Mark Millar now snubbing Marvel Disney...?

[Sardaukar]

Originally Posted by JP

Not at all recently.

I'm taking the recent films into account. Doesn't change the fact that the bad has outweighed the good with Fox and they haven't convinced me that First Class was not a fluke...

[Hawkingbird]

Originally Posted by FilmNerdJamie

Nothing wrong with popcorn cinema, folks.

I agree, it was a darn good movie

[Dr Tactics]

Originally Posted by JP

Not at all recently.

So which movies are you talking about.. OH I KNOW!! All the movies they've made recently like Prometheus, ROTPOTA which have nothing at all to do with Marvel. XM-FC was not a comic book movie. I was a good movie based on Marvel characters nothing more. The Avengers (and all the MCU movies before it) are COMICBOOK MOVIES hence why they make money by entertaining the Fans and the GA alike (Wow, what a strange concept). I willing to bet that Fox is gonna try to make comicbook movies from here on out (though Bryan Singer doesn't make those either)

So JP don't get characters based on Marvel characters in a movie confused with a bonified Comicbook (with Drama, Sci-Fi, Action, Humor and some camp) movie. Its a BILLION DOLLAR between those two

[R_Hythlodeus]

Originally Posted by JP

Not at all recently.

Have I missed a movie?

[Project862006]

Originally Posted by Dr Tactics

So which movies are you talking about.. OH I KNOW!! All the movies they've made recently like Prometheus, ROTPOTA which have nothing at all to do with Marvel. XM-FC was not a comic book movie. I was a good movie based on Marvel characters nothing more. The Avengers (and all the MCU movies before it) are COMICBOOK MOVIES hence why they make money by entertaining the Fans and the GA alike (Wow, what a strange concept). I willing to bet that Fox is gonna try to make comicbook movies from here on out (though Bryan Singer doesn't make those either)

So JP don't get characters based on Marvel characters in a movie confused with a bonified Comicbook (with Drama, Sci-Fi, Action, Humor and some camp) movie. Its a BILLION DOLLAR between those two

umm that is a comic book movie lol wtf are you talking about

[Dr Tactics]

Originally Posted by Project862006

umm that is a comic book movie lol wtf are you talking about

Missed the point as usual.. Somebody help him with this

edit: I'll help you. XM-FC is to comicbook movies as Godzilla in 1998 are to Godzilla movies. It's based in the character(s) of the same name but bare none or little resemblance to its original intent, source and/or vibe for it's own creative reasons

[R_Hythlodeus]

Originally Posted by Project862006

umm that is a comic book movie lol wtf are you talking about

Okay we will try it again with an over the top example, maybe you will understand this then.
Imagine someone tries to adapt LOTR, but instead of being close to the books, they just keep Aragorn and Gandalf, maybe Gimli too. The story is set in New York in the 1990ies and the plot involves a bank heist.
Is this a LOTR movie or just a movie with LOTR characters in it? Is First Class a Comic Book Movie or just a misogynist pile of crap despite Fassbenders great acting movie with comicbook characters in it?

[Project862006]

how many times do we have to say this?

vaughn and singer never and i mean never said it would be based off that particular comic

they made no promises of the kind

they flat out said they liked the name nothing more nothing less

i prefer films that are not straight adaptions it leaves huge room for creativity

[Dr Tactics]

Originally Posted by Project862006

how many times do we have to say this?

vaughn and singer never and i mean never said it would be based off that particular comic

they made no promises of the kind

they flat out said they liked the name nothing more nothing less

i prefer films that are not straight adaptions it leaves huge room for creativity

You just illustrated our points in a nutshell. Thats all fine and good. They can make what they want to make but the fact remains.. Not comicbook movies. So we agree now..

[Project862006]

so comic book movies now have to be straight up adaptions based on a specific comic book to be called comic book movies?

[Dr Tactics]

Originally Posted by Project862006

so comic book movies now have to be straight up adaptions based on a specific comic book to be called comic book movies?

So JP don't get characters based on Marvel characters in a movie confused with a bonified Comicbook (with Drama, Sci-Fi, Action, Humor and some camp) movie.

All of these elements are in comic books so faithfulness to the source material in this debate is irrelevant. It is easier to keep those elements by following more closely to the source material but as we've seen with the MCU they use the CB as a outline but keep the feel and spirit of the comics and translate them to screen.

Which by your own admission Fox either fails or are just unwilling to have done to this point

[Evil Twin]

There's nothing wrong with people calling The Avengers a popcorn movie. Heck, Jaws, Star Wars, and Raiders of the Lost Ark wear that badge with pride.

The difference between those movies and Transformers isn't that they're light entertainments, which is all that a popcorn movie signifies, is that they're also examples of smart filmmaking with well crafted characters.

[R_Hythlodeus]

Originally Posted by Project862006

so comic book movies now have to be straight up adaptions based on a specific comic book to be called comic book movies?

that is not what anyone here wrote at all.

[TheVileOne]

I wouldn't take it personally guys. Millar is just hyping the projects he's personally involved in now.

[JP]

Originally Posted by Dr Tactics

So which movies are you talking about.. OH I KNOW!! All the movies they've made recently like Prometheus, ROTPOTA which have nothing at all to do with Marvel. XM-FC was not a comic book movie. I was a good movie based on Marvel characters nothing more. The Avengers (and all the MCU movies before it) are COMICBOOK MOVIES hence why they make money by entertaining the Fans and the GA alike (Wow, what a strange concept). I willing to bet that Fox is gonna try to make comicbook movies from here on out (though Bryan Singer doesn't make those either)

So JP don't get characters based on Marvel characters in a movie confused with a bonified Comicbook (with Drama, Sci-Fi, Action, Humor and some camp) movie. Its a BILLION DOLLAR between those two

I'm not. And I'll gladly take FIRST CLASS over any other comic book movie released in 2011.

[Dr Tactics]

Originally Posted by JP

I'm not. And I'll gladly take FIRST CLASS over any other comic book movie released in 2011.

Wonderful!! And I'll take 1.5 Billion over 354 Million based on making a pocorn chomping/comicbook movie

[C. Lee]

If a movie is made...and the characters were in a comic book....then it is a comic book movie.

[Dr Tactics]

Originally Posted by JP

I'm not. And I'll gladly take FIRST CLASS over any other comic book movie released in 2011.

Heck I'll take Thor (449 mil) over FC. Yep (If were just condensing it to 2011)!!! In other words no matter what Fox/Marvel has put out it all been underwhelming (outside of XM-FC*) story wise and BO performance wise..

Your man Mark Millar can underhandely insult Marvel/Disney all he wants because he's backing a company that to the main people/fanbase he's trying to hype to Fox/Marvel is giving him backlash cause they want Marvel to have all their characters back (even more after the success of the Avengers). Marvel wins regardless

edit: I swear. This marvel characters rights things remind me of congress on the fiscal cliff issue and any other issue.. Nobody wants to budge for no good reason

[Dr Tactics]

Originally Posted by C. Lee

If a movie is made...and the characters were in a comic book....then it is a comic book movie.

So by that same token if A Godzilla Movie has a Giant Iguana with hind legs its still a viable Godzilla film?

So I guess we'll agree to disagree on this one

[JP]

Originally Posted by Dr Tactics

Heck I'll take Thor (449 mil) over FC. Yep (If were just condensing it to 2011)!!! In other words no matter what Fox/Marvel has put out it all been underwhelming (outside of XM-FC*) story wise and BO performance wise..

Great for you. I'll take my own personal preferences over Box office numbers any day of the week.

Your man Mark Millar

He's not "my man".

can underhandely insult Marvel/Disney all he wants

When has he ever?

[Dr Tactics]

Originally Posted by JP

Great for you. I'll take my own personal preferences over Box office numbers any day of the week.

Great.. But I think like a business MAN! so in my world "If it don't make money, then It don't make much sense"

He's not "my man".

I meant that loosely in general and not to you personally as in every time he make a statement about how "awesome" a Fox/Marvel property is coming together. Folks (mostly in the X-forums) get gitty.

When has he ever?

This thread was started based on the opinion that calling The Avengers a "popcorn movie" was/may have been a underhanded slap at the type of movie is was compared to TDKR. Comparing it to TDKR and favoring that movie publicly is where the insult comes in IMO. So if had he left it on the "Popcorn Movie" point nobody would have felt agitated by his comments

[C. Lee]

Originally Posted by Dr Tactics

So by that same token if A Godzilla Movie has a Giant Iguana with hind legs its still a viable Godzilla film?

Yes. If within the "official" Japanese Godzilla movie productions it is acceptable to have a baby Godzilla the size of an 8 year old Japanese kid dancing around and blowing smoke rings...then I can accept the American version as a "version" of the Godzilla family.

I have seen most if not all "giant critter terrorizing mankind" movies. I have seen all "Godzilla" movies. Some are good, some are bad....but they are all "giant critter terrorizing mankind" or "Godzilla" movies.

Originally Posted by Dr Tactics

So I guess we'll agree to disagree on this one

Don't bother me at all.

[C. Lee]

Originally Posted by Dr Tactics

Great.. But I think like a business MAN! so in my world "If it don't make money, then It don't make much sense"

I'm sorry to hear that. There are many things that "don't make money" that are worthwhile and make sense. I volunteer time for a couple of charities...I make no money, actually "lose" money since I am giving my time to them....but it is worthwhile and makes sense to me. There are many boxoffice winners I hate...and boxoffice bombs I love.

Originally Posted by Dr Tactics

This thread was started based on the opinion that calling The Avengers a "popcorn movie" was/may have been a underhanded slap at the type of movie is was compared to TDKR. Comparing it to TDKR and favoring that movie publicly is where the insult comes in IMO. So if had he left it on the "Popcorn Movie" point nobody would have felt agitated by his comments

It's HOW the term is used that can make it a slap. I personally have no problem with calling a movie a "popcorn" movie...because to me that means extremely fun and enjoyable. But I know that others use it to mean unsofisticated, immature, lowclass, etc. Just saying a movie is a popcorn movie isn't an insult. But HOW and what your reasoning behind calling it that does.

[Dr Tactics]

Originally Posted by C. Lee

Yes. If within the "official" Japanese Godzilla movie productions it is acceptable to have a baby Godzilla the size of an 8 year old Japanese kid dancing around and blowing smoke rings...then I can accept the American version as a "version" of the Godzilla family.

I have seen most if not all "giant critter terrorizing mankind" movies. I have seen all "Godzilla" movies. Some are good, some are bad....but they are all "giant critter terrorizing mankind" or "Godzilla" movies.

Ok true so I'll rephrase it. So by that same token if A Godzilla Movie has a Giant Iguana with hind legs its still a respectable Godzilla film? Ane even you have to admit the the 98 Godzilla was the worst that any worst that came before it or after it

So all references to whether XM-FC is a respectable CBM with respect to genre of source/Comicbooks in general.

Don't bother me at all.

I have no doubt that it doesn't

[Dr Tactics]

Originally Posted by C. Lee

I'm sorry to hear that. There are many things that "don't make money" that are worthwhile and make sense. I volunteer time for a couple of charities...I make no money, actually "lose" money since I am giving my time to them....but it is worthwhile and makes sense to me.

C'Mon bro. We're not talking about the same things here. Charity and public service is applauded by me and is for the greater good. Movie companies make movies for money. Yes, for profit for their stock holders and nothing else. They have a budget and they try to get the most money on their return. So by that thinking I'll stand by my comment

There are many boxoffice winners I hate...and boxoffice bombs I love.

Very true. I hated the Bay TF but more people liked it. Made in the upper Millions at the BO (709 Mill)WW. How significant is my opinion to Paramount/Dreamworks?? Nil, so they said Lets make another one!!!! And they did. Hated that even more DOTM. Made even more money so they said MAKE ANOTHER ONE!!! So were in agreement on that one.

It's HOW the term is used that can make it a slap. I personally have no problem with calling a movie a "popcorn" movie...because to me that means extremely fun and enjoyable. But I know that others use it to mean unsofisticated, immature, lowclass, etc. Just saying a movie is a popcorn movie isn't an insult. But HOW and what your reasoning behind calling it that does.

As I said just that he publicly preferred TDKR makes the insult and not the "popcorn movie" portion of the statement