Hey there, how about some old comic book movie news? How old? Like two weeks old. So recently (San Diego Comic Con... I said it was like two weeks old.) the announced Marvel Phase 2. Which is essentially post Avengers Sequels. So here are the titles with some thoughts.

Picture
THOR: THE DARK WORLD... Wait, its not just 'THOR 2'? We aren't seeing, 'THOR: THE RETURN OF REVENGE RISING'? This is amazing. A personal pet peeve of mine is movie titles that just toss a number on the end. Its lazy. Get a little descriptive will ya? Though to be fair, there is a few words that should be avoided in the title, DARK is fringing.
What is 'THE DARK WORLD' in reference to?... I've only read 'Thor Masterworks volume 1' and Walter Simonsons run on the title (Which I highly recommend). So my Thor knowledge isn't a deep pool. But Dark World makes me think we'll be seeing some dark elves, maybe Malekith the Accursed, and MAYBE my favourite Thor villain Surtur. I at least want to see a shot of a hammer dropping onto the twilight sword, with a huge TANG! That echoes through the cosmos.
Something else I want to see in THOR:THE DARK WORLD is Beta Ray Bill, I love me some good old horse face. If he's not in this movie, he should be in the 3rd.
The film is being directed Alan Taylor, one of the directors of 'The Game of Thrones' television series on HBO. So hes no stranger to swords and sorcery. And speaking of 'Game of Thrones'... WINTER IS COMING!


CAPTAIN AMERICA: WINTER SOLDIER
WHA! Another title with a subtitle!? Well the first film had a subtitle, so its not that surprising that the second would also feature a one as well. I'm just surprised they're taking a subtitle from the comics, not going with 'CAPTAIN AMERICA: FOREVER'
I know exactly what Winter Soldier is. Its a story line that broke what was considered one of the holiest of marvel comics rules. I don't want to spoil anything, but I'll be honest I'm excited for this now.
What I want to see from this one? the return of the Red Skull, and a more defined power set for Cap. In the first, and Avengers, we don't really see Captain do anything to impressive. I want to see less of the soldier and more of the SUPER. There's that part in the first where he love taps a guard with his shield and the man goes flying, that was awesome. I also want to see him be more of a gymnast too.
This one is being directed by the directing duo of Anthony and Joe Russo. Like Alan Taylor these two are usually television directors. Responsible for such television classics as, oh wow, 'the Community', 'Arrested Development', and 'Happy Endings'? Wow that's awe-... Wait a second... Sitcoms? Great sitcoms yes, but sitcom directors are doing 'CAPTAIN AMERICA: WINTER SOLDIER'? Alan Taylor made sense but these two? Lets have a look at these guys.

What a couple of dopy looking fuckers. Anthony is the one with the goofy looking grin, and Joe is the clone gone wrong of Jason Segel. (Being serious, these guys being on board makes my excitement shoot through the roof, these guys pretty much guarantee a fun movie).

Lets continue with the movie everyone is probably most excited for...



Picture
IRON MAN 3... oh come on! IRON MAN, IRON MAN 2 and now IRON MAN 3. Okay, so I'll know the proper sequential viewing order, but they couldn't have called it 'INVINCIBLE IRONMAN', or are they saving that for the reboot when Robert Downey Jr. Abandons the character? Okay fine. Rumour is they'll be following Extremis story line, then IRON MAN EXTREMIS could be your title!
CAPTAIN AMERICA is following the Winter Soldier storyline, and has that in his title, then why not do that with Iron Man?... Sigh. All I want to see in this movie is FING FANG FOOM. Bring it on! Giant Dragon!
Directing this is Shane Black who directed 'KISS, KISS, BANG, BANG'. Shane is apparently really good friends with RDJ, and director of IRON MAN and IRON MAN 2 Jon Favreau (who also plays Happy Hogan in the films).
This film should be fine. Apparently Shane advised the guys on the first two films, and now Favreau is advising Shane.

And what movies has Marvel announced?

ANTMAN fuck yes! I know most of the general non comic book readers are probably thinking 'Who? What the fuck does Antman do? Talk to ants?'... Well not just talk to them... Don't roll your eyes at me!
Antman not only can communicate with ants, but shrink and grow! And I love characters that can shrink for some reason (subconscious relation to penises?)... but beyond that, Antman is just an awesome character. He's my favourite character on the Earths Mightiest Heroes cartoon, and a character I've really wanted to read more of.
Edger Write, director of 'SHAUN OF THE DEAD', 'HOT FUZZ', the television series 'SPACED' and of course the comic film 'SCOTT PILGRAM VS THE WORLD' is handling this one. Hes a guy that knows how to handle his action and his comedy.
Rumour is the story will follow Hank Pym the first Antman in the 1960's, then flash forward to the second Antman Scott Lang. I'm actually mostly familiar with Eric O'Grady... the Irredeemable Antman AKA the worlds most unlikable super hero.
What I want out of Antman, is the set up for a villain for avengers by the name of Ultron. Also some good old fashioned Antman and Wasp!

And then there is...

GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY Again, you probably responded with, 'Huh? Who?' Well let me just say... Rocket fucking Raccoon. An alien Raccoon. GROOT a sentient tree man! Need I say more?

 
People always have something to bitch about in comic book movies. Collected here are the top five complaints about comic book movies that annoy me. Enjoy!


Giant Squid Monster

I'm here writing about 'Watchmen' without my copy of 'Watchmen' nearby. So bare with me if I get some facts wrong.
If you've seen the film 'Watchmen', you know in the end Ozymandias has framed Dr. Manhattan as a mass murder. This plot is tightly wrapped, very secure. All the pieces fall into place. The only problem? Its not what happened in the comics.
When ever an adaptation is made, a group of people get their panties in a bunch. This group is called, the fans. Fans usually are purest, and any changes are a slight not only against the property, but to them personally.
Example: “Kristen Stewart doesn't look anything like ME! She can't be Bella Swan.”
'Watchmen' has a huge fan base. And when it was announced that a film was being made, their pants not only bunched up, they were back drafted into their ass. People would not subtle for anything less then a exact adaptation, zero changes...
...Naturally they had to make some changes. Some for the better, some for the worse. But none got as much back lash as the ending (They changed the ending).
In the graphic novel, Ozymandias does not frame Dr. Manhattan, but instead frames a fictitious giant alien squid. The squid was designed and created by scientist and artist who believed it was for a Hollywood blockbuster.
To understand this, imagine Steven Spielberg on the set of 'Jurassic Park' had his crew create a super realistic T-rex, then killed them all. That's what Ozymandia's plan was. Its really not that big of a plot point, and I personally think the movies ending is better.
To most 'Watchmen' fans? The lack of Giant Squid Monster was the movies greatest flaw, and instantly made it shit. Which is retarded, it REALLY changes nothing in the plot. Its a superficial complaint, actually most complaints about comic book movies are superficial complaints.

Lack of costume

I'm going to admit something to you all. Its a personal belief of mine that you have to be tiny bit gay to be into wrestling, and super hero comics. Other wise, why would we be so into guys in flamboyant costumes? And comic fans are VERY picky about the costumes.
You'll get some serious backlash if your super hero movie isn't loyal to the costumes. Example, lots of people are against the new Spider-man reboot because of the costume. Lots of people were against the X-men films because of their lack of costumes. They didn't want those black leather costumes.They wanted this:

The fact is not all super hero costumes are suitable for reality. Bright yellow and blue doesn't translate well into film. Though 'X-Men First Class' did a great job mimicking the Jim Lee's yellow and blue uniforms from the 90's.
The X-men costumes are fine, but if some studios had it their way, many costumes would be altered to retarded levels. Example, Fox wanted Ben Affleck as Daredevil to NOT wear a mask. Famously Kevin Smith has told of his experiences writing a Superman sequel, where the producer (Jon Peters), didn't want Superman to wear a cape, or tights... or fly.
One of the greatest shames though is the Green Goblin in Sam Rami's 'Spider-man'. I liked the helmet version, but when I saw the test footage of the mask version? I fell in love.

Fans are picky though, and will bitch endlessly about every nitpick they can pinch between their fingers. Whether its the CGI, the costume or the characters RACE.

Changing Race


Lets go to 'the Hunger Games'. There is some character named Rue, who was black in the film and the fans were annoyed. Having not realized that Rue in the book was in fact black. Luckily racial ambiguity in comics isn't a problem since its a visual medium. And in the event that you aren't sure about a characters race, (for what ever reason), its easy to tell.
If a character is black, It'll be clear by their name. (Black Bolt, Black Panther, Bling, Brother Voodo ect). Some reason black characters don't hit it as big in comics. Maybe there is no real interesting black characters (since most are characterized by the fact they're not white), or maybe we're all just a bunch of racist.
The strange truth is, a lot of the black characters in comics, kind of need to be black. Most where made during the civil rights movement, and thus a African American super hero was quite poignant.
On the other hand, its not very crucial now a days that Peter Parker is white. He could easily be black, or Latin American, and his character would stay the same... Sadly, must people don't feel that way.
People are more enraged by a change in race then any change to plot or costume. There was serious backlash when Micheal Clark Duncan played the King Pin. There was great annoyance when Heimdall of Thor was black. And there was serious rage when a British Actor was cast as Superman.
How did all of this racially incorrect casting affect the quality of each of these films? Not at all. Comic fans just like to bitch and whine.
What is a personal nitpick of my mine is when the films affect the comics. Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson) in the Marvel Ultimate Universe is not only black, but they requested that they base his design off of Samuel L. Jackson. Before that in the regular Marvel Universe (616), Nick Fury was white... At least for the 47 years leading up to the Avengers movie.
Now, for whatever reason, marvel was in love with their Ultimate Universe line for a while. Every video game based off a marvel character had the word 'Ultimate' wrenched into the title just for some kind of recognition. And the characters all wore their 'Ultimate' comics costumes... but retained all their 616 universe stories... Its all kind of confusing.
Regardless. 'The Avengers' movie needed a splash of colour beyond green, and Samuel L. Jackson was an obvious choice. Marvel worried they would confuse the general, none comic reading audience, when they decided to finally check out the source material and discover a white Nick Fury. So in their infinite wisdom they concocted a masterful plan.
It had been revealed that Nick Fury had at some point (Probably the 60s) splattered his seed into a sista. Meaning he had a illegitimate black son, named Marcus Johnson. In a mini series named 'Battle Scars'. Nick Fury retires... But not after Marcus loses his eye... here is the ending...

I'm looking for a word right now... and its not subtle.

Indian Slums & Adopted Joke

These last two are lumped together, since they're both kind of equally retarded, and both about the same movie. 'The Avengers'.
If you recall, early in the movie (I'm assuming everyone has seen it), we're introduced to Bruce Banner in what was apparently a Indian slum. He's using his medical knowledge to aid the sick there. Hes being a regular Norman Bethune... Except not a communist.
This scene didn't even register to me. I was just like, “Good Dr.Banner helping these poor sick people.” But India was just like, “Enough of this slum dog shit! We're not all that poor! We don't need fucking whites helping us!”... Yes I am paraphrasing slightly... honestly, only slightly. Also it helps if your read that line as if its being said by an angry Gerry Bednob.
Here is what I think. That 3 minute scene in 'The Avengers', didn't have people walking out of the theatre going, “Damn is India in the dumps.” By the end of 'The Avengers' people were to busy talking about the other 120 minutes. No one gives a shit about India, when their is a fucking giant green monster in the movie.
The second thing, was something that probably got a chuckle out of you in the theatre.

Thor: Have a care how you speak. Loki is beyond reason, but he is of Asgard. And he is my brother.
Natasha Romanoff: He killed eighty people in two days.
Thor: He's adopted.

Everyone in my theatre laughed, or at least it sounded that way. Apparently there was a group of people out there whose pouting was over shadowed by the yuks of the audience. This small group was the adopted.
An adoption group was highly insulted by the adoption joke. They felt it was unnecessary that they should be reminded of the fact that their parents didn't want them. So insulted as they were they did what anyone would do. Started a petition.

As noted in a petition created by Jamie Berke on Change.org, “According to your scriptwriter, the fact (Loki) was adopted is the reason he is a bad guy!...Being adopted is not something to use for the butt of jokes! Marvel, immediately cease using adoption as the butt of jokes AND issue a public apology to the adoption community!”

Holy shit. Fuck you, you adopted shit heads. Do you not shower because your worried the water will damage your thin skin? First let me explain the joke to you adopted fucks.
The fact that Loki was adopted isn't the reason he was a bad guy, the reason he was a bad guy was the fact that he's a power hungry asshole. The reason Thor points out that Loki is adopted was to distance himself by making a point of the fact that they're technically not blood.
So fuck you, and your public apology. I hope marvel makes MORE jokes about adoption just so you'll continue crying. Cause news flash asshole. No one feels bad for the kids that were adopted. People feel bad for the kids that HAVENT been adopted.
And I'm willing to bet those kids weren't offended by the joke in 'the Avengers'... Mostly because they haven't heard the joke, since they don't have parents to take them to go see it.


 
This time next month, I will be strutting around with a massive erection. One that simply wont be contained, and is impossible to repress. Because May fourth is the day that 'Marvel's Avengers' hits theatres.
I have no doubts that I'll love this movie. Marvel Studious handling of their film franchises has been brilliant. Where the WB (DC) has never been able to have a success outside of Batman and Superman, Marvel has been able to bring their relatively obscure characters into the lime light.
I'll say with certainty that I'll probably love 'the Avengers' more then 'The Dark Knight Rises', though 'The Dark Knight Rises' will probably be the better film over all but I've always 'made mine marvel' so Avengers just has an edge (I'll talk more about 'TDKR' and Batman when its closer to being released).

Though to be honest, my comic book exposure to the Avengers is limited to crossovers, big events, and cartoons. I've always been more fan of Marvel's merry mutants (Geek Translation X-Men). According to the opening blurb at the start of the film 'Unbreakable' the average Comic collection is 3,312 comics. I haven't counted them all, but probably around 800 of my comics are X-men. Thats counting individual issues in collected volumes, and single issues, not digital copy's (Legitimate Digital Copy's bought in a store), counting digital copy's its around 900. That's a big chunk... No wonder my last book shelf broke into pieces...

The second and third biggest pieces of my comic collection are Daredevil and Punisher, third biggest being Batman and (The biggest draw to the Avengers for me) the Hulk. Every single piece of Hulk footage I've seen so far, has given me chills. I love the hulk. My issue count on the Hulk would probably be around 300 (Digital included). But beyond that, I've had a Hulk poster above my bed for years, and a Hulk cut out sits above my TV. I want to see the Avengers for the Hulk.

That's enough of me gushing though. I actually have a small little history/film/interesting thing... to talk about... Okay, not my greatest transition, and defiantly not my clearest thought, so...

Some people are saying that nothing like the Avengers has ever happened before in film. Characters and actors from different franchises, coming together to duke it out. Thing is though it has been done, it was actually done 69 years ago... Nice.

Back in the 30's and 40's, super hero movies weren't really a thing, they existed as movie serials and radio plays mostly. What the world had instead was MONSTERS. The Universal Monsters to be exact, named after their studio.


They had a list of characters based mostly off of classic literature and folk lore, Frankenstein and his monster, Dracula, the Invisible Man, Wolf man, the Mummy. What a cast of characters! And they all had their own series of films, and they were huge!

And of course they had to meet at some point. 'Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man' was the start of the franchise crossovers of the monsters. They later went on to make 'House of Frankenstein' and 'House of Dracula' which again brought the monsters together to battle it out.

Now obviously 'The Avengers' had a lot more thought put into it as film franchise, the monster mashes had hardly any continuity between them. The monsters would die in the end of the movies, and with no explanation be alive in the next. But still, the principal concept is the same. And the point is that it has been done before in film.

Also people are annoyed when actors drop parts... Like how Ed Norton all of sudden looks like Mark Ruffalo, or Batman in the original series. If that bugs you, let me draw another comparison to the Universal Monsters that may make you feel better about it.

The monster movies had ALOT of the same actors in them, and some times... they liked to switch roles. Seemed like everyone needed a turn at each monster. So as long as we don't have Chris Hemsworth stepping in for Robert Downy as Iron Man in 'Avengers 2: Avengers with a vengeance' we have nothing to worry about.