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

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

On Sep 2, 6:34 am, "OhioGuy" <n... DeleteThis @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, whereas I enjoyed all
> the others you mentioned except for "Hulk". (don't confuse that with
> "Incredible Hulk", which was an excellent movie)

And I'll raise you Man-Thing.

So bad that it went straight to the SciFi Channel instead of theatres.

Did it even rate a DVD release?

Tom

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

On Sep 2, 8:36 am, Jason Todd <janklowic....TakeThisOut@yahoo.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. (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

I nominate John Ridley.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Ridley

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9957776

Tom

"YKW · External Since: Sep 03, 2009 Posts: 1

Tom <drsoong.DeleteThis@aol.com> wrote in news:4caa206f-f7d9-4d33-997b-
0685e19b538c.DeleteThis@g31g2000yqc.googlegroups.com:

>On Sep 1, 8:24 pm, Anim8rFSK <ANIM8R....DeleteThis@cox.net> wrote:
>> In article
>> <437580b0-d2ab-4bb2-8ae9-2f7332b1b....DeleteThis@h30g2000vbr.googlegroups.com>,
>> plausible prose man <Georgefha....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?
>>
>> --
>> 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
>

Not a theatrical release. =Planned= as one but, thankfully, never
=distributed= as one.

--
------------------- ------------------------------------------------
|| E-mail: ykw2006 ||"The mystery of government is not how Washington||
|| -at-gmail-dot-com ||works but how to make it stop." -- P.J. O'Rourke||
|| ----------- || ------------------------------------ ||
||Replace "-at-" with|| Keeping Usenet Trouble-Free ||
|| "@" to respond. || Since 1998 ||
------------------- ------------------------------------------------
"It's not that I want to punish your success. [...]I think
when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."

-- The One, 14 Oct 08

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

"Tom" <drsoong.TakeThisOut@aol.com> wrote in message
news:76142e52-069d-4afc-bdd1-8f17300806ba@t13g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 2, 8:36 am, Jason Todd <janklowic....TakeThisOut@yahoo.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. (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

~I nominate John Ridley.

~http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Ridley

~http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9957776

~Tom

I liked UNDERCOVER BROTHER, but why Ridley?

-- Ken from Chicago

berk · External Since: Jun 18, 2009 Posts: 27

On Sep 1, 5:24 pm, Derek Janssen <ejan... DeleteThis @nospam.verizon.net> wrote:

<snip>
> (And in what far-flung alternate Watcher-verse does EITHER Fantastic
> Four rate an A or B? 0_o??

Jessica Alba in a skintight 'cat suit' was an extra credit grade
raiser.

berk

berk · External Since: Jun 18, 2009 Posts: 27

On Sep 2, 4:34 am, "OhioGuy" <n....DeleteThis@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,...

Well, yes it was too. It had the dicotomy of 'OMG!, Looook at Halley
Berry!' vs the 'WTF are they (not) doing with the storyline...'. Most
of the time the latter won out but the former had it's moments.

It was undeniably bad, but there we no way I wasn't going to see it.

btw- I'm kinda pissed at the Ang Lee version of the Hulk, but I still
like it OK.

berk

Aaron *Brother Head* Moss · External Since: Jun 04, 2006 Posts: 15

"plausible prose man" <Georgefhaley DeleteThis @aol.com> wrote in message
news:12b25b60-2726-4427-ab7a-9bbefb7eabe3@s31g2000yqs.googlegroups.com...

I'm sort of surprised there's been no Blade III, since Wesley Snipes
sure needs the money.

-----

Actually there was a Blade III (Blade: Trinity) with Ryan Reynolds and
Jessica Biel (came out in 2004).

--
Rev. Aaron *Brother Head* Moss
http://brotherhead.com
"Arguing on the internet is like running in the Special Olympics. Even if
you win, you're still a retard"

Ken Arromdee · External Since: Dec 19, 2003 Posts: 4

In article <62ar95ppb60n4ndthr5i048gso8mn732b0.DeleteThis@4ax.com>,
William George Ferguson <wmgfrgsn.DeleteThis@newsguy.com> wrote:
>A Marvel movie report card (this isn't a quality assessment, it's a
>monetary assessment)

Need to add Blade to that.
--
Ken Arromdee / arromdee_AT_rahul.net / http://www.rahul.net/arromdee

Obi-wan Kenobi: "Only a Sith deals in absolutes."
Yoda: "Do or do not. There is no 'try'."

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

berk wrote:
>>
>> I'm sorry - Catwoman wasn't even remotely watchable,...
>
> Well, yes it was too. It had the dicotomy of 'OMG!, Looook at Halley
> Berry!' vs the 'WTF are they (not) doing with the storyline...'. Most
> of the time the latter won out but the former had it's moments.

As I'd pointed out at the time, they were taking Tim Burton's petulant
insistence doing a Michelle Pfeiffer "Batman Returns" spinoff (as IMDb
will vouch), and you could see the screenwriter Telephone Game over the
ten years it'd taken to get to Halle Berry's version:

Screenwriter 1: "Michelle Pfeiffer is a poor secretary who discovers
her boss's shady dealings, gets pitched out of a window, and revived by
cats."
Screenwriter 2: "Our heroine is a timid single secretary, who discovers
her boss's international business plot, is pitched off the roof, but
returns as an avenging antihero in a catsuit."
Screenwriter 3: "Our heroine is a mousy, repressed secretary with no
life, who discovers her boss's sinister plans for world-domination,
dies, crosses over, and is chosen to be revived by the goddess Bast with
feline superpowers!"

Derek Janssen (I used to have to get up at 10 o'clock at night, half an
hour before I went to bed, eat a lump of dry poison...)
ejanss1 DeleteThis @verizon.net

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

plausible prose man wrote:
> On Sep 3, 1:28 am, William George Ferguson <wmgfr....DeleteThis@newsguy.com>
> wrote:>
> Steel
> $16,000,000
> $1,686,429
>
> I don't know that anyone was expecting a breakthrough hit with Steel,
> but they were presumably hoping they'd make back their money and then
> have a movie a lot of kids would pester their parents into buying the
> DVD, sort of a "Kazaam II,"
>
> You might construct a narrative where it was less about traditional
> ideas of movie making and more something to do with a contractual
> obligation or some sop to the property to let him play Superman, but I
> don't notice they've let Shaquille O'Neal star in another movie since
> then.

Steel was a "new" hero for DC at the time, and getting enough notoriety
that a movie version seemed like the right timely-marketing Warner cash-in--

Problem is...the character's origin grew out of the Super-verse, and the
"Death of Superman" storyline at that--Yes, DC didn't want to go there
(also since Kevin Smith had dibs on it already), but without it, there
wasn't anywhere TO go. Like trying to tell a Nightwing origin without
legally being able to mention Batman.
Without Metropolis (or even superpowers?), all you had was Shaq Plays
Superhero, that's what we got, and that's what looked dopey enough for
mainstream non-fans to pass on.

Derek Janssen
ejanss1.DeleteThis@verizon.net

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

In article <eoTnm.1003$Jd7.773@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>, Derek Janssen
<ejanss1.RemoveThis@nospam.verizon.net> wrote:

> Steel was a "new" hero for DC at the time, and getting enough notoriety
> that a movie version seemed like the right timely-marketing Warner cash-in--
>
> Problem is...the character's origin grew out of the Super-verse, and the
> "Death of Superman" storyline at that--Yes, DC didn't want to go there
> (also since Kevin Smith had dibs on it already), but without it, there
> wasn't anywhere TO go. Like trying to tell a Nightwing origin without
> legally being able to mention Batman.

Well, you CAN do it, but it takes skill and a known character. Batman
was never mentioned once in the animated Teen Titans, and they managed
to work the Robin to Nightwing transition into a "future universe"
story.

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

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

Invid Fan wrote:
>
>> Steel was a "new" hero for DC at the time, and getting enough notoriety
>> that a movie version seemed like the right timely-marketing Warner cash-in--
>>
>> Problem is...the character's origin grew out of the Super-verse, and the
>> "Death of Superman" storyline at that--Yes, DC didn't want to go there
>> (also since Kevin Smith had dibs on it already), but without it, there
>> wasn't anywhere TO go. Like trying to tell a Nightwing origin without
>> legally being able to mention Batman.
>
> Well, you CAN do it, but it takes skill and a known character. Batman
> was never mentioned once in the animated Teen Titans, and they managed
> to work the Robin to Nightwing transition into a "future universe"
> story.

"Steel" still worked in the idea of John Henry Irons building his own
super-armor (um, sort of) and carrying a hammer to fight the gangs--
But without Metropolis, the movie just came off as generic "The Search
For the FUBU Black Superhero" (see also Sci-Fi's "Mantis", Robert
Townsend's "Meteor Man", and Wesley Snipes' continuing attempts to get a
Black Panther movie going), so they could show him being a family-man
and fighting the gangs as "meaningful".

....Well, yeah, but I'd still rather have him fighting Doomsday.

Derek Janssen
ejanss1 RemoveThis @verizon.net

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

On Sep 2, 1:36 pm, Jason Todd <janklowic... RemoveThis @yahoo.com> wrote:
> 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.

It can be a good thing or a bad thing.

Say, this one person was, for example, Jon Peters...

===
= DUG.
===

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

On Sep 2, 11:42 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. 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.

Sequels usually require the film to make back 3 times the cost.

===
= DUG.
===

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

On Sep 3, 5:40 pm, Derek Janssen <ejan....TakeThisOut@nospam.verizon.net> wrote:
> Derek Janssen (I used to have to get up at 10 o'clock at night, half an
> hour before I went to bed, eat a lump of dry poison...)
> ejan....TakeThisOut@verizon.net

And if you tell the kids of today that, they won't believe you.

===
= DUG.
===

John Duncan Yoyo · External Since: Sep 04, 2009 Posts: 1

On Tue, 1 Sep 2009 19:44:34 -0700 (PDT), Duggy
<Paul.Duggan DeleteThis @jcu.edu.au> wrote:

>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.
>
It was BOOM and they have been doing a bang up job on the Pixar Movie
based comics- The Incredibles, Cars, Monsters Inc. and the Muppets
including a Muppet Movie like Muppet Robin Hood.

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

On Sep 5, 12:18 am, John Duncan Yoyo <john-duncan-y....RemoveThis@gmail.com>
wrote:
> It was BOOM and they have been doing a bang up job on the Pixar Movie
> based comics- The Incredibles, Cars, Monsters Inc. and the Muppets
> including a Muppet Movie like Muppet Robin Hood.

I guess the assumption is the BOOM contract won't be renewed then...

===
= DUG.
===

Eminence · External Since: Sep 14, 2009 Posts: 3

On Wed, 2 Sep 2009 17:19:33 -0700 (PDT), Tom <drsoong RemoveThis @aol.com> wrote:

>On Sep 2, 6:34 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, whereas I enjoyed all
>> the others you mentioned except for "Hulk". (don't confuse that with
>> "Incredible Hulk", which was an excellent movie)
>
>And I'll raise you Man-Thing.
>
>So bad that it went straight to the SciFi Channel instead of theatres.
>
>Did it even rate a DVD release?

But in the best tradition of "Creepshow" and "Dick Tracy", "Man-Thing"
had color coding!

Orange Filter = Day
Blue Filter = Night
Yellow Filter = Indoors
Green Filter = Swamp
Red Filter = Man-Thing Vision

Sadly, I doubt there's a sort option on the DVD menu for those.

Eminence
_______________
Usenet: Global Village of the Damned