Spider-Man movie (casting, rumors, pix till release)

[captcalhoun]

i'd like someone to do a nice long Batman series utilising several villains (some more than once) and the 3 major sidekicks of Robin, Nightwing and Batgirl and have 2 Robins at least. and if the actors get too old or want to leave, let them, recast and keep the series going. fuck trilogies, go for a hexilogy or a decilogy.

although why we're talking Batman in the SPIDER-MAN thread, i don't know.

 

[the G-man]

i'd like someone to do a nice long Batman series utilising several villains (some more than once) and the 3 major sidekicks of Robin, Nightwing and Batgirl and have 2 Robins at least. and if the actors get too old or want to leave, let them, recast and keep the series going. fuck trilogies, go for a hexilogy or a decilogy.

More or less, yes.

although why we're talking Batman in the SPIDER-MAN thread, i don't know.

Similar principles at play I guess.

 

[captcalhoun]

i'd like a long series of Spider-Man flicks too, use Gobby, use Mysterio, Ock, Lizard, Kraven, Sandman and then do Sinister Six. and do Venom properly and do Carnage and Vulture. hell, even a Clone Saga movie could be good if done well and set-up properly...

- actually, i'd like an adap of Ultimate Clone Saga. of course, that's impossible with X-Men and F4 at Fox and no using the Avengers/Fury.

 

[JD]

^I've started to wonder over the last few years if perhaps TV wouldn't be a better place to do more true to comics live action adaptations. It would give more opportunities to work in more of the characters over time, and it would make it alot easier to adapt some of the longer more in dept arcs. I know a few year ago it might have been harder to do some of the more complex powers, but I think Heroes proved it's possibly to do comic book superhero powers on a TV budget.

 

[Broccoli]

^I know it isn't everybody's favorite, but Smallville did a pretty good job with recurring characters, both hero and villain, in the latter half of the series.

If a TV show wanted to focus on one particular story arc during a season, it might be cool if they did ten episode mini-seasons. But I don't know how that would be sustainable in the long run.

 

[Captaindemotion]

Can you imagine the outcry there'd be today if a villain was played by three different actors in three totally different ways, in three successive movies, as Blofeld was in YOLT, OHMSS and DAF?

They recast Batman twice during the last film series (1989-1997) without any outcry. Not to mention Harvey Dent going from Billy Dee Williams to Tommy Lee Jones.

That did occur to me, as did the Hulk situation; the Ed Norton replacing Eric Bana was perhaps different, as it was an outright reboot, but I'm not sure how anyone is to believe that Mark Ruffalo is the same character as Ed Norton (even his clothing and mannerisms seem different in the clips from Avengers).

I don't know if there was no outcry about Batman - there was a fair bit of comment about how ridiculous the recasting thing was, but these were all before there was quite as much internet discussion as there now is. And there was a fair bit of talk about TLJ replacing BDW, letters in genre mags etc. However, as the character hardly appeared in Batman and didn't appear in Returns, the intervening six year gap probably calmed some heads too. And given that BF saw a new Batman, the fact of a supporting character was very much secondary.

I'd say also that if Batman Forever was made today as the sequel to Batman Returns (2009), it would definitely be marketed as a reboot.

One other thing that also occurred to me was your point about the same directors directing Connery, Moore and Dalton, without feeling the need to 'stamp their own direction' etc on the character and series. Bond directors have always been hired hands to a certain extent, with the production company, Eon, being the ones who call the shots. Which was why Spielberg was knocked back when he wanted to direct a Bond movie in the 1970s.

And, moreover, the likes of John Glen etc seemed to have no problem being journeyman directors, hands for hire. Whereas every clown with a camera in Hollywood now fancies him or herself an auteur and an artist, with a vision!

(I'm going to an awful lot of effort to argue with you, given that I basically agree with your point and have long said that superhero 'reboots' should just go the 007 route!)

 

[the G-man]

(I'm going to an awful lot of effort to argue with you, given that I basically agree with your point and have long said that superhero 'reboots' should just go the 007 route!)

With that in mind, I think of this as more of a friendly discussion than a serious debate.

I don't know if there was no outcry about Batman - there was a fair bit of comment about how ridiculous the recasting thing was, but these were all before there was quite as much internet discussion as there now is.

Even without internet discussion you could get a sense of how people, both in and out of fandom, felt about things through the press (fan and otherwise). I don't recall much of anything. And certainly nothing compared to the initial fan outcry when Keaton was cast in the first place.

I'd say also that if Batman Forever was made today as the sequel to Batman Returns (2009), it would definitely be marketed as a reboot.

I don't know about that. Besides having the same Alfred and Gordon, there was a scene in BF where they flashed back to Two Face's origin and Kilmer was wearing the Keaton costume. That would all seem to signal "sequel," not "reboot."

One other thing that also occurred to me was your point about the same directors directing Connery, Moore and Dalton, without feeling the need to 'stamp their own direction' etc on the character and series. Bond directors have always been hired hands to a certain extent, with the production company, Eon, being the ones who call the shots....

Understood. However, even with that reality, different Bond films had different styles and directions. "Live and Let Die," with its nods to "blacksploitation" and the comedy relief redneck sheriff (along with Moore's lighter tone), was very different from the Connery films or Lazenby movie. And "The Living Daylights" was very, very, different from Moore's "Moonraker" and "View to a Kill."

And, moreover, the likes of John Glen etc seemed to have no problem being journeyman directors, hands for hire. Whereas every clown with a camera in Hollywood now fancies him or herself an auteur and an artist, with a vision!

Fair enough. But, again, that doesn't mean the studio has to let them do another "origin" tale." And, to go to yet another film series, Alfonso Cuaron--an actual auteur--was able to make a "Harry Potter" film that reflected his vision and differentiated itself from the Chris Columbus films without starting the series all over.

Again (not directed at you per se, just to get back to the subject), there's nothing in the Spiderman film I've seen so far that couldn't have been accomplished Bond even Potter style.

 

[the G-man]

^I've started to wonder over the last few years if perhaps TV wouldn't be a better place to do more true to comics live action adaptations...

I think it depends on the characters. Nolan aside, I think a non-powered character like Batman could easily carry another--faithful--TV series if the studio wanted to go that route.

But the further you get away from reality based heroes the more the budget would get in the way and you'd end up with something that was either cheap looking or not very faithful or both.

 

[Trekker4747]

If one does a Robin solo film...

[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=iv&src_vid=XiZuvJ48MZ0&annotation_id=annotation_594699&v=QQyfQ7RMOXs[/yt]

That was simultaneously one of the silliest and most awesome things I've ever seen.

Considerably more silly than awesome.

 

[the G-man]

That guy playing Superman in the "Grayson" film is really good casting. He looks like an Alex Ross painting come to life.

 

[captcalhoun]

that Greyson trailer looks utter crap.

 

[A beaker full of death]

that Greyson trailer looks utter crap.

I know I'm going to regret this, but... care to elaborate?

 

[Trekker4747]

For one thing it looked too busy. It had Wonder Woman, Green Lantern, The Joker, Harley Quinn, Batgirl, Superman, The Penguin and others in it. It'd be a crowded movie.

The look of it, for me, wasn't great but we can probably chalk that up to the production values of fan-produced/a tight-budgeted studio has available to it.

For me it just didn't look like it'd provide a very interesting story or movie. Elements of it "looked good" but at the same time it's hard to take Robin as that serious of a character in the manner the video suggests. It'd probably be "better" if ti was Robin taking on the "Nightwing" mantle.

 

[the G-man]

I thought Superman looked the part and the actress who played Catwoman was hot. But the rest of the cast? Meh. Gordon looked like Sam Elliot in a funhouse mirror. And O'Hara's overacting, coupled with inability to maintain a consistent Irish accent, made an already silly idea (a villainous Chief O'Hara? That's kind of like a sinister Jimmy Olsen) even harder to take seriously.

 

[Trekker4747]

I thought Superman looked the part and the actress who played Catwoman was hot. But the rest of the cast? Meh. Gordon looked like Sam Elliot in a funhouse mirror. And O'Hara's overacting, coupled with inability to maintain a consistent Irish accent, made an already silly idea (a villainous Chief O'Hara? That's kind of like a sinister Jimmy Olsen) even harder to take seriously.

I agree with most of this.

Other than the Superman bit, I don't think he looked the part at all. (Other than maybe as an older Superman.)

 

[the G-man]

Superman looked very George Reeves meets Curt Swan to me. But perhaps the fact he was older made that more the case.

 

[Trekker4747]

Superman looked very George Reeves meets Curt Swan to me. But perhaps the fact he was older made that more the case.

Well, yeah. I can certainly agree with that bit. But I more like the "current" idea of Superman pretty much being perpetually "young" or at least in his thirties. A blading, slightly pudgy Superman doesn't entirely work for me. The guy in this video did work for me as an "older" Superman in a time when Batman has perhaps succumbed to old age or his age became a factor in his crime-fighting leading to his death.

And the Chief O'Hara guy was a bit too... Lucky Charms in his accent for my tastes.

 

[A beaker full of death]

I agree, O'Hara was a seriously weak link, as was Green Lantern's costume. But honestly, most of the rest is pure gold to me. I grew up with George Reeves (along with the idea of there being an older Superman out there, at least on Earth-2), so I've always accepted the idea of an older Superman.
And I love this:

I think this guy put together a hell of a film. And the Joker is friggin brilliant.

 

[Admiral_Young]

Whoa how'd this become about Robin? "Greyson" the script is a whole lot stronger than the actual trailer is.

 

[captcalhoun]

it looks cheap, it looks fanwanky in the extreme and it looks cliched as hell. and half the so-called cast can't act.