Warners owns DC, now Disney owns Marvel--playing field lev..

Ken from Chicago · External Since: Aug 11, 2005 Posts: 852

Ironic that around the turn of the Millennium that the rumors were that DC
would buy out Marvel. DC Comics seemed to have a huge advantage in being a
part of the Warner Brothers conglomerate. That would of course change now
that Disney has bought out Marvel.

But is that for the better?

Funny thing about "levelling the playing field", while it can refer to
rising up to the competition. it literally refers lowering, aka "levelling",
it (e.g. "levelling" a building). Before, when Marvel was independent, it
could shop around its comics to various movie studios. Will that continue or
will future film adaptations (i.e., deals not already finalized) be under
the auspices of Disney much as DC Comics adaptations were a WB joint?

Curious how long it took DC to get 4 film adaptations of its DC universe
(overlooking the Vertigo adaptations) out in the past decade meanwhile
Marvel has had over a twice as many released. True not all the Marvel films
were great, but then, ahem, CATWOMAN ... yeah, 'nuff said. Still, Disney
banks Marvel and gives Marvel the independence to shop out deals--while
taking a "reasonable" cut in the profits--that might be the best of both
worlds.

Also it might wake up TPTB at WB/DC to step up their game in getting film
adaptations out the door. Latest word is there's yet another delay in GREEN
LANTERN and has anyone mentioned the Green Arrow or Flash movies anymore?
Sure, haste can make waste, but SUPERMAN RETURNS arrived two decades after
SUPERMAN IV: THE QUEST FOR PEACE--meanwhile BATMAN BEGINS arrived less than
a decade after BATMAN & ROBIN. Sometimes you can overcook a meal.

Sometimes too many cooks can spoil the broth. Hopefully this is good news
for one and all, the creators and the fans.

-- Hesitantly hopefully Ken from Chicago

P.S. Does this mean Disney Comics will be revived (assuming they had been
stopped since I can't recall seeing any since the '80s)?

Anim8rFSK · External Since: Feb 25, 2007 Posts: 1138

In article
<437580b0-d2ab-4bb2-8ae9-2f7332b1b11d.TakeThisOut@h30g2000vbr.googlegroups.com>,
plausible prose man <Georgefhaley.TakeThisOut@aol.com> wrote:

> > True not all the Marvel films
> > were great, but then, ahem, CATWOMAN ... yeah, 'nuff said.
>
> I'll see your Catwoman, and raise you Ang Lee's Hulk (please don't
> make me, Ang Lee), Elektra, Ghost Rider, and Daredevil, and I might
> throw in X-men III and Wolverine.

What, no Punisher?

--
Uncle Jack: "Will, you're invisible!"
Will: "Invisible? I can't be! I can touch myself!"
--actual dialog from third season LAND OF THE LOST

Duggy · External Since: Sep 01, 2009 Posts: 9

On Sep 1, 8:56 am, "Ken from Chicago" <kwicker1b_nos... DeleteThis @comcast.net>
wrote:
> P.S. Does this mean Disney Comics will be revived (assuming they had been
> stopped since I can't recall seeing any since the '80s)?

I seem to recall someone picking up the Disney rights early this
year... so there is a non-Marvel company with the rights to do Disney
comics ATM.

===
= DUG.
===

Duggy · External Since: Sep 01, 2009 Posts: 9

On Sep 1, 8:56 am, "Ken from Chicago" <kwicker1b_nos....RemoveThis@comcast.net>
wrote:
> Funny thing about "levelling the playing field", while it can refer to
> rising up to the competition. it literally refers lowering, aka "levelling",
> it (e.g. "levelling" a building).

No, it doesn't.

There are no buildings on a playing field to level.

===
= DUG.
===

Duggy · External Since: Sep 01, 2009 Posts: 9

On Sep 1, 11:38 pm, William George Ferguson <wmgfr... RemoveThis @newsguy.com>
wrote:
> Fox X-Men (A)
> Fox X-Men 2 (A)
> Fox X-Men 3 (C)
> Fox X-Men: Wolverine (D)
> Sony Spider-Man (A)
> Sony Spider-Man 2 (A+)
> Sony Spider-Man 3 (A)
> Fox Fantastic Four (A)
> Fox Fantastic Four 2 (B)
> Fox Daredevil (B)
> Fox Elektra (D)
> Universal The Hulk (D)
> Sony Ghost Rider (E)
> Lionsgate Punisher (D)
> Lionsgate Punisher 2 (E)
> Marvel Iron Man (A+)
> Marvel The Incredible Hulk (B)

I think it is also important to note the number of different
companies.

No one company would release 17 Superhero films in 10 years. Not
Warner, not Marvel, no one.

===
= DUG.
===

Duggy · External Since: Sep 01, 2009 Posts: 9

On Sep 2, 1:56 am, plausible prose man <Georgefha....DeleteThis@aol.com> wrote:
> > We will see the FF reboot,
> Unless we don't. It certainly wouldn't be the first time someone
> didn't get their property out of development.

True. Especially if Disney are making at least four Avengers related
films. Other things, like a FF reboot may not even get into
development.

> > Any odds that the Avengers movie comes out before the JLA movie?
> I'm quite skeptical either movie will ever come out, but then that's
> my default feeling on superhero movies.

My feeling, was as long as Marvel wasn't losing too much money The
Avengers would get made. Especially since they'd make more on The
Avengers films Box-sets, etc after Avengers was released.

However, I can see new executives looking at this project and saying
it's too big and too long term.

===
= DUG.
===

Duggy · External Since: Sep 01, 2009 Posts: 9

On Sep 2, 2:14 am, William George Ferguson <wmgfr... RemoveThis @newsguy.com>
wrote:
> I suspect one of the two big differences between what DC has been doing
> (and/or not doing) with their characters in the movies, and what Marvel has
> been doing is that DC isn't making the movies Warner Brothers is. I think
> we might see a similar problem occur if Disney decides it wants to take
> over making the movies that Marvel is currently doing in-house.

Well, they'd be crazy not to. I mean, Marvel may have a good set-up
but Disney has a better one.

> (the other
> reason, for those keeping score at home, for Marvel's successful run in the
> movies is Avi Arad, DC really needs to have a similar 'good shepherd'
> tending their flock)

The thing is that DC can't have a good shepherd.

Marvel was able to say "if you want to buy the rights to ... you have
to work with Avi Arad."

DC can't say anything because Warner owns all their characters and can
do what they want.

This may now apply to all of Marvel's stuff as contracts expire.

===
= DUG.
===

Derek Janssen · External Since: Jan 16, 2009 Posts: 139

William George Ferguson wrote:
>
> Half is not most. The two directly produced by Marvel instead of being
> licensed to another studio (The Hulk and Iron Man) both did well (note, not
> the Ang Lee Hulk)
>
>>> True not all the Marvel films
>>> were great, but then, ahem, CATWOMAN ... yeah, 'nuff said.

(Y'know, Tim Burton wasn't even on that picture, and we can STILL blame
him for that one?)

>> I'll see your Catwoman, and raise you Ang Lee's Hulk (please don't
>> make me, Ang Lee), Elektra, Ghost Rider, and Daredevil, and I might
>> throw in X-men III and Wolverine.
>
> A Marvel movie report card (this isn't a quality assessment, it's a
> monetary assessment)
>
> Fox X-Men (A)
> Fox X-Men 2 (A)
> Fox X-Men 3 (C)
> Fox X-Men: Wolverine (D)
> Sony Spider-Man (A)
> Sony Spider-Man 2 (A+)
> Sony Spider-Man 3 (A)
> Fox Fantastic Four (A)
> Fox Fantastic Four 2 (B)
> Fox Daredevil (B)
> Fox Elektra (D)
> Universal The Hulk (D)
> Sony Ghost Rider (E)
> Lionsgate Punisher (D)
> Lionsgate Punisher 2 (E)
> Marvel Iron Man (A+)
> Marvel The Incredible Hulk (B)

Not quite sure what (E) stands for, but grading on a percentage, Ghost
Rider at least had good Mark Johnson intentions, even if it threw them
away on cheap Buffy villains.
And Punisher 2 may have been a bit silly around the edges but at least
it was the REAL character from the comics...Took three tries and a lot
of pentience from wannabe studios, but they finally nailed it. Which is
more than can be said of its "higher-rated" predecessor(s).

(And in what far-flung alternate Watcher-verse does EITHER Fantastic
Four rate an A or B? 0_o??
ISTR, it was FF1's unholy mess, more than Ang Lee's, that was the trump
card that finally convinced Marvel to take their destiny into their own
hands.)

> Sony/Columbia has the Spider franchise as long as they keep making the
> films. Fox has the X-Franchise and the FF franchise as long as they keep
> making the films.
> We will see the FF reboot, because Fox will make it to ensure holding on to
> the license. Marvel is making Thor directly, so I don't see the Disney
> deal impacting that.
>
> Any odds that the Avengers movie comes out before the JLA movie?

Any odds that the glaciers will melt before the JLA movie?

(Although we've seen Warner/DC "auditioning" New-Serious versions of the
ever-limbo'ed Wonder Woman and Green Lantern movies with their animated
versions--It's nice to see that they're working things out logically on
paper, but their movie half still has to overcome its own identity issues.)

Derek Janssen
ejanss1.TakeThisOut@verizon.net

Ken from Chicago · External Since: Aug 11, 2005 Posts: 852

"Derek Janssen" <ejanss1 RemoveThis @nospam.verizon.net> wrote in message
news:CWinm.722$Jd7.209@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
> William George Ferguson wrote:
>>
>> Half is not most. The two directly produced by Marvel instead of being
>> licensed to another studio (The Hulk and Iron Man) both did well (note,
>> not
>> the Ang Lee Hulk)
>>
>>>> True not all the Marvel films
>>>> were great, but then, ahem, CATWOMAN ... yeah, 'nuff said.
>
> (Y'know, Tim Burton wasn't even on that picture, and we can STILL blame
> him for that one?)
>
>>> I'll see your Catwoman, and raise you Ang Lee's Hulk (please don't
>>> make me, Ang Lee), Elektra, Ghost Rider, and Daredevil, and I might
>>> throw in X-men III and Wolverine.
>>
>> A Marvel movie report card (this isn't a quality assessment, it's a
>> monetary assessment)
>>
>> Fox X-Men (A)
>> Fox X-Men 2 (A)
>> Fox X-Men 3 (C)
>> Fox X-Men: Wolverine (D)
>> Sony Spider-Man (A)
>> Sony Spider-Man 2 (A+)
>> Sony Spider-Man 3 (A)
>> Fox Fantastic Four (A)
>> Fox Fantastic Four 2 (B)
>> Fox Daredevil (B)
>> Fox Elektra (D)
>> Universal The Hulk (D)
>> Sony Ghost Rider (E)
>> Lionsgate Punisher (D)
>> Lionsgate Punisher 2 (E)
>> Marvel Iron Man (A+)
>> Marvel The Incredible Hulk (B)
>
> Not quite sure what (E) stands for, but grading on a percentage, Ghost
> Rider at least had good Mark Johnson intentions, even if it threw them
> away on cheap Buffy villains.
> And Punisher 2 may have been a bit silly around the edges but at least it
> was the REAL character from the comics...Took three tries and a lot of
> pentience from wannabe studios, but they finally nailed it. Which is more
> than can be said of its "higher-rated" predecessor(s).
>
> (And in what far-flung alternate Watcher-verse does EITHER Fantastic Four
> rate an A or B? 0_o??
> ISTR, it was FF1's unholy mess, more than Ang Lee's, that was the trump
> card that finally convinced Marvel to take their destiny into their own
> hands.)
>
>> Sony/Columbia has the Spider franchise as long as they keep making the
>> films. Fox has the X-Franchise and the FF franchise as long as they keep
>> making the films. We will see the FF reboot, because Fox will make it to
>> ensure holding on to
>> the license. Marvel is making Thor directly, so I don't see the Disney
>> deal impacting that.
>>
>> Any odds that the Avengers movie comes out before the JLA movie?
>
> Any odds that the glaciers will melt before the JLA movie?
>
> (Although we've seen Warner/DC "auditioning" New-Serious versions of the
> ever-limbo'ed Wonder Woman and Green Lantern movies with their animated

Tell me about it.

2003:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.comics.dc.universe/msg/4da88aa...c77e19?

Sad since Wonder Woman: The Movie pert near writes itself:

2004:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.comics.dc.universe/msg/2b12a67...d4daa9?

2005:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.tv/msg/896ef286046b7184?hl=en

2006:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.comics.dc.universe/msg/8f36539...e918f1?

> versions--It's nice to see that they're working things out logically on
> paper, but their movie half still has to overcome its own identity
> issues.)
>
> Derek Janssen
> ejanss1 RemoveThis @verizon.net

With WW the persona is plain and simple--literally. She's the Old Knight in
DRAGON HEART, one of the knights of CAMELOT, the old gunslinger from the Old
West. That is she's a warrior from a time when you put your heart on your
sleeve. Disagreements were open and plain. There wasn't all the politicking
and spin. And when you were really mad, you didn't just whine or sue or post
a nasty facebook entry or tweet, but you "took it outside".

That's Diana's persona--and why she would be a fish outta water in Man's
World. Basically a superhero version of CROCODILE DUNDEE with the gender
roles reversed. Trevor crashes on Themyscira and is the fish outta water
there amongst the Amazons, monsters and Greek gods--until Diana returns him
home and she's a fish outta water with lawyers, marketing reps, agents,
politicians, papparazzi and Hollywood ... and the casual, callous
indifference to suffering on the doorstep of massive wealth.

Diana feels more at ease when the monster shows up in NYC harbor for the
grand finale.

-- Ken from Chicago

Derek Janssen · External Since: Jan 16, 2009 Posts: 139

Anim8rFSK wrote:
> In article
> <437580b0-d2ab-4bb2-8ae9-2f7332b1b11d DeleteThis @h30g2000vbr.googlegroups.com>,
> plausible prose man <Georgefhaley DeleteThis @aol.com> wrote:
>
>>> True not all the Marvel films
>>> were great, but then, ahem, CATWOMAN ... yeah, 'nuff said.
>> I'll see your Catwoman, and raise you Ang Lee's Hulk (please don't
>> make me, Ang Lee), Elektra, Ghost Rider, and Daredevil, and I might
>> throw in X-men III and Wolverine.
>
> What, no Punisher?

Depends which kind you mean:
The cheap Curse-era New World 90's version, the cheap wannabe "Lionsgate
Loophole version", or the not-too-bad "Apology version" that was trying
to make peace with Marvel's company?

Derek Janssen
ejanss1 DeleteThis @verizon.net

Invid Fan · External Since: Feb 17, 2009 Posts: 19

In article <CWinm.722$Jd7.209@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>, Derek Janssen
<ejanss1.TakeThisOut@nospam.verizon.net> wrote:

> William George Ferguson wrote:

> > A Marvel movie report card (this isn't a quality assessment, it's a
> > monetary assessment)
> >
> > Fox X-Men (A)
> > Fox X-Men 2 (A)
> > Fox X-Men 3 (C)
> > Fox X-Men: Wolverine (D)
> > Sony Spider-Man (A)
> > Sony Spider-Man 2 (A+)
> > Sony Spider-Man 3 (A)
> > Fox Fantastic Four (A)
> > Fox Fantastic Four 2 (B)
> > Fox Daredevil (B)
> > Fox Elektra (D)
> > Universal The Hulk (D)
> > Sony Ghost Rider (E)
> > Lionsgate Punisher (D)
> > Lionsgate Punisher 2 (E)
> > Marvel Iron Man (A+)
> > Marvel The Incredible Hulk (B)
>

> (And in what far-flung alternate Watcher-verse does EITHER Fantastic
> Four rate an A or B? 0_o??
> ISTR, it was FF1's unholy mess, more than Ang Lee's, that was the trump
> card that finally convinced Marvel to take their destiny into their own
> hands.)
>
He said it was a monetary assessment, meaning they made money. I know
you tend to believe if you didn't like something then nobody bought
actual tickets, but those films produced a profit.

> > Sony/Columbia has the Spider franchise as long as they keep making the
> > films. Fox has the X-Franchise and the FF franchise as long as they keep
> > making the films.
> > We will see the FF reboot, because Fox will make it to ensure holding on to
> > the license. Marvel is making Thor directly, so I don't see the Disney
> > deal impacting that.
> >
> > Any odds that the Avengers movie comes out before the JLA movie?
>
> Any odds that the glaciers will melt before the JLA movie?
>
> (Although we've seen Warner/DC "auditioning" New-Serious versions of the
> ever-limbo'ed Wonder Woman and Green Lantern movies with their animated
> versions--It's nice to see that they're working things out logically on
> paper, but their movie half still has to overcome its own identity issues.)

Interesting way of viewing it, when if anything those videos are just
extensions of the animated TV shows of the past. Nothing in WW or GL,
as fun as they are, that hasn't been shown in some way on Justice
League. I'd see them more as auditions for solo TV series then to try
and justify live action films.

--
Chris Mack *quote under construction*
'Invid Fan'

Derek Janssen · External Since: Jan 16, 2009 Posts: 139

Invid Fan wrote:
>>
>> (Although we've seen Warner/DC "auditioning" New-Serious versions of the
>> ever-limbo'ed Wonder Woman and Green Lantern movies with their animated
>> versions--It's nice to see that they're working things out logically on
>> paper, but their movie half still has to overcome its own identity issues.)
>
> Interesting way of viewing it, when if anything those videos are just
> extensions of the animated TV shows of the past. Nothing in WW or GL,
> as fun as they are, that hasn't been shown in some way on Justice
> League. I'd see them more as auditions for solo TV series then to try
> and justify live action films.

WW had been tossed around to every Megan-Fox-of-the-week until it
drowned in Internet rumors, and (on the subject of net rumors) GL is
*still* trying to escape the fictitious retro-goofy shadow of Jack Black...

Like Marvel using their animated "Thor" to wind-tunnel-test new
mainstream origin/adaptation ideas (and an animated "Iron Man" one year
before Robert Downey Jr.), they're just trying to clear their artistic
palette and get the taste of everyone ELSE's ideas out of their mouth,
before they leave a bad aftertaste on the new productions.

Derek Janssen
ejanss1 RemoveThis @verizon.net

Invid Fan · External Since: Feb 17, 2009 Posts: 19

In article <Gbmnm.764$tl3.726@nwrddc01.gnilink.net>, Derek Janssen
<ejanss1 DeleteThis @nospam.verizon.net> wrote:

> Invid Fan wrote:
> >>
> >> (Although we've seen Warner/DC "auditioning" New-Serious versions of the
> >> ever-limbo'ed Wonder Woman and Green Lantern movies with their animated
> >> versions--It's nice to see that they're working things out logically on
> >> paper, but their movie half still has to overcome its own identity issues.)
> >
> > Interesting way of viewing it, when if anything those videos are just
> > extensions of the animated TV shows of the past. Nothing in WW or GL,
> > as fun as they are, that hasn't been shown in some way on Justice
> > League. I'd see them more as auditions for solo TV series then to try
> > and justify live action films.
>
> WW had been tossed around to every Megan-Fox-of-the-week until it
> drowned in Internet rumors, and (on the subject of net rumors) GL is
> *still* trying to escape the fictitious retro-goofy shadow of Jack Black...
>
It was your ""auditioning" New-Serious versions" comment that
interested me. One division doing the same thing it has been doing with
the characters for 20 years (OK, around 10 for WW and GL) doesn't seem
to equal "New-Serious". Given these videos are sandwiched in between
Batman and Superman stories leads me to view them as, apart from the
anime Batman, unrelated to any live action ambitions. Unless you think
the next animated release is a test for a Batman/Superman team up movie
Smile

--
Chris Mack *quote under construction*
'Invid Fan'

Derek Janssen · External Since: Jan 16, 2009 Posts: 139

Invid Fan wrote:
> In article <Gbmnm.764$tl3.726@nwrddc01.gnilink.net>, Derek Janssen
> <ejanss1 RemoveThis @nospam.verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> Invid Fan wrote:
>>>> (Although we've seen Warner/DC "auditioning" New-Serious versions of the
>>>> ever-limbo'ed Wonder Woman and Green Lantern movies with their animated
>>>> versions--It's nice to see that they're working things out logically on
>>>> paper, but their movie half still has to overcome its own identity issues.)
>>> Interesting way of viewing it, when if anything those videos are just
>>> extensions of the animated TV shows of the past. Nothing in WW or GL,
>>> as fun as they are, that hasn't been shown in some way on Justice
>>> League. I'd see them more as auditions for solo TV series then to try
>>> and justify live action films.
>> WW had been tossed around to every Megan-Fox-of-the-week until it
>> drowned in Internet rumors, and (on the subject of net rumors) GL is
>> *still* trying to escape the fictitious retro-goofy shadow of Jack Black...
>>
> It was your ""auditioning" New-Serious versions" comment that
> interested me. One division doing the same thing it has been doing with
> the characters for 20 years (OK, around 10 for WW and GL) doesn't seem
> to equal "New-Serious".

It does when they stop dicking around with "mainstream adaptations" and
actually start gearing their products for a united Agenda like they know
Marvel is doing.

> Given these videos are sandwiched in between
> Batman and Superman stories leads me to view them as, apart from the
> anime Batman, unrelated to any live action ambitions. Unless you think
> the next animated release is a test for a Batman/Superman team up movie
> Smile

Well, this *is* Warner we're talking about, and they STILL haven't
thrown out that Wolfgang Petersen idea... 9_9

Derek Janssen
ejanss1 RemoveThis @verizon.net

OhioGuy · External Since: Mar 05, 2007 Posts: 5

I'll see your Catwoman, and raise you Ang Lee's Hulk (please don't make me,
Ang Lee), Elektra, Ghost Rider, and Daredevil, and I might throw in X-men
III and Wolverine

I'm sorry - Catwoman wasn't even remotely watchable, whereas I enjoyed all
the others you mentioned except for "Hulk". (don't confuse that with
"Incredible Hulk", which was an excellent movie)

Jason Todd · External Since: Sep 02, 2009 Posts: 1

>
> I suspect one of the two big differences between what DC has been doing
> (and/or not doing) with their characters in the movies, and what Marvel has
> been doing is that DC isn't making the movies Warner Brothers is. I think
> we might see a similar problem occur if Disney decides it wants to take
> over making the movies that Marvel is currently doing in-house. (the other
> reason, for those keeping score at home, for Marvel's successful run in the
> movies is Avi Arad, DC really needs to have a similar 'good shepherd'
> tending their flock)

Yesh.

TW/DC desparately needs a "boss" or "czar" or some sort of supervisory
executive producer, who's sole responsibility will be to supervise
production of DC characters. Casting, scheduling, budgeting,
synchronization, should all be in the hands of this one person.

JT

OhioGuy · External Since: Mar 05, 2007 Posts: 5

>Sony Ghost Rider (E)

What the heck are you talking about? Ghost Rider cost about $110 million
to make, and brought in nearly $230 million worldwide. That doesn't even
consider the DVD sales, direct tv sales, etc. It was highly profitable for
Marvel, and Avi Arad released a press release at one point where they
announced that work was about to begin on a sequel.

The only reason that the sequel has been postponed was because the
original creator filed a lawsuit claiming that Marvel had at one point
forgotten to renew the license, and that at that point, the rights reverted
to him. He claims full ownership of all royalties and profits. I met the
guy at a comic convention once. I've got the feeling that this may drag on
for a while, and eventually his estate will settle for a piece of the
action.

But it's not an "E" on your scale. It is a C level character that made
more money than people expected.

plausible prose man · External Since: Sep 02, 2009 Posts: 2

On Sep 2, 7:42 am, "OhioGuy" <n... RemoveThis @none.net> wrote:
> >Sony Ghost Rider (E)
>
> What the heck are you talking about? Ghost Rider cost about $110 million
> to make, and brought in nearly $230 million worldwide.

Let's keep a certain perspective here:

Finding Nemo
$94,000,000 (estimated)
$702,100,000 (Worldwide)

I could go through the other movies, but it's hard to say Marvel
movies are bringing in the Pixar numbers, despite having considerably
better established and recognizable characters.

plausible prose man · External Since: Sep 02, 2009 Posts: 2

On Sep 2, 7:34 am, "OhioGuy" <n... RemoveThis @none.net> wrote:
> I'll see your Catwoman, and raise you Ang Lee's Hulk (please don't make me,
> Ang Lee), Elektra, Ghost Rider, and Daredevil, and I might throw in X-men
> III and Wolverine
>
> I'm sorry - Catwoman wasn't even remotely watchable,

You know, I bet it was at least remotely watchable. You could
probably sit in a chair and light emitted by the movie screen or your
TV or whatever would strike the back of your retinas and send impulses
along the optic nerve which your brain would then resolve into a
meaningul image.

> whereas I enjoyed all
> the others you mentioned except for "Hulk". (don't confuse that with
> "Incredible Hulk", which was an excellent movie)

And also, we apparently forgot Steel, which was an amazing turkey.

Tom · External Since: Feb 03, 2009 Posts: 49

On Sep 1, 8:24 pm, Anim8rFSK <ANIM8R... RemoveThis @cox.net> wrote:
> In article
> <437580b0-d2ab-4bb2-8ae9-2f7332b1b... RemoveThis @h30g2000vbr.googlegroups.com>,
> plausible prose man <Georgefha... RemoveThis @aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > True not all the Marvel films
> > > were great, but then, ahem, CATWOMAN ... yeah, 'nuff said.
>
> > I'll see your Catwoman, and raise you Ang Lee's Hulk (please don't
> > make me, Ang Lee), Elektra, Ghost Rider, and Daredevil, and I might
> > throw in X-men III and Wolverine.
>
> What, no Punisher?
>
> --
> Uncle Jack: "Will, you're invisible!"
> Will: "Invisible? I can't be! I can touch myself!"
> --actual dialog from third season LAND OF THE LOST

What, no Man-Thing?

Tom