey-Tango said - 'Audiences will never get tired of big budget action-adventure movies, as long as they're well made and continue to entertain.'

Parker Wayne

08-08-2010, 01:31 PM

People actually want to see Eat Pray Love? I predict a flop for Roberts there.

Women

Men will have the Expendables
Teens will have Scott Pilgrim
Women will have Eat Pray Love

next weeks' going to be a busy week.

Doctor Jones

08-08-2010, 03:47 PM

I must be A MAN! Soctt Pilgrim looks cool but The mother****ing Expendables looks to be where it's at.

Sawyer

08-08-2010, 04:02 PM

I dont really want to see it, but Eat Pray Love looks better than most of the crap Roberts is ever in. :o

Doctor Jones

08-08-2010, 04:27 PM

Erin Brockovich was pretty good. But other than that she's in strangely popular chick flicks.

sabetoonth

08-08-2010, 04:30 PM

I must be A MAN! Soctt Pilgrim looks cool but The mother****ing Expendables looks to be where it's at.
agreeed

Sawyer

08-08-2010, 04:41 PM

Erin Brockovich was pretty good. But other than that she's in strangely popular chick flicks.

The thing about her is she's always pretty much the same character in almost every movie she's in except she has a different profession in each one.

Squidboy

08-08-2010, 06:59 PM

I think 3D movies are going to run their course long before CBM, but as long as the two are coexisting, I wouldn't mind seeing some good Marvel movies in 3D. I believe Cap, Thor, and Spidey are supposed to be 3D, and I wouldn't mind Iron Man 1&2 being re-released as a 3D double feature sometime down the line. So using this current fad could definitely help put more money into the revenue of superhero movies.

SpiderByte

08-08-2010, 08:25 PM

I'm back!

Anyone mind sending me a link where I can DL the trailer? I've seen it, but I want to keep it.

sabetoonth

08-08-2010, 08:52 PM

Goe to Keepvid, copy and paste the link, click "run" When prompted and then save it to your computer you may need to then convert it, theres a lot of free ones out there, i use anysoft free video converter to convert it to WMV so i can use it in videos

SpiderByte

08-08-2010, 08:54 PM

I know that, but I need a link to put into it.

sabetoonth

08-08-2010, 09:15 PM

youtube Avengers teaser?

SpiderByte

08-08-2010, 09:25 PM

Thanks.

Found a nice HQ one. Surprised they haven't been taken down yet.

sabetoonth

08-08-2010, 09:26 PM

becuase its offical release i think

RealIrOnMaN

08-09-2010, 01:59 PM

THE-BEST-TRAILER-EVER: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-fCTokuOU_E&feature=player_embedded

BizarroAids

08-09-2010, 04:08 PM

Hahah That's pretty awesome. Man I loved those old Captain America serials. I hope when it's closer for the release of "CA:TFA" they put those out on Blu-Ray/DVD. :up:

RealIrOnMaN

08-09-2010, 04:48 PM

Hahah That's pretty awesome. Man I loved those old Captain America serials. I hope when it's closer for the release of "CA:TFA" they put those out on Blu-Ray/DVD. :up:
Man, I wish they would include Cap's 60's song in the movie: "When CAPTAIN AMERICA throws his mighty shiiiieeeeeelddd. All those who chose to oppose his shield must yiiieeeeellld!" = http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lM7tSU2UFe0

Spider-Vader

08-09-2010, 04:49 PM

I think they'd be a cool bonus feature on the blu-ray of Cap. Maybe they can make them so that they were little propaganda films in CA:TFA.

C. Lee

08-09-2010, 04:58 PM

THE-BEST-TRAILER-EVER: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-fCTokuOU_E&feature=player_embedded

That was absolutelyfreakingawesome.....thanks for finding it and posting.:woot::woot:

Dark Raven

08-09-2010, 05:36 PM

Man, I wish they would include Cap's 60's song in the movie: "When CAPTAIN AMERICA throws his mighty shiiiieeeeeelddd. All those who chose to oppose his shield must yiiieeeeellld!" = http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lM7tSU2UFe0

I could easily see them including that as part of the USO show. Maybe it will be like a fanfare introduction. Or it could even be as part of a black and white news bulletin. It would certainly fit the time period and the style without sounding out of place.

First Avenger

08-10-2010, 03:06 AM

THE-BEST-TRAILER-EVER: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-fCTokuOU_E&feature=player_embedded

Really cool!

TNC9852002

08-10-2010, 10:12 AM

THE-BEST-TRAILER-EVER: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-fCTokuOU_E&feature=player_embedded
Whoa...is that real?

Antonello Blueberry

08-10-2010, 10:27 AM

That was absolutelyfreakingawesome.....thanks for finding it and posting.:woot::woot:
Adolfo Celi as Nick Fury was a strange choice, but funny. I wonder how long it took this guy to put it together.

C. Lee

08-10-2010, 10:38 AM

Adolfo Celi as Nick Fury was a strange choice, but funny. I wonder how long it took this guy to put it together.

I assume it wasn't easy to find a decent piece of film of someone with an eyepatch on the right side of the face. Burt Lancaster in CASTLE KEEP could have been used if the film was flipped over.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v178/C.Lee/lancaster.jpg?t=1281454461

I'd love to see someone try a full length fanedit of this.

Tony Stark

08-10-2010, 10:49 AM

THE-BEST-TRAILER-EVER: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-fCTokuOU_E&feature=player_embedded

That was awesome, and just makes me sad that Yul Brynner never got the chance to play Charles Xavier because he would have been the best! (Sorry Mr. Stewart).

HUMANIMAL

08-10-2010, 12:54 PM

http://splashpage.mtv.com/2010/08/10/nick-fury-shield-movie/

http://www.showbiz411.com/2010/08/10/marvel-movie-the-avengers-will-be-in-3-d

Aesop Rocks

08-10-2010, 02:05 PM

I don't understand why people dread 3-D movies. If you don't want to see a movie in 3-D, don't. Go watch it in 2D.

roach

08-10-2010, 02:10 PM

I love 3D...cant wait to learn how to film in 3D at school

ddddeeee

08-10-2010, 02:58 PM

I don't understand why people dread 3-D movies. If you don't want to see a movie in 3-D, don't. Go watch it in 2D.

Some of us don't get the option. I had no choice but to see Alice or Toy Story in 3D.

Parker Wayne

08-10-2010, 03:09 PM

I love good 3D too. I'm glad that they're shooting it in 3D. :yay:

Doctor Jones

08-10-2010, 04:27 PM

So is this film going to be the first Marvel Studios film under Disney? We gonna see the Disney logo before the Marvel one or what?

Sawyer

08-10-2010, 04:55 PM

So is this film going to be the first Marvel Studios film under Disney? We gonna see the Disney logo before the Marvel one or what?

I thought Avengers was being done by Paramount... I didn't think Disney would be fully involved until Dr. Strange.

SpiderByte

08-10-2010, 05:01 PM

Avengers was in pre-production before the Disney buy, so it's still under Paramount. Disney will start around Dr. Strange, which is good, because Disney and magic? Could there BE a better character to start with?

Maybe they'll put a Sanctum Sanctorum in Disney World.

SpiderByte

08-10-2010, 05:04 PM

As for the trailer, now that I've seen it in a better quality:

http://i267.photobucket.com/albums/ii289/SpiderByte_photo/fury.jpg

sabetoonth

08-10-2010, 05:06 PM

I admit that i would finally go to Disney World if they did that

Parker Wayne

08-10-2010, 05:24 PM

I'll go to Disney World now :awesome:

Sawyer

08-10-2010, 05:25 PM

More like Marvelworld. :awesome:

mclay18

08-10-2010, 08:12 PM

Avengers was in pre-production before the Disney buy, so it's still under Paramount. Disney will start around Dr. Strange, which is good, because Disney and magic?

Jamie did post in an IESB article that Disney was trying to sabotage the distribution deal Marvel has with Paramount. I've been hearing conflicting reports that Disney is distributing The Avengers, but if the distribution deal changes hands, wouldn't DHD or any of the trade papers report it? I'm confused.

If Jamie himself or Showtime can clarify this, I'd appreciate it.

SpiderByte

08-11-2010, 09:05 AM

DC's taking a leaf out of Marvel's book....by leaving out two characters in JL.

http://**************.com/fansites/Poniverse/news/?a=21147

Except, this time, the change is fifty times worse.

See, this is why Marvel introduces most of the characters first, THEN puts them together. There are only so many new characters you can throw into a movie. The only new hero in Avengers is Hawkeye, but JL is going to introduce WW, Aquaman, and Martian Manhunter...at the same time. That would work for Martian Manhunter, and maybe Aquaman too, but Wonder Woman? And no Batman or Superman?

Geez, it's like WB takes two steps forward and three steps back with whatever they do. They start off on the right path, but then get too impatient and try to force it out.

FaT_tONle

08-11-2010, 09:11 AM

KangConquers

08-11-2010, 09:19 AM

Everyone has got to do what is best for them and their situation... right now it's not conducive to take the same page out of Marvel. Batman/Superman don't need JLA to sell tickets, but we don't know if Flash/WW need those two either in a JLA for it to be successful. Nolan has enough on the table with Batman and now Supes... the last thing he needs to be worrying about is incorporating a DC cinematic universe. I am not completely opposed to leaving them out at the start.

Exactly; Wonderwoman, The Flash and Green Lantern are arguably as recognizable as Captain America, Iron Man and Thor. There's no more reason a JLA film without supes and bats can't draw viewers than saying "Well, avengers is screwed without spider-man."

Doctor Jones

08-11-2010, 09:22 AM

Spider-Man should be nowhere near the Avengers. I hate that idea so much.

SpiderByte

08-11-2010, 09:24 AM

SpiderByte

08-11-2010, 09:32 AM

Spider-Man should be nowhere near the Avengers. I hate that idea so much.

I'd rather him in there as a sort of honorary member, like, if they need a substitute, they call on him.

It'd fit his character a lot better.

FaT_tONle

08-11-2010, 09:45 AM

Well, having only two heroes with franchises meeting three unintroduced heroes doesn't exactly seem like a team-up. There needs to be more heroes in it with franchises than those without to seem more of a team-up. That logic was also applied in Avengers, with the Pyms. You can't force in so many new characters into one film which is supposed to be about seperate franchises meeting together. You can't make that work as well with only two, when there are five main heroes.

WB needs to be patient and wait for everything to fall into place. If they go through with JLA, they'll just be throwing out films just like they used to. I was hoping GL was indicating they'd started working on a connected universe, but it seems to only be held together by yarn.

Ant-Man didn't get his own movie. SHIELD didn't have a solo, so BW, Fury and now Hawkeye were/are coming in blind. Invaders aren't getting their own movies. At some point you just have to hope audiences will give you the benefit of the doubt and accept the concept of all these unfamiliar characters coming together. You think in a climate where audiences are wary of more Spidey/X-Men movies that a 100 million dollar Flash movie is going to be worth it? To be honest, I don't expect any more big budget solo movies from Marvel Studios after IM3, unless Thor/Cap do better than we think. Look at SM4's budget... :dry:

SpiderByte

08-11-2010, 09:59 AM

Ant-Man didn't get his own movie. SHIELD didn't have a solo, so BW, Fury and now Hawkeye were/are coming in blind. Invaders aren't getting their own movies. At some point you just have to hope audiences will give you the benefit of the doubt and accept the concept of all these unfamiliar characters coming together. You think in a climate where audiences are wary of more Spidey/X-Men movies that a 100 million dollar Flash movie is going to be worth it? To be honest, I don't expect any more big budget solo movies from Marvel Studios after IM3, unless Thor/Cap do better than we think. Look at SM4's budget... :dry:

That's kind of my point. His film is still being written, but they already have too many new characters in already, and they only have room for one more. They gave it to Hawkeye.

And, to be fair, Fury isn't really a superhero. He just runs SHIELD.

Introducing the Invaders in one film is totally different. They won't be in Avengers, they'll only be in one film, unless they decide to use them again. Black Widow and Hawkeye were the only heroes IN AVENGERS that don't have real backstories, which is what the future SHIELD movie will likely explore.

Marvel may have unintroduced characters, but they plan to cover all their bases. DC just wants to get it done.

hatebox

08-11-2010, 10:10 AM

Shame it's going to be in 3D, but it was totally inevitable. And no, it being filmed in 3D doesn't make me any happier about it...

Brian Braddock

08-11-2010, 10:52 AM

Does that definately mean that there wont be a 2D version then?

marvelrobbins

08-11-2010, 11:12 AM

Has It been confirmed It will be In 3-d?Joss Whedon Is on record as not being fan of 3-d.Also when It comes to Justice League why do people take ComicBookFilm seriously?

First Avenger

08-11-2010, 11:27 AM

Yes it's pretty sure at this point.I don't know what to think about this.

roach

08-11-2010, 11:31 AM

I dont think its up to Whedon...its up to Marvel

First Avenger

08-11-2010, 11:39 AM

^Agree 100%.

SpiderByte

08-11-2010, 11:54 AM

Shame it's going to be in 3D, but it was totally inevitable. And no, it being filmed in 3D doesn't make me any happier about it...

What, you don't want to see Cap throw his shield right at the screen? Or Thor?

As long as it isn't written for 3D, it should work. The best idea is to write it as a regular film, film it in 3D, but in a way where the effect would still look good in 2D. Like, if it's a cool shot, then 3D could be used to enhance it. But for regular scenes, like talking, it doesn't really need it, so you can convert those bits.

Crimson King

08-11-2010, 11:55 AM

They start off on the right path, but then get too impatient and try to force it out.

You just described my last six bowel movements.

FaT_tONle

08-11-2010, 12:07 PM

That's kind of my point. His film is still being written, but they already have too many new characters in already, and they only have room for one more. They gave it to Hawkeye.

And, to be fair, Fury isn't really a superhero. He just runs SHIELD.

Introducing the Invaders in one film is totally different. They won't be in Avengers, they'll only be in one film, unless they decide to use them again. Black Widow and Hawkeye were the only heroes IN AVENGERS that don't have real backstories, which is what the future SHIELD movie will likely explore.

Marvel may have unintroduced characters, but they plan to cover all their bases. DC just wants to get it done.

So what's the solution? Put out 100-150 million Flash, WW, GL, MM, Aquaman movies along with Superman/Batman franchises, do it all within 4-5 years so you don't have to replace actors, then do a JLA movie with all that? Even if they get unknowns that are separate from the solo franchises for Bats/Supes, that is just not realistic, and I am not even sure WB has the time and resources for all that considering all the other projects they have to deal with. Until DC becomes a separate studio it's just not feasible. No reason to think DC can not go independent, but outside of the success Batman, I don't think they are big enough to do that. They need Superman and Lantern to do damage first. Even then, you probably need sequels to those before any kind of crossover.

SpiderByte

08-11-2010, 12:11 PM

I'm just saying it would owrk better with more characters being introduced first. I'm not saying MM should get a movie, he should show up in JL. Aquaman is optional either way, but WW should get a film.

It just doesn't feel like a teamup.

FaT_tONle

08-11-2010, 12:17 PM

Well, you aren't going to introduce Manhunter in Batman. Even Superman, you don't want to detract from Metropolis, Kent, Luthor, Lane, and the Daily Planet with anything alluding to bigger intergalactic threats or a multitude of new superheroes. Then fanboys will go in circles similar to how SHIELD/Avengers detracted from IM2 and Thor in the future. I personally don't think it did, but people still had major issues with it. WB's approach is completely stand alone movies that are independent. Not exactly conducive to cross pollinating without some major give and take.

misjuevos

08-11-2010, 02:20 PM

SpiderByte

08-11-2010, 02:27 PM

Well, it's their own damn fault.

roach

08-11-2010, 02:32 PM

i feel kinda bad for dc, they really only have the jla, you think they would try to be patient and get it right. marvel studios has the avengers right now, but in the future they might get back the x-men and ff, so they really have a deeper pool, team wise that is.

not really DC has just as many rich and popular characters and teams as Marvel

Teen Titans
JSA
Dr Fate
Green Lantern Corp
Outsiders
Checkmate
Catwoman

misjuevos

08-11-2010, 02:38 PM

not really DC has just as many rich and popular characters and teams as Marvel

Teen Titans
JSA
Dr Fate
Green Lantern Corp
Outsiders
Checkmate
Catwoman

im talking about major teams, that other teams spawned off from. also the jla jsa and teen titans are pretty much the same type of team and really are just different iterations of each other. avengers, x-men, ff, are different teams entirely. from the avengers and x-men you have multiple teams that are similar, but im only refering to the major teams. the rest are just eventual progressions of the original teams.

SpiderByte

08-11-2010, 02:39 PM

The Green Lantern Corps can't really expand outside of Green Lantern that much.

Donut

08-11-2010, 02:44 PM

i feel kinda bad for dc, they really only have the jla, you think they would try to be patient and get it right. marvel studios has the avengers right now, but in the future they might get back the x-men and ff, so they really have a deeper pool, team wise that is.

How can anyone feel bad for DC ? They are the ones afraid to take risks. Aside from the Superman Lawsuit they 100 % own all of their other properties unlike Marvel & Disney. DC is in the mess it is in because of DC

roach

08-11-2010, 02:50 PM

SpiderByte

08-11-2010, 02:53 PM

misjuevos

08-11-2010, 02:56 PM

the reason why DC isnt doing what marvel is doing is because marvel is desperate(bear with me).
WB can put out any type of film and survive. Superhero films are not their bread and butter...in fact they arent even the caesar's salad that comes before the main course.

Marvel on the other hand has only superhero movies. If and when the superhero bubble busts Marvel is going to be in a bad place

i agree, i actually said something similar to this in other threads multiple times,lol.some people asked if these movies bomb(cap,thor ) what it would mean . but i said that marvel only does superhero movies so you can bet they will keep pushing forward with projects. you favorite character might eventually get made into a movie.

roach

08-11-2010, 03:00 PM

Marvel has Disney to back them up. I don't think 'desperate' is what comes to mind, more like 'doing their job'.

They are making movies from the only properties they own. Of course they will use them to make films. That's kind of what studios do.

yes they are doing what movie studios do but they have finite amount of choices to make flicks on.
think of it this way......

Two resturants. Taco Bell and an authentic Mexican resturant.
Lets say that for some reason people stop eating Tacos...which one is going to get hurt more by it??? Taco bell right
The mexican resturant may get hurt but they have the whole gamit of mexican cuisine to fall back on

SpiderByte

08-11-2010, 03:03 PM

yes they are doing what movie studios do but they have finite amount of choices to make flicks on.
think of it this way......

Two resturants. Taco Bell and an authentic Mexican resturant.
Lets say that for some reason people stop eating Tacos...which one is going to get hurt more by it??? Taco bell right
The mexican resturant may get hurt but they have the whole gamit of mexican cuisine to fall back on

Finite?

They have almost the entire ****ing Marvel UNIVERSE to choose from to make movies from.

Each character they get back unlocks a whole new opportunity for them. The fact that WB makes other films besides DC films does not make the DC films any better.

misjuevos

08-11-2010, 03:08 PM

he is just saying dc can take time while marvel studios is striking while the iron is hot, so to speak.

SpiderByte

08-11-2010, 03:13 PM

Isn't striking while the iron is hot a good thing in these situations?

misjuevos

08-11-2010, 03:38 PM

Isn't striking while the iron is hot a good thing in these situations?

not always, sometimes quality suffers or you get a few eyes to watch your movie amongst the mass of similar movies. also you could fall into the TIH not getting circulated or just overshadowed by iron man sort of thing.

Doctor Jones

08-11-2010, 04:33 PM

DC has had these properties for 30 years and they're just getting started? Marvel studios is doing what they are doing: Making comic book films. I mean what else can they do? Make films that have nothing to do with comic books? We'll see what happens with WB. But them diving right into JL without introducing their characters in individual films isn't a good idea. Maybe from a financial standpoint, but if they want more franchises and more films from the different characters, JL first isn't the way to go. Marvel has done the opposite of introducing the individual in their own films and building up to The Avengers. Now this is risky. But in the end, we'll see how both Marvel and DC turn out. You could argue DC is taking taking their time, but I just don't think they have any idea what to do. They're taking a page from Marvel really if they're going to do JL. Marvel had this planned from the start in setting up their studio. There have been some bumps, but when has that never happened? DC just has Batman as their poster boy and they have no ****ing idea what to do with Superman. They still don't if that means handing it over to Nolan, but that's another discussion. GL will be their first big potential franchise in a long time. We'll see if it pays off. I hope it does. Then DC can get on the ball. Because they are late to the party.

Although no one back in the 90's ever thought of the possibility of the Avengers or a film universe. I think WB just followed what worked best at the time and worked with that. But they haven't been doing a good job in the past decade with their DC films other than Batman. Then the potentially disasterous JL film a few years back. That was just a horrible idea. WB is just going along with it and finally getting to the party. WB cares about their properties and their filmmakers it seems, but they still don't really have a clue what to do with the DC universe other than Batman and Nolan. Nolan is their safe way out of things. He means dollar signs for them. They probably bow to him now. They use him because they brought him money and the Batman franchise seemed to work for them, but what mattered to them was that it was successful. So that means to them if Nolan is near anything else DC, it means good things, like Superman. I know this sounds kind of out of place, but this ties into how WB works their properties. They're just late to everything.

Aesop Rocks

08-11-2010, 04:40 PM

Anyways, I can't wait to hear "Avengers Assemble!" for the first time.

Blackman

08-11-2010, 04:41 PM

the reason why DC isnt doing what marvel is doing is because marvel is desperate(bear with me).
WB can put out any type of film and survive. Superhero films are not their bread and butter...in fact they arent even the caesar's salad that comes before the main course.

Marvel on the other hand has only superhero movies. If and when the superhero bubble busts Marvel is going to be in a bad place
I agree with this, as much as I dont like it. Its true WB has over 30 franchises that they can use not counting DC characters

OT: In some weird way isnt Blade owned by WB since WB bout New Line?

eddy

08-12-2010, 01:20 AM

Has It been confirmed It will be In 3-d?Joss Whedon Is on record as not being fan of 3-d.Also when It comes to Justice League why do people take ComicBookFilm seriously?

where did you read that Whedon is not a fan of 3d? He says here (http://whedonesque.com/comments/24528) that he loves 3d.

So I saw the NYTimes article about 3D, in which I am clearly against it after having said I love it. Frustrating. Anyone at that panel would have heard more about why I think it's a delightful, immersive experience and particularly right for the little art film I'm making

Thats pretty much confirmation from Whedon himself that he wants to film Avengers in 3d.

marvelrobbins

08-12-2010, 07:20 AM

One article from Comic Con said Whedon was not a fan of 3d.

Doctor Jones

08-12-2010, 07:27 AM

That's wrong. I saw the video myself. He said he "totally dug" it. He agreed that stuff like Cabin in the Woods shouldn't be in 3D, but he never said he was against it.

marvelrobbins

08-12-2010, 09:37 AM

It was reported like he was against It.

SpiderByte

08-12-2010, 11:40 AM

Guess the report was wrong.

SpiderByte

08-12-2010, 11:44 AM

EDIT: Thor footage in it, nvm.

Doctor Jones

08-12-2010, 07:40 PM

It was reported like he was against It.

Well you read words. I saw and heard it from the man's mouth on the video. Now agree with me! :cmad::cmad:

JeetKuneDo

08-12-2010, 11:16 PM

That's kind of my point. His film is still being written, but they already have too many new characters in already, and they only have room for one more. They gave it to Hawkeye.

And, to be fair, Fury isn't really a superhero. He just runs SHIELD.

Introducing the Invaders in one film is totally different. They won't be in Avengers, they'll only be in one film, unless they decide to use them again. Black Widow and Hawkeye were the only heroes IN AVENGERS that don't have real backstories, which is what the future SHIELD movie will likely explore.

Marvel may have unintroduced characters, but they plan to cover all their bases. DC just wants to get it done.

Seems to me BW has already been introduced. So really Hawkeye is the only one audiences won't be familiar with.

I'm just saying it would owrk better with more characters being introduced first. I'm not saying MM should get a movie, he should show up in JL. Aquaman is optional either way, but WW should get a film.

It just doesn't feel like a teamup.

WW and Aquaman may not need films. Is it possible that pretty much everyone knows who they are already? A WW movie scares me. I'm not sure it would work. Aquaman has to overcome the rep as "lamest superhero of all time". (That's the impression I get of how he is perceived anyway)

where did you read that Whedon is not a fan of 3d? He says here (http://whedonesque.com/comments/24528) that he loves 3d.

Thats pretty much confirmation from Whedon himself that he wants to film Avengers in 3d.

I'm almost positive I heard Whedon make a derisive joke about 3D not long ago. Not sure where. (one of the 10,000 videos I've watched lately) I assume he would stop that talk now. :)

DCnightwing23

08-12-2010, 11:44 PM

Of course Whedon wants to do this movie in 3D and Imax as well, many reports are that him and wb are targeting the record set by avatar ranking in the bigs bucks, we all know how avatar went with practically everything it could to make more money and i can imagine Whedon doing the same, especially since the movie is gonna take a huge amount of money to make.

JeetKuneDo

08-12-2010, 11:54 PM

Just did a little digging for videos and I may have been thinking of JJ Abrams on a panel he and Whedon did together. Abrams was the one who expressed a mild dislike for 3D.

RealIrOnMaN

08-14-2010, 08:48 AM

Movie-Con III: Marvel Presentation – The Avengers

1) Question: Directing "Thor" at the same time people are doing "Iron Man" and "Captain America", how do you feel passing your character along to Joss Whedon?

Kenneth Branagh: “I was shooting this at the time that Jon Favreau was doing "Iron Man 2", and Joe Johnston was around, so it was an incredibly friendly and supportive atmosphere. It was incredibly useful to have conversations with them that this one (Feige) doesn’t here.

There was a collegiate feel; I spoke to Joss a while ago as well. You feel like you’re part of the same thing. Even though I’m concentrating on getting this film finished, they keep me filled in on how this fits in. You’re the temporary guardian of something lots of people feel passionate about, so I’m very glad to have custody for a short time.”

2) Quesion: Is this a particularly big film for Marvel? How difficult is that?

Kevin Feige: “They’re all big, for Marvel. They are all the future of the studio. But this is particularly big in that the idea of heroes crossing into each other’s movies and fighting side-by-side has never been done before, unless they start as a team, and now we get to do that."

“Well, logistically it’s a bear. But they did it in the comics first, and they did it pretty darn well."

3) Question: The Avengers originally got together because of Loki – will he turn up?

Kevin Feige: “Well, the great thing is that anybody we have the rights to could turn up. But that is a character at our disposal. Here’s the little teaser..."

We saw a Comic-Con teaser and then saw a specially recorded message from Joss Whedon, who wanted to thank “the person to our left” for being a fan. He’s in pre-production, “working on tiny details like the story” and promises "it’s going to be spectacular. Like, OMG!”

Spider-Vader

08-14-2010, 05:51 PM

I'm really loving how intertwined these movies are. There really hasn't been anything like this on film up to now.

Aztec

08-14-2010, 06:19 PM

I'm really loving how intertwined these movies are. There really hasn't been anything like this on film up to now.

Agreed. It really makes it special. Although if you can believe it there is actually a thread where fanboys are whining about that very revolutionary concept...:doh:

Some people just can't be pleased. The curse of the snarky fanboy lives on...:csad:

Great find with lots of information in a short interview.

Doctor Jones

08-14-2010, 07:16 PM

Paradoxal

08-14-2010, 10:04 PM

Hi there. Sorry if this has been asked before, but who is speculated to be the villain in this movie?

Gamma Goliath

08-14-2010, 10:19 PM

Loki. But some think its thanos or the skrulls

Parker Wayne

08-15-2010, 01:11 PM

I know. We hear people for years complaining about crossovers. Now that they're happening they're claiming it's ruining the movies.

IM2 gets too much flack for tying in, but it didn't feel off to me. It all tied into Tony progression as a character.

I know. It felt natural. Many people that didn't know the books didn't think it was off too. I didn't think that it was a problem with the film.

Spider-Vader

08-15-2010, 04:01 PM

I know. We hear people for years complaining about crossovers. Now that they're happening they're claiming it's ruining the movies.

IM2 gets too much flack for tying in, but it didn't feel off to me. It all tied into Tony progression as a character.

Made it feel more like a comic book IMO. Spider-Man, X-Men & Batman movies DON'T feel like the comics because they're in worlds by themselves.

Project862006

08-15-2010, 10:09 PM

Awesome Joss Whedon Video Interview

http://video.about.com/movies/Joss-Whedon-Avengers.htm

Docker2.0

08-15-2010, 10:30 PM

Made it feel more like a comic book IMO. Spider-Man, X-Men & Batman movies DON'T feel like the comics because they're in worlds by themselves.

I disagree. The Marvel Studio movies seem to be more "grounded" in reality than the X-men and Spidey films, which do feel like comic boook movies. Nolan's Batman is the only one that seems to be reality based but I think Marvel's movies are not far behind.

JeetKuneDo

08-15-2010, 11:01 PM

Awesome Joss Whedon Video Interview

http://video.about.com/movies/Joss-Whedon-Avengers.htm

Saw that already, but worth another view. :) Sheesh...I want to take up acting so I can work with Whedon. :hrt:

I disagree. The Marvel Studio movies seem to be more "grounded" in reality than the X-men and Spidey films, which do feel like comic boook movies. Nolan's Batman is the only one that seems to be reality based but I think Marvel's movies are not far behind.

For some reason this reminds me of a Grant Morrison (Batman writer) DC podcast in which he spends about 5 minutes answering a question about "realism". It's actually the first question. The poor fan must have felt undressed as he went on and on about how it makes no sense to him that fans obsess over realism. One quote was something like "We've already got the real world, why do you want fiction to be like the real world?"

http://www.dccomics.com/media/podcasts/DCComics_2010-07-23_DC_Focus_Grant_Morrison_at_SDCC_2010.mp3

Since he's the Batman writer, I may as well mention that I've always thought a good case could be made that Batman is one of the least "realistic" heroes in that his situation is less plausible. An alien from another world having super powers or mutants works in a storytelling context...but a guy in a batsuit with no powers actually surviving more than a week in the streets? I don't think the real life mob is going to put up with that one.

mclay18

08-15-2010, 11:25 PM

we all know how avatar went with practically everything it could to make more money and i can imagine Whedon doing the same, especially since the movie is gonna take a huge amount of money to make.

Marvel's kept costs down by lowball offers and multi-film contracts for the main leading actors. The thing is, the amount of visual effects shots like for Thor's hammer, Iron Man and War Machine are going to eat up a significant portion of the budget. Then add in costs for shooting in Los Angeles as opposed to a state with nice tax incentives or a European country with cheap labor (like Bulgaria or Czech Republic). And add in the cost to shoot in 3D, either with the Red One or the Fusion cameras used for Avatar. You're looking at a movie that'll be north of $200M, without factoring P&A costs.

Kirmit

08-16-2010, 04:31 AM

Marvel's kept costs down by lowball offers and multi-film contracts for the main leading actors. The thing is, the amount of visual effects shots like for Thor's hammer, Iron Man and War Machine are going to eat up a significant portion of the budget. Then add in costs for shooting in Los Angeles as opposed to a state with nice tax incentives or a European country with cheap labor (like Bulgaria or Czech Republic). And add in the cost to shoot in 3D, either with the Red One or the Fusion cameras used for Avatar. You're looking at a movie that'll be north of $200M, without factoring P&A costs.

Add to the Cgi budget the 9 foot tall green guy, I forget his name...:oldrazz:.

Wolvieboy17

08-16-2010, 05:32 AM

I'm sure having alot of the special effects models already designed will make things substantially easier, and Whedon is quite good at stretching a special effects budget. Plus, as if they're not gonna have a huge budget for this film anyway.

Matt Mortem

08-16-2010, 10:00 AM

having most of the R&D out of the way is gonna be good for this film. Not having to figure out Thor, Cap, Iron Man and Hulks design is going to save them time

mclay18

08-16-2010, 10:29 AM

I'm sure having alot of the special effects models already designed will make things substantially easier, and Whedon is quite good at stretching a special effects budget.

I keep forgetting Whedon's directing this thing. The guy can do miracles with a small budget (Serenity's $39M budget was used really well), and even though Marvel's going to cap the budget, he can work efficiently around it.

Heck, I think Whedon could deliver a quality Avengers movie below $200M if he gets creative enough. I wonder who Marvel will hire to do the photography on this movie, I don't know if Jack Green likes shooting digitally or not.

Wolvieboy17

08-16-2010, 02:48 PM

God bless Joss 'F**king' Whedon!

roach

08-16-2010, 02:56 PM

I'm really loving how intertwined these movies are. There really hasn't been anything like this on film up to now.

yes there has but I dont feel like getting fanboy blasted again...its been done before

Majik1387

08-16-2010, 05:00 PM

yes there has but I dont feel like getting fanboy blasted again...its been done before
Not really. Not the way that the Marvel films have been setting it up. Closest you'll come to is the Kevin Smith movies.

RealIrOnMaN

08-16-2010, 05:19 PM

"The Avengers" to Be Shot in 3D?

Will The Avengers be shot in 3D? Marvel Studio's current plan is to convert Thor into 3D once the film is completed, and the recent footage shown at Comic-Con was presented in this format. Captain America: The First Avenger is also set to be converted into 3D, with its effects being rendered instead of converted.

Now word comes from Showbiz 411 that Joss Whedon will actually be shooting The Avengers using 3D equipment as opposed to converting the film once it has been shot.

This will be the first time Marvel Studios has actually shot a film in the popular 3D format. Whedon and the studio have hinted for some time that The Avengers would be presented in 3D. Showbiz 411 is reporting that efforts to actually shoot the film instead of converting it are a "done deal".

The 3D news hasn't been confirmed by Marvel Studios as of yet.

Link: http://www.movieweb.com/news/NErIiVQNninFvv

Aesop Rocks

08-16-2010, 05:21 PM

I wish Marvel would understand that conversion 3D is terrible.

Parker Wayne

08-16-2010, 05:26 PM

RealIrOnMaN

08-16-2010, 05:26 PM

I wish Marvel would understand that conversion 3D is terrible.
Same here, man. It just... just doesn't feels right. Especially after what I've heard of "Clash of The Titans" 3D converted failure.

RealIrOnMaN

08-16-2010, 05:27 PM

I believe that with the above post Marvel is getting it. The conversion of 3D is nothing but a cash grab.
Exactly!

SpiderByte

08-16-2010, 05:54 PM

They're doing mostly practical conversion with Thor, but most of the CGI will be made in 3D. So it's going to be better than CotT.

RealIrOnMaN

08-16-2010, 06:02 PM

They're doing mostly practical conversion with Thor, but most of the CGI will be made in 3D. So it's going to be better than CotT.
Then, I'm okay with it. Some people from Movie-Con III said, that Thor 3D footage looked good.

SpiderByte

08-16-2010, 06:04 PM

Ooh, good conversion!

Imagine getting the hammer thrown at you in 3D!

....

DUCK!

RealIrOnMaN

08-16-2010, 06:09 PM

Ooh, good conversion!

Imagine getting the hammer thrown at you in 3D!

....

DUCK!
Yep! But I am more excited of the Destroyer's BEAM!!!! FWOOSH!

SpiderByte

08-16-2010, 06:12 PM

Yep! But I am more excited of the Destroyer's BEAM!!!! FWOOSH!

http://objection.mrdictionary.net/go.php?n=4217004

RealIrOnMaN

08-16-2010, 06:15 PM

http://objection.mrdictionary.net/go.php?n=4217004
LOOOOL! That was kinda unexpected, really)

Chewy

08-16-2010, 07:45 PM

The entire 3D craze just kind of makes me sad.

Parker Wayne

08-16-2010, 07:50 PM

The 3D craze isn't bad when films are shot in 3D. If I don't want to see it in 3D, I don't have to and that the situation for most places.

Blackman

08-16-2010, 07:51 PM

I dont gets whats so bad if you can still see it in 2D. And Thor at least the Asgard parts I think are really cool for 3D, but Cap Im not so sure about

Doctor Jones

08-16-2010, 10:10 PM

Bullets whirling, explosions closer to you, the sound and such even better. Imagine something like that in IMAX 3D.

SpiderByte

08-16-2010, 10:37 PM

That sounds like something Michael Bay made.

"Sound so real, you'll feel like you're actually being shot at!"

08-17-2010, 10:59 AM

Wait, is this movie distributed by Disney or Paramount?

Gamma Goliath

08-17-2010, 11:44 AM

Paramount.

Gamma Goliath

08-17-2010, 01:26 PM

I didn't quite know where to post this.

http://movies.ign.com/articles/111/1113337p1.html

Gamma Goliath

08-17-2010, 01:27 PM

double

Spider-Vader

08-17-2010, 01:44 PM

I think that fits perfectly here.

Son of Coul

08-17-2010, 02:36 PM

That Vanity Fair interviewer was such a douche.

Not really. Not the way that the Marvel films have been setting it up. Closest you'll come to is the Kevin Smith movies.
And the Universal Horror movies of the 30s/40s. I actually consider the MCU to be sort of a modern day version of that.

RealIrOnMaN

08-17-2010, 03:41 PM

"The Avengers" in 3D rumor - Debunked!

From Joss Whedon's Entertainment Weekly: The Visionaires:

JJ Abrams also confirmed that Super 8 will not be in 3D.

"I'm totally into it," Whedon said of the 3D craze. "I think it's being done to much now that we're past the pancake, poke things into the screen 3D. There are movies that shouldn't be in 3D," he said. He also said he doesn't write with 3D in mind. "There's no, 'then the sharp thing comes at him,'" he joked.

Whedon mentioned his horror movie Cabin in the Woods won't be in 3D, but joked it as a selling point. "We're hoping we can advertise it 'in 2D. You will believe things can move across the screen—'Cabin in the Woods.'" Whedon said he doesn't believe 3D will take over completely.

Link: http://www.comicbookresources.com/?id=27370&page=article

SpiderByte

08-17-2010, 04:16 PM

Wait...how does that debunk it? Doesn't that confirm it, since he says he likes 3D?

Hell, it didn't even mention whether or not Avengers will be in 3D, so....

Doctor Jones

08-17-2010, 04:16 PM

I hope it doesn't. I'd like to have the option. I'm okay with 3D existing, as long as I don't have to see it in every single film I go to.

RealIrOnMaN

08-17-2010, 04:40 PM

Wait...how does that debunk it? Doesn't that confirm it, since he says he likes 3D?

Hell, it didn't even mention whether or not Avengers will be in 3D, so....
Well, he wasn't into it back at Comic-Con. So...

But if Marvel will pay him enough money, he could change his opinion about 3D movies and do The Avengers in this popular format.

louiebling$

08-17-2010, 05:41 PM

ACtully there are some films that I wish would hve when the 3D route(filmed in 3D)

After seeing Scott Pilgrim vs The World last night after I got out of the theaters I was like wow now THAT should have been in 3D

Blackman

08-17-2010, 05:52 PM

Eh. Avengers is mostly going to be set on Earth, right? If so, 3D is no big deal for me. Not a bonus, not a minus.

In regards to Hawkeye's outfit I actually wouldnt mind them using the House of M costume as basis.
http://i38.tinypic.com/29m1t9g.jpg
http://i37.tinypic.com/28kq9a0.jpg

I still prefer the purple Ultimate costume though

Aesop Rocks

08-17-2010, 05:53 PM

I don't.

SpiderByte

08-17-2010, 06:07 PM

I think the torso of the Ultimates suit would work well. If they can get the 616 mask to work, then they can do that. Or they could go maskless.

Darkness Falls

08-17-2010, 06:14 PM

i'd go with the ultimates look
or base it kinda like the green arrow's on smallville (which is kinda exactly the same anyway)

The Question

08-17-2010, 06:29 PM

I think the torso of the Ultimates suit would work well. If they can get the 616 mask to work, then they can do that. Or they could go maskless.

I don't want the torso from The Ultimates. The Ultimates had this weird aesthetic by the end where every new character had this weird lined texture on their outfits. I didn't care for it.

SpiderByte

08-17-2010, 06:40 PM

I was thinking more of the general idea, rather than texture.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/__faI83aSYiQ/TD5qzVOR4hI/AAAAAAAAAx8/qtsfv1gsUDI/s1600/440px-Ult_Hawkeye.jpg

Like, that chest, without the padding effect on the chest.

SpiderByte

08-17-2010, 09:02 PM

I'm personally hoping for a scene where Steve talks to Tony about when he met his dad.

Aztec

08-17-2010, 09:04 PM

I'm personally hoping for a scene where Steve talks to Tony about when he met his dad.

Absolutely. That could be a touching scene that chills a previously hostile relationship.

SpiderByte

08-17-2010, 09:07 PM

Hell, it would be epic if Steve recognized Fury, and asked him how he lived so long.

Spider-Vader

08-18-2010, 12:24 PM

Only if Fury is a kid in the Cap movie. It really doesn't make sense for Fury to be fighting in WW2 if he was black.

Aztec

08-18-2010, 12:28 PM

Actually a lot of African Americans fought in WW2. They were just in segregated units.

Spider-Vader

08-18-2010, 12:29 PM

Yeah, but I don't think they would put one on a special ops team (the Howling Commandoes/Invaders).

MultiPurposePon

08-18-2010, 12:37 PM

Yeah, but I don't think they would put one on a special ops team (the Howling Commandoes/Invaders).

Ummm..

http://www.mannythemovieguy.com/images/tuskegee-airmen.jpg

The Tuskegee Airmen were the first African American military aviators in the United States armed forces. During World War II, African Americans in many U.S. states still were subject to Jim Crow laws (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Crow_laws). The American military was racially segregated (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_segregation_in_the_United_States), as was much of the federal government. The Tuskegee Airmen were subject to racial discrimination, both within and outside the army. Despite these adversities, they flew with distinction. They were particularly successful in their missions as bomber escorts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escort_fighter) in Europe.

IMO, a specialized, behind-enemy-lines group like the HC is the perfect team to showcase African American ground troops. Not that unbelievable considering the superpowered Invaders will be in the film as well.

SpiderByte

08-18-2010, 12:40 PM

This is S.H.I.E.L.D, remember? They're an entire different organization. Thus, different policy.

Not to mention the fact that it would make the future shock easier for Steve if he has someone he knows with him.

Wait...how old is Thunderbolt Ross?

SpiderByte

08-18-2010, 12:48 PM

I just realized there's a pattern to the way Marvel Studios releases it's films.

Think about it:

2008: Iron Man, Incredible Hulk
2010: Iron Man 2
2011: Thor, Captain America: The First Avenger
2012: The Avengers

It alternates between two films and one film, when they release it. Not by year, but when they release them. It could be coincidence, but it's already happened twice so far.

Based on that, we can assume the schedule, my guess is:

2013 or 2014: Iron Man 3 and Ant-Man
2014 or 2015: Thor 2
2015 or 2016: Captain America 2 and S.H.I.E.L.D
2016 or 2017: Avengers 2

It could be coincidence, but if they are using a pattern, this would be the best estimate about it.

Whaddya think?

Jerkofwonder

08-18-2010, 01:31 PM

I think as they get more money they'll release more movies per year. I'd be surprised if after Avengers we get another 1 marvel studios movie year. Especially if they start doing lower budget movies for smaller characters.

sabetoonth

08-18-2010, 01:37 PM

GIMME STRANGE DAMNIT!

It does kinda make sense though

FaT_tONle

08-18-2010, 01:55 PM

The pattern only got screwed up because of the strike. After Avengers, it should be one tentpole a year... and a second tier in the Fall/Winter/Spring. They won't be obligated to the summer because Disney is taking over at that point. I'll say...

Nov-Dec 2012 Dr. Strange
May 2013 IM3
Nov-Dec 2013 Ant-Man
2014 Thor 2 or Cap 2 and SHIELD
2015 Avengers 2

If Avengers don't get sequels then they have to move on those supernatural/intergalactic properties for tentpoles. They have plenty of C-listers to sprinkle in wherever.

SpiderByte

08-18-2010, 02:00 PM

Didn't Marvel say they were only releasing Avengers from Marvel Studios in 2012?

FaT_tONle

08-18-2010, 02:08 PM

Maybe for that summer. I still think they can have something out by the end of the year. Unlikely considering how slow they are but Disney said they'd like to go forward with Dr. Strange. Maybe not after Sorcerer's Apprentice flopped.

This from the X-Men boards....

If that wasn't enough to keep her fans satiated, this next bit of information certainly will: Marvel Studio wishes to include her in their ensemble superhero film, The Avengers, as a villain. The role, albeit minor, would serve to tie together another of their properties; since the villainous character is most notably featured in Thor comic story (http://forums.superherohype.com/showthread.php?t=338401&page=6#) lines. Though the role has yet to be given a name, fans of the character should undoubtedly be able to pinpoint who it is. Her would be Alice Eve, who after withdrawing from the role of Emma Frost, has been replaced with January Jones. I am thinking Enchantress? Maybe Moonstone? Doesn't seem likely though. Sue Storm could be her FOURTH targeted Marvel role.

Doctor Jones

08-18-2010, 03:25 PM

Wait, Frost as the villain? I'm confused. If so, it's not possible.

Doctor Jones

08-18-2010, 03:30 PM

Absolutely. That could be a touching scene that chills a previously hostile relationship.

Since I suspect Tony and Steve to not get along the first time they meet, when Rogers finds out he's related to his father, he tells Tony his father was a better man than he was. This would bother Tony, and he would either prove himself to Steve or to his father or to himself. There could be some personal issues for Tony regarding his father in The Avengers, and why he's doing it. Is he doing it just to be on the team or for more personal reasons namely his father? Is he obligated? Or is it because he himself feels it's the right thing to do? Then when they start to understand eachother Steve should tell how Tony about his father and what he did. This would affect Tony in that he didn't seem to know about his fathr much and have a huge relationship, so through Steve he would feel some sort of fulfullment. I feel the big four each have to go on a personal journey in this film if they're gonna have to work together.

Pac-Master

08-18-2010, 03:36 PM

Chewy

08-18-2010, 03:37 PM

Didn't Marvel say they were only releasing Avengers from Marvel Studios in 2012?
Runaways

mclay18

08-18-2010, 04:06 PM

Runaways

We only have a writer and director attached for Runaways -- it's still in early stages of development. Who knows, it might get delayed and it'll be released under the Disney/Touchstone banner rather than Paramount (which included Runaways as part of its distribution deal with Marvel).

SpiderByte

08-18-2010, 04:09 PM

Never heard of them. Will they part of the Mainstream Cinematic Universe, or one on it's own?

Chewy

08-18-2010, 04:19 PM

We only have a writer and director attached for Runaways -- it's still in early stages of development. Who knows, it might get delayed and it'll be released under the Disney/Touchstone banner rather than Paramount (which included Runaways as part of its distribution deal with Marvel).
Yeah but as of now they're in the very early stages of casting and are tentatively planning to begin filming in the first half of next year. It might not make it for 2012 but they're obviously currently aiming for a 2012 date.