And the mask comes off.

[darkgob]

This, too, I believe ended up in the Avengers movie by way of reference: when Ruffalo (as Banner) says that at one point he got low and tried to end it, that was a small call back to this story.

Wasn't that a reference to a deleted scene from the Ed Norton movie?

[Sinistar]

There is indeed a deleted scene from BLu Ray Ed Norton Hulk

Banner tries to shoot himself in the arctic but Hulk emerges and smashes the ice and you can see a frozen Captain America in the ice.

[Arcana]

Wasn't that a reference to a deleted scene from the Ed Norton movie?

The references pile up a bit.  This scene from Incredible Hulk 467 is from 1998.  It might be referenced by the Ultimate Hulk in Ultimates circa 2002, where Banner is dropped into a fight to induce him into becoming the Hulk.  *That* is very obviously directly referenced by the Norton Hulk movie where he jumps from the helicopter (2008).

[Abraxus]

On a related note, I am getting more excited about the Avengers: Age of Ultron with each passing day.  All of the non-spoiler tidbits, and trailers are hitting all the right notes!

[Twisted Toon]

On a related note, I am getting more excited about the Avengers: Age of Ultron with each passing day.  All of the non-spoiler tidbits, and trailers are hitting all the right notes!

The Marvel branch of Disney has seems to have figured out the right stuff for its movies.

Or, they actually figured out that letting the people who are actually fans of the comics, that they are basing the movie from, write the script and direct the movies actually makes for a better movie...

I'm sure I missed a punctuation in there somewhere...

[duane]

The Marvel branch of Disney has seems to have figured out the right stuff for its movies.

No Marvel could not make a movie to save its life.  The previous 20+ years of litter demonstrates that. 
The Mouse purchased them and knows how to make a few billion from intellectual properties.  It has the next 20+ years to rake in the billions.

[therain93]

No Marvel could not make a movie to save its life.  The previous 20+ years of litter demonstrates that. 
The Mouse purchased them and knows how to make a few billion from intellectual properties.  It has the next 20+ years to rake in the billions.

Well, you have to keep in mind, Marvel Studio's was explicitly created to take control of making movies for their properties because licensing it out did not go as well as they liked.  Further to that, the cinematic universe was already conceived (with Thor, Captain America and Avengers planned for) and Iron Man (as well incredible hulk) released before Disney bought Marvel.  So, I would argue that Disney's acquisition was like the bellows fanning a fire that had already ignited and just helped it burn hotter.

[duane]

Well, you have to keep in mind, Marvel Studio's was explicitly created to take control of making movies for their properties because licensing it out did not go as well as they liked.  Further to that, the cinematic universe was already conceived (with Thor, Captain America and Avengers planned for) and Iron Man (as well incredible hulk) released before Disney bought Marvel.  So, I would argue that Disney's acquisition was like the bellows fanning a fire that had already ignited and just helped it burn hotter.

There is a really good book by Sean Lowe.  I might have the name misspelled which outlines the licensing fiascos and cinematic bombs Marvel made over the 80's and 90's.  I do not disagree, the x-men/spiderman movies of the early 2000s were good compared to earlier Marvel and a random partner productions and just junk production.  However I still believe going forward Disney will execute those ideas with a real budget.

[FloatingFatMan]

No Marvel could not make a movie to save its life.  The previous 20+ years of litter demonstrates that. 
The Mouse purchased them and knows how to make a few billion from intellectual properties.  It has the next 20+ years to rake in the billions.

Their movies so far appear to prove you rather wrong.

[Abraxus]

Seems to me that the Disney acquisition gave them the resources to follow through on a plan they had already formulated, and thank goodness for that!

[Aggelakis]

No Marvel could not make a movie to save its life.  The previous 20+ years of litter demonstrates that. 
The Mouse purchased them and knows how to make a few billion from intellectual properties.  It has the next 20+ years to rake in the billions.

Huh? Marvel Studios was making good movies before the buyout. After the buyout, they're making good movies with a bigger budget.

[duane]

Huh? Marvel Studios was making good movies before the buyout. After the buyout, they're making good movies with a bigger budget.

Yeah, you're right.  I had my thoughts confused.  I was thinking with a production company's help. Whatever my point was I am pretty sure I can't find it. lol

Have a good start to the work week!!

[AlienOne]

Their movies so far appear to prove you rather wrong.

Side note: Just because a movie makes a lot of money does not mean it "proves" it's a good movie.

In fact, on a brief examination of what appeals to the masses these days (think Michael Bay, Justin Bieber, LiL Wayne, etc.), I would submit that if it makes a buttload of money these days, it's probably NOT good. I realize that's a subjective viewpoint, but I don't like the notion that "because it's popular, it's validated" to be above reproach or criticism. I do believe Marvel has fallen prey to several "big budget tropes" I've seen in many horrible films in the past in some of their latest films.

However, that said, I've actually enjoyed *most* of what Marvel has put out the past few years (and that's saying something, considering I'm a DC guy)...

[Burnt Toast]

A good movie is quite subjective. Even movies which I consider complete and utter trash have their fans. One could say Box Office results are indicative of a movie's "goodness," but that's not entirely true either... it simply means enough people wanted to see it to make it profitable. Ask 10 people for a list of good movies and you will get maybe some similarities, but overall.. different lists. One could say an Academy Award for Best Picture means a movie is "good," but I would disagree a lot of the time with that as well. Example... Here are Best Picture winners which i do not think are good movies...and another nominee that I think is good and should have won.


Forrest Gump - Shawkshank Redemption... should have won
Unforgiven - The Crying Game OR A Few Good Men... should have won
Titanic - As Good As It Gets... should have won
Rain Man - Mississippi Burning... should have won
Rocky - Network... should have won
Braveheart - Apollo 13...should have won
Slumdog Millionaire - Milk... should have won.
A Beautiful Mind - Moulin Rouge!... should have won.
Annie Hall - Star Wars... should have won.
Ordinary People - The Elephant Man...should have won.
12 Years A Slave - Dallas Buyers Club... should have won




Just to name a few...

Side note: Just because a movie makes a lot of money does not mean it "proves" it's a good movie.

In fact, on a brief examination of what appeals to the masses these days (think Michael Bay, Justin Bieber, LiL Wayne, etc.), I would submit that if it makes a buttload of money these days, it's probably NOT good. I realize that's a subjective viewpoint, but I don't like the notion that "because it's popular, it's validated" to be above reproach or criticism. I do believe Marvel has fallen prey to several "big budget tropes" I've seen in many horrible films in the past in some of their latest films.

However, that said, I've actually enjoyed *most* of what Marvel has put out the past few years (and that's saying something, considering I'm a DC guy)...

[AlienOne]

As I noted, it is subjective, but one cannot argue the fact that standards for movies/TV/music/entertainment have gone way, way down in the past 20 years.

I think it was harder to choose a winner (at least to me) between movies/songs years ago than today. Today's entertainment lacks intellect.

Here's an example:

Pink Floyd's lyrics:

"And you run and you run to catch up with the sun, but its sinking. Racing around to come up behind you again. The sun is the same in a relative way but you're older. Shorter of breath and one day closer to death. Every year is getting shorter; never seem to find the time. Plans that either come to naught or half a page of scribbled lines."

Lyrics from a recent Rihanna song:

He want that cake, cake,
Cake, cake, cake, cake, cake
Cake, cake, cake, cake, cake
Cake, cake, cake

Ooh baby, I like it
You so excited
Don't try to hide it
I'mma make you my bitch
Cake, cake, cake, cake
Cake, cake, cake, cake
Cake, cake, cake, cake
Cake, cake, cake

She sells millions of records, so it must mean it's good, right? >.>

The same could be applied to today's movies.

As someone who has acquired a Film degree, it's painfully obvious to see certain tropes repeated over and over in (especially big budget) movies today.

Again, personal opinion.

[AlienOne]

Here's an interesting article mentioning the DC and Marvel movies and that critic's impression of Marvel's movies... I used the term "tropes" and he uses the word "samey," but the point is kind of the same...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/benjaminmoore/2015/03/05/dc-comics-movies-edgier-than-marvel-movies/

Don't get me wrong--I will repeat, I did enjoy a good bit of the Marvel movies. It's important to note I'm not knocking them completely...I just think it's ok to like a movie and still be critical of it.

[MM3squints]

As I noted, it is subjective, but one cannot argue the fact that standards for movies/TV/music/entertainment have gone way, way down in the past 20 years.

I think it was harder to choose a winner (at least to me) between movies/songs years ago than today. Today's entertainment lacks intellect.

Here's an example:

Pink Floyd's lyrics:

"And you run and you run to catch up with the sun, but its sinking. Racing around to come up behind you again. The sun is the same in a relative way but you're older. Shorter of breath and one day closer to death. Every year is getting shorter; never seem to find the time. Plans that either come to naught or half a page of scribbled lines."

Lyrics from a recent Rihanna song:

He want that cake, cake,
Cake, cake, cake, cake, cake
Cake, cake, cake, cake, cake
Cake, cake, cake

Ooh baby, I like it
You so excited
Don't try to hide it
I'mma make you my bitch
Cake, cake, cake, cake
Cake, cake, cake, cake
Cake, cake, cake, cake
Cake, cake, cake

She sells millions of records, so it must mean it's good, right? >.>

The same could be applied to today's movies.

As someone who has acquired a Film degree, it's painfully obvious to see certain tropes repeated over and over in (especially big budget) movies today.

Again, personal opinion.

Well that song is supposed be in the same context of 112 "Peaches and Cream" although not as thought out. I felt music was getting too commercialized since 2004 and the quality in all genre has been on a downward slop. Especially in Rap/Hip-Hop when autotune and snap rap took over. It's like what Chris Rock says, "I love rap, but it's hard to defend it now because in the past you could argue rap on a intellectual level. You could argue Run DMC, NWA. You can't argue, I got hoes in different area codes. You can't argue, move bitch get out of the way." People say you know your getting old when you think this generation's music suck.

[FloatingFatMan]

As someone who has acquired a Film degree, it's painfully obvious to see certain tropes repeated over and over in (especially big budget) movies today.

Again, personal opinion.

You are attempting to equate the acting and story telling in a comic book movie to something along the lines of Shindler's List.  You were -always- going to fail that kind of comparison.

A comic book movie is good merely by the auspices of sticking close to the source material, which in the case of comic books, is a good 90% trope.  So far, Marvel have done a bloody good job of doing that, and box office takings are an indicator of that.  Don't go judging them by Oscar winnings standards, they're not that kind of movie.

[Ironwolf]

They are heavens forbid - ENTERTAINING!

I don't always want a message, a depressing look into someone else's misery or to be preached at for being rich, happy or good looking (none of which apply - except happy).

Sometimes I want to see the Hulk ragdoll Loki. Sometimes I want to see Captain America stand up for what is right. Sometimes i want to see a small grumpy raccoon shoot stuff.

Sometimes.

[AlienOne]

You are attempting to equate the acting and story telling in a comic book movie to something along the lines of Shindler's List.  You were -always- going to fail that kind of comparison.

A comic book movie is good merely by the auspices of sticking close to the source material, which in the case of comic books, is a good 90% trope.  So far, Marvel have done a bloody good job of doing that, and box office takings are an indicator of that.  Don't go judging them by Oscar winnings standards, they're not that kind of movie.

I think that's limited vision. I think Christopher Nolan's Batman let everyone know that a "comic book movie" can be much, much more than just a "good time" (A good time can be had at any kind of movie, by the way--not just action/comedies). Acting and storytelling can be good in a comic book movie too, and it doesn't have to be covered up by big explosions. Sure, there's plenty of action to be had in a comic book universe, but at the heart of any really *truly* good comic book is a good story, and the heart of any *truly* good comic book movie is good direction (storytelling) and good acting. Heath Ledger proved that the Joker could be taken further than a goofy laugh, and I believe there are many good Marvel characters that could be taken farther than a good looking hunk with a hammer and marginal acting talents.

One doesn't have to look far to see there is great source material in comics to take the comic book movie universe to many, many more places than a simple Michael Bay style popcorn action flick.

Personally, I'd like to see a horror/thriller based on the comic "Arkham Asylum: A Serious House on Serious Earth." If a producer/director would start getting brave enough to stretch comic book movies to more places than just "yay! candy action!" then you'd see much more potential to the comic book universe.

Your vision is limited, and by extension, your argument about "comic book movies and Schindler's List."

I guess bottom line is that I'd like to see more variety in the comic book universe movie-wise. Right now it's all "Michael Bay style." With the exception of the Nolan trilogy, it's ALL been "bubble gum pop." All of it. I'd like to see some variation here and there. Nothing wrong with a funny movie like Guardians of the Galaxy. But let's see something original too. Let's see a horror. Let's see a "whodunit." Let's see a tear-jerker. Let's see one that concentrates on "life outside the action" with a major character.

I thought the first "Sin City" was a great foray into a different look for a comic book movie (not to mention taking it into R-rated and "film noir" territory)... But, I think there's room for more.

Full disclosure:
I'm a Superman fan, and my fav Superman comic series was "The Death of Superman" and "The Return of Superman." Why? Because there was some actual story there. It showed Superman wasn't "all powerful," and more specifically, it showed what life was like for civilians and other superheroes when he was and wasn't around. I'm a firm believer that the crux of a good story is a good conflict, and there are many more conflicts to choose from than the Bond-esque "dude wants to take over/destroy Earth" tired, old trope. Sometimes, the more interesting conflicts are the more personal ones. But, yeah, I guess explosions/Earth doomed/we'll all die/apocalypse = what people want to see and I'm in the small minority of comic book fans that think there's a much larger comic book universe out there than that limited scope.

*goes back to corner*