Yeah, I'm not a fan of either of them as well. Especially in the Ultimate Universe when they started that whole incest thing.
Yeah. Kinda made me want to not know anything more about them. Not that I mind incest as a plot point. It's super interesting in Game of Thrones, for instance. But in a comic book where it's only there just because? No thanks.
Also, I didn't particularly find them all interesting to begin with. Maybe that's why they needed to have an incest plot. Just to have something to give flavor to their cardboard cutouts.
If we are talking Quicksilver, he is amazing and definitely not a cardboard cutout. Dashing disagrees with me on this, but I've seen some amazing things from his character. He's also a dick.
Didn't Earth's Mightiest Heroes get cancelled to get a reboot that would coincide with the new Spider-Man cartoon? Or have I just missed a year of that show?
Didn't Earth's Mightiest Heroes get cancelled to get a reboot that would coincide with the new Spider-Man cartoon? Or have I just missed a year of that show?
I had a thought tonight while discussing Iron Man 3 with Alcore, Dashing, Fawful, and Icedhope.
In the comics, Jarvis is a human butler. In the movies, JARVIS is an AI. But we have no confirmation that he began as an AI. What if he was originally the butler Jarvis before being uploaded into an AI? This sounds like a story I've heard before...
Ah. Now, see, here's where the idea of the Ultimate version of Iron Man could come in. He was a snooty butler who was every bit as snarky as Stark, just with the British politeness added in to make him REALLY awesome.
And then he died, and got digitized by Stark, who then made a few... tweaks. Enter Avengers 2, where Jarvis remembers who he used to be and rebels against Stark, commandeering an Iron Man suit and becoming Ultron.
That's what I was suggesting. But not in Avengers 2. I was thinking more along the lines of Iron Man 4. Which would also use the "Tony Stark breaks his spine" storyline. Or something.
I'm not saying Iron Man 3 was bad, i thought it was best of the trilogy and gave it 9/10, But its just weird seeing a Marvel third trilogy movie get a good review since X-Men 3 and Spider-Man 3 were both giving low scores, fair enough i never seen X-Men 3 but i did see Spider-Man 3 which i did like. Its not the best in the trilogy or series by far (That in my opinion is Spider-Man 2)
To be honest, very few 'third part of a movie trilogy' films tend to be fondly remembered as the best - it's not just Marvel, you got your Pirates of the Caribbean, your Godfather, your Star Wars (original trilogy)...
The problem is that movie sequels tend to be more of the same, but bigger, which might work well for one sequel, but it just doesn't work for another. People get tired of the same old characters doing the same old thing, they get tired of the flashy CGI and the constant shoehorning in of references from the first two films, they just... well, they just get tired of the series.
Iron Man Three managed to avoid that in several ways.
First - new director. This helps to inject a feeling of freshness into the franchise. Had Jon Faveuru (or however you spell that) had done the third film, I suspect it'd probably be the weakest of the three.
Second - It's not a DIRECT sequel. Being part of a larger universe, with very diverse films in it, helps to break up the 'same as the last film' feelings that most part 3s get. We didn't just watch three Iron Man films - we also got a Thor, a Captain America, an Incredible Hulk AND an Avengers to help keep things fresh.
Third...
...OK, I got nothin'. But those two are damned good reasons.
Anyone ever wonder why Tony didn't call The Avengers in to help him? Well Dorkly has and they made this to explain why maybe Tony didn't want to call them in.
I'd say that Captain America was just kinda incommunicado what with having no modern tech and taking off to god knows where (also, probably wouldn't have been able to get there in time). Thor's in Asgard and hard to reach. Hawkeye and Black Widow wouldn't have been a huge help against the baddies in this. And, of course, there's the fact that Stark doesn't really inherently trust any of them. Save the world together, sure. Ask for help... not so much.
And while Banner was both contact-able and could have conceivably got there in time... and been a huge help, especially in that last battle, bringing him in would have made a huge deal of the whole affair, possibly endangered everyone on the ship, and would also reveal that Tony was hiding a veritable weapon of mass destruction in his penthouse apartment in New York. All of which would have probably just ruined everything.
And I suppose they might have also been operating along the lines that part of the reason for the
anxiety attacks was the fact that the battle at New York basically made Stark feel small and insignificant which is probably a first ever thing for the guy. He had to do this by himself. But this is more just my opinion, than based on concrete evidence.
The action, aside from the battle with the Frost Giants, is fairly limited and hardly fitting for a Norse God, the romance takes place over a day or so, and aside from the Asgard aspects it's a very familiar tale.
Doesn't stop it from being bloody entertaining, but it's hardly the greatest film in the world.
The action, aside from the battle with the Frost Giants, is fairly limited and hardly fitting for a Norse God, the romance takes place over a day or so, and aside from the Asgard aspects it's a very familiar tale.
Doesn't stop it from being bloody entertaining, but it's hardly the greatest film in the world.
It's a good origin story but I'm hoping for a lot more from The Dark Wold.
I fell asleep around the point where Banner started talking about how he needed a bicycle helmet to "protect [his] very special brain".
Maybe someday I'll give it another shot, but I just couldn't connect with any of the characters. They all seemed so... flat and made out of cardboard. It was putting in all the emotional repression and then forgetting to add in the internal monologues that make the comics interesting.
Also, I would have preferred the death Banner's father had in the comics. Where Banner pushes him, and the dad slips, falls, hits his head on his wife's tombstone and dies. I like that version better because it's kind of a hollow end and, given that Banner is amazing at real-time physics, was actually murder that he played off as an accident.
EDIT: Though, I will concede that if that movie had had Ruffalo in it, I probably would have even liked the awfulest bits of dialogue because he would have made it sound better.
Also, I am super excited for the SHIELD show. It gives me hope that maybe they are headed for the Civil War storyline and will be introducing a lot of minor superheroes in the show who would make that more of a thing that could happen.
Not to mention the ending boiled down to Hulk fighting a rain cloud. I think I laughed out loud in the theater.
...Apparently I've managed to block out a good portion of the movie without realizing it. I guess that because I've only seen the whole thing once, at a drive-in, and have only seen pieces since 2003.
Ang Lee's Hulk isn't just a good film, it's a great film. Darth Marsden is wrong.
No, I'm really, really not. It's not just a bad superhero film, it's a bad film period.
I get what Ang Lee was trying to do with this film, and it's actually quite interesting to see the attempt, but that doesn't make it a good film. The comic book frames are incredibly distracting, the plot is incredibly uneven, the actors are pretty but might as well be cardboard cutouts for all the emotion they show and that ending is full-on ridiculous.
Let's put it this way - a film shouldn't be so dull you actually fall asleep while watching it. Which I did.
EDIT: Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. looks awesome. Can't wait.
You're complaining about ridiculous aspects in a Hulk movie. About the only thing I didn't like was the design on the Hulk dogs....but the scene itself was so good...that I got over it. The fight scenes are short, but brutal, with an uncompromising savagery. How many superhero flicks would DARE to have the Hulk rip dogs apart. The shots he takes all have brutal purpose. There's a shot to the nuts in the fight, but he doesn't make it for ignorant comic effect, he does it because HOLY SHIT HE PULVERIZES THE DOG WITH IT. Watching a dog's jaws widen as his jaw snaps is ridiculously brutal. It's very understated, but it's like coming across it in the wild. The CGI in Hulk is very good...to me....showing a lot of humanity. The scene where he sits on the car with Betty is ful of silent emotion. To call the film wooden is wrong. Repressed is what I would use. I think the movie has more emotion than a lot of superhero flicks. The film is honestly closer to the comics that I've read than anything else I've seen, and getting as close as it gets without being perfect, because it is flawed, is better than getting nowhere at all.
But that's the thing... Hulk doesn't really kill. Ever. Throw a dragon to the moon, yes. Leave every building a pile of smoking rubble, yes. But kill? Practically never. There's only a few instances where he does in the comics and they are always completely intentional... and most of them are when he's Banner. The two I can think of off the top of my head are his father and this former associate of his who tried to poison him.
And the reason is that the Hulk is the "angry child" persona. It wants to throw things and have a tantrum and be loved, but there's really not a malicious bone in its body. That's more up the Grey Hulk's alley, but the Grey Hulk is kinda the "30s gangster" persona of the bunch. Banner, on the other hand, is capable of far more cruelty and damage than either of his alter egos. I mean, he puts an antidote just out of reach of a dying man, tortures Blonsky/Abomination with an endless loop of the last time the man saw his wife, and brings an army of monsters into New York just because he wants to see what will happen. To name a few. Of course, he's also capable of a broader range of emotions, but the comic kinda makes it clear that if Banner hadn't got turned into the Hulk, he probably would have ended up as a supervillain because he has that sort of mentality.
Having said that, Guru and I have agreed to watch the movie again (or completely for the first time, in my case), so I guess you've won a small victory there.
Or alternatively, make it a drinking game. Every time there's no real emotion in a line when there clearly should be, take a shot. You'll be gone before the first half an hour.
No, better - take a drink every time there's a comic panel in shot. Good luck getting out of the opening!
Comments
Also related there's 2 characters both company own.
How about the Wasp? She'd be pretty interesting, methinks.
...oh wait. Ant-Man. Hmm. ...not a fan of this idea. How in the hell would they work?
Yeah. Kinda made me want to not know anything more about them. Not that I mind incest as a plot point. It's super interesting in Game of Thrones, for instance. But in a comic book where it's only there just because? No thanks.
Also, I didn't particularly find them all interesting to begin with. Maybe that's why they needed to have an incest plot. Just to have something to give flavor to their cardboard cutouts.
I'm pretty sure you're right.
In the comics, Jarvis is a human butler. In the movies, JARVIS is an AI. But we have no confirmation that he began as an AI. What if he was originally the butler Jarvis before being uploaded into an AI? This sounds like a story I've heard before...
And then he died, and got digitized by Stark, who then made a few... tweaks. Enter Avengers 2, where Jarvis remembers who he used to be and rebels against Stark, commandeering an Iron Man suit and becoming Ultron.
...I just blew my own mind.
Geez are super hero's spines made out of glass?
Well look what movie it had before it. And Iron Man 3 was awesome it had its problems what movie doesn't but for what it is it was pretty good.
The problem is that movie sequels tend to be more of the same, but bigger, which might work well for one sequel, but it just doesn't work for another. People get tired of the same old characters doing the same old thing, they get tired of the flashy CGI and the constant shoehorning in of references from the first two films, they just... well, they just get tired of the series.
Iron Man Three managed to avoid that in several ways.
First - new director. This helps to inject a feeling of freshness into the franchise. Had Jon Faveuru (or however you spell that) had done the third film, I suspect it'd probably be the weakest of the three.
Second - It's not a DIRECT sequel. Being part of a larger universe, with very diverse films in it, helps to break up the 'same as the last film' feelings that most part 3s get. We didn't just watch three Iron Man films - we also got a Thor, a Captain America, an Incredible Hulk AND an Avengers to help keep things fresh.
Third...
...OK, I got nothin'. But those two are damned good reasons.
http://www.dorkly.com/article/51841/why-iron-man-doesnt-ask-any-of-the-avengers-for-help
And while Banner was both contact-able and could have conceivably got there in time... and been a huge help, especially in that last battle, bringing him in would have made a huge deal of the whole affair, possibly endangered everyone on the ship, and would also reveal that Tony was hiding a veritable weapon of mass destruction in his penthouse apartment in New York. All of which would have probably just ruined everything.
And I suppose they might have also been operating along the lines that part of the reason for the
What's so terrible about it? Ive seen people here saying it's one of the worst Marvel movies, and I thin it's one of my favorites.
I liked it but it does drag on a bit and the stakes never feel that high. Really I like the characters not the story.
Doesn't stop it from being bloody entertaining, but it's hardly the greatest film in the world.
It's a good origin story but I'm hoping for a lot more from The Dark Wold.
Now I have all the antici-
-pation.
And the final battle is BEAUTIFUL.
This is what a Thor movie should have had. It should have been METAL LIKE THIS.
And the theme is badass.
And Jennifer Connely is a fine actress with an impressive pedigree, having worked with two of my favorite directors in two of my favorite films:
Sergio Leone's Once Upon A Time in America
Dario Argento's Phenomena
And Sam Elliot as Thunderbolt Ross....could it get any better. No it couldn't; screw off. (Well, it needed some Ruffalo...)
Maybe someday I'll give it another shot, but I just couldn't connect with any of the characters. They all seemed so... flat and made out of cardboard. It was putting in all the emotional repression and then forgetting to add in the internal monologues that make the comics interesting.
Also, I would have preferred the death Banner's father had in the comics. Where Banner pushes him, and the dad slips, falls, hits his head on his wife's tombstone and dies. I like that version better because it's kind of a hollow end and, given that Banner is amazing at real-time physics, was actually murder that he played off as an accident.
EDIT: Though, I will concede that if that movie had had Ruffalo in it, I probably would have even liked the awfulest bits of dialogue because he would have made it sound better.
This may be wishful thinking on my part.
...Apparently I've managed to block out a good portion of the movie without realizing it. I guess that because I've only seen the whole thing once, at a drive-in, and have only seen pieces since 2003.
And win.
I get what Ang Lee was trying to do with this film, and it's actually quite interesting to see the attempt, but that doesn't make it a good film. The comic book frames are incredibly distracting, the plot is incredibly uneven, the actors are pretty but might as well be cardboard cutouts for all the emotion they show and that ending is full-on ridiculous.
Let's put it this way - a film shouldn't be so dull you actually fall asleep while watching it. Which I did.
EDIT: Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. looks awesome. Can't wait.
And the reason is that the Hulk is the "angry child" persona. It wants to throw things and have a tantrum and be loved, but there's really not a malicious bone in its body. That's more up the Grey Hulk's alley, but the Grey Hulk is kinda the "30s gangster" persona of the bunch. Banner, on the other hand, is capable of far more cruelty and damage than either of his alter egos. I mean, he puts an antidote just out of reach of a dying man, tortures Blonsky/Abomination with an endless loop of the last time the man saw his wife, and brings an army of monsters into New York just because he wants to see what will happen. To name a few. Of course, he's also capable of a broader range of emotions, but the comic kinda makes it clear that if Banner hadn't got turned into the Hulk, he probably would have ended up as a supervillain because he has that sort of mentality.
Having said that, Guru and I have agreed to watch the movie again (or completely for the first time, in my case), so I guess you've won a small victory there.
Or alternatively, make it a drinking game. Every time there's no real emotion in a line when there clearly should be, take a shot. You'll be gone before the first half an hour.
No, better - take a drink every time there's a comic panel in shot. Good luck getting out of the opening!