So why can't DC catch up to Marvel in Hollywood?

[TMC]

http://realwrestlecrap.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=offtopic&action=display&thread=409505&page=1

I hope I am not the only one who has noticed that DC has seriously
fallen short of Marvel in the movie department. Not for the lack of
trying, but outside of the Batman movies DC has yet to have any
success on the levels Marvel has: Catwoman and Jonah Hex both bombed
flat out, Superman Returns, Watchmen, and Green Lantern didn't exactly
do badly but they all fell far short of expectations and got crucified
by critics. They are preparing a fresh round with plans for a Superman
relaunch and a Wonder Woman movie, but it is hard to feel optimistic
with their track record so far. So what gives?

I think part of it is timing: Marvel got a head start on DC in
Hollywood, so they have a monopoly on some of the best talent
available (actors, writers, directors, etc), and also DC waited so
long to get involved that people were already starting to burn out on
super-hero movies by the time they got in the game. But I also think
they have been trying a little too hard in some cases: they are
obviously eager to try to establish the kind of trilogies that Marvel
has created, but if you watch films like X-Men, Spider Man, or Iron
Man, they all could easily have been stand alone films but they were
successful enough to spawn sequels. With movies like Green Lantern, DC
has been obviously trying to set up the stage for more, and they end
up packing too much too fast into any one film.

I also think it might do DC some good to keep getting their feet wet
on the small screen; they had a great launching pad with Smallville. I
could easily envision a Buffy-esque series about Nightwing. And I
recall hearing that HBO was briefly interested in making The Watchmen
into a mini-series, which I think would have suited the story much
better since it could have been told in its disjointed fashion more
easily that way.

Any other theories?

[TMC]

[Duggy]

On Jan 9, 6:14 pm, TMC <tmc1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> http://realwrestlecrap.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=offtopic&action=...

>
> I hope I am not the only one who has noticed that DC has seriously
> fallen short of Marvel in the movie department.

No. It's old news.

It used to be the other way around.

Then Warner started to see DC as a source for licensed properties that
they owned and could do with what they wanted and Avi Arad took
control of Marvel licensing and stopped Marvel's old practise of just
selling to anyone and letting them do what they want and started to
get approval of the final product.

Licensing to Fox, Sony, distributing their own stuff through Paramount
certainly helped vs Warner Bros doing all the DC stuff.

Some of that may change now Disney owns Marvel.

===
= DUG.
===

[Ken from Chicago]

"Duggy" <Paul....@jcu.edu.au> wrote in message
news:bb3571d4-bf9b-45f5...@p16g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...

Also Warner Bros owns DC and wouldn't shop around various DC titles thus the
decade-long drought of Superman movies and the absence of non-Batman
movies--because Batman has been their most merchandisable character (despite
Superman's popularity, how many tv series and video games has he had versus
Batman--and I'll spot you SMALLVILLE and SUPERMAN: THE ANIMATED SERIES?).

Meanwhile Marvel shopped around Blade, Spider-Man, X-Men, Daredevil,
Punisher, Elektra, Fantastic Four, Hulk, Incredible Hulk, Iron Man, Thor,
Captain America.

Meanwhile Wonder Woman, Flash, Aquaman, Green Arrow, Martian Manhunter,
etc. have been cooling their heels waiting for adaptations. Ironically, DC
titles most people wouldn't connect to DC Comics, Constantine V for
Vendetta, The Losers, Stardust, A History of Violence, etc. have gotten
adaptations.

-- Ken from Chicago

P.S. Ironically, with the recent spotlight on the woeful tv adaptation, a
movie adaptations for Wonder Woman is the easiest of all:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.tv/msg/929fbfe02987b00a

[Duggy]

On Jan 9, 10:07 pm, "Ken from Chicago" <kwicker1b_nos...@comcast.net>
wrote:

> Also Warner Bros owns DC and wouldn't shop around various DC
> titles thus the
> decade-long drought of Superman movies and the absence of non-
> Batman
> movies--because Batman has been their most merchandisable
> character (despite
> Superman's popularity, how many tv series and video games has he > had versus
> Batman--and I'll spot you SMALLVILLE and SUPERMAN: THE ANIMATED SERIES?).

Agreed. Also, because of continuity of ownership you get things like
Catwoman a Batman spin-off that gets reworked and reworked until it
finally gets made bad.

> Meanwhile Wonder Woman, Flash, Aquaman, Green Arrow, Martian Manhunter,
> etc. have been cooling their heels waiting for adaptations.

True, but to be fair darker heroes or reimaginings of the genre have
been the main focus... and most of those won't do that well.

> Ironically, DC
> titles most people wouldn't connect to DC Comics, Constantine V for
> Vendetta, The Losers, Stardust, A History of Violence, etc. have
> gotten adaptations.

True... but that's because they're freer to do things with. Blade is
a Marvel example of the things.

> P.S. Ironically, with the recent spotlight on the woeful tv adaptation, a
> movie adaptations for Wonder Woman is the easiest of all:

Sometimes the easiest are the hardest.

===
= DUG.
===

[Mike Hall]

On 09/01/2012 12:07, Ken from Chicago wrote:

> Also Warner Bros owns DC and wouldn't shop around various DC titles thus
> the decade-long drought of Superman movies and the absence of non-Batman
> movies--because Batman has been their most merchandisable character
> (despite Superman's popularity, how many tv series and video games has
> he had versus Batman--and I'll spot you SMALLVILLE and SUPERMAN: THE
> ANIMATED SERIES?).

...Lois and Clark. I'm pretty sure Superman has had way more
live-action television than Batman.


Mike Hall

[noisyblocks]

> Any other theories?

I just think the genre has been fairly well beaten to death--which
affects both. Look at how Green Lantern tanked...and whatever happened
to Capt. America? Do I care?? Well, not really.

I think they did a good job resurrecting Batman the way they did
(almost in line with how James Bond suddenly got darker and grittier)
but already it's feeling thin.

I'm more interested in understanding why they always make the movies/
TV shows based on comics--versus actually generating a new storyline/
character group. If anything, Pixar has shown that you can make great
stories out of thin air, so why not great comicbook heroes too?

But like you say, it's the sequel thing currently driving it, and so
recognizable names (Spiderman etc) is what sells. Hmm.


--
noisyblocks

[Madara0806]

I like some of the DTV animated movies DC has done, e.g. that Justice
League one set in the 1950s (New Frontier, I think). I'd actually
prefer good 2-D animated features done in the comic book style over
bloated live-action ones.

[William George Ferguson]

On Mon, 09 Jan 2012 13:35:16 +0000, Mike Hall <tar...@spam3spam.yahoo.com>
wrote:

Far as I can remember, the Batman family has had two live-action tv series,
ABC's Batman (1966-68) and the WB's Birds of Prey (2002-03), while the
Superman family has had The Adventures of Superman (1951-58), Superboy
(1988-92), Lois and Clark (1993-97), and Smallville (2001-11). Each one of
the 4 Superman series had more episodes than the two Batman series
combined.

Superman has also appeared in more animated projects than Batman, going all
the way back to the 40s.

Batman does have more live-action movies than Superman, but not by a
lot.(Superman has 8, with a 9th in production; Batman has 9, with a 10th in
production).


--
"Oh Buffy, you really do need to have
every square inch of your ass kicked."
- Willow Rosenberg

[Ken from Chicago]

"noisyblocks" <noisy...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:585513b2-b901-4f8d...@h12g2000yqg.googlegroups.com...

>> Any other theories?
>
> I just think the genre has been fairly well beaten to death--which
> affects both. Look at how Green Lantern tanked...and whatever happened
> to Capt. America? Do I care?? Well, not really.

Cap was the #10 top-grossing box office movie in America for 2011.

http://www.imdb.com/search/title?year=2011,2011&sort=boxoffice_gross_us,desc

> I think they did a good job resurrecting Batman the way they did
> (almost in line with how James Bond suddenly got darker and grittier)
> but already it's feeling thin.
>
> I'm more interested in understanding why they always make the movies/
> TV shows based on comics--versus actually generating a new storyline/
> character group. If anything, Pixar has shown that you can make great
> stories out of thin air, so why not great comicbook heroes too?

Fear. Heaven forbid you create something new. Then again, there would be
complaints that they are ripping off the old--so might as well use the old
characters.

> But like you say, it's the sequel thing currently driving it, and so
> recognizable names (Spiderman etc) is what sells. Hmm.
>
>
> --
> noisyblocks

Yep, it's all about the brands.

-- Ken from Chicago

[Ken from Chicago]

"Duggy" <Paul....@jcu.edu.au> wrote in message

news:2e145ffc-ea31-434d...@y12g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...

> On Jan 9, 10:07 pm, "Ken from Chicago" <kwicker1b_nos...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>> Also Warner Bros owns DC and wouldn't shop around various DC
>> titles thus the
>> decade-long drought of Superman movies and the absence of non-
>> Batman
>> movies--because Batman has been their most merchandisable
>> character (despite
>> Superman's popularity, how many tv series and video games has he > had
>> versus
>> Batman--and I'll spot you SMALLVILLE and SUPERMAN: THE ANIMATED SERIES?).
>
> Agreed. Also, because of continuity of ownership you get things like
> Catwoman a Batman spin-off that gets reworked and reworked until it
> finally gets made bad.

CATWOMAN certainly got reworked bad.

>> Meanwhile Wonder Woman, Flash, Aquaman, Green Arrow, Martian Manhunter,
>> etc. have been cooling their heels waiting for adaptations.
>
> True, but to be fair darker heroes or reimaginings of the genre have
> been the main focus... and most of those won't do that well.

If they had went with the Wally and Kyle versions of Flash and Green
Lantern, their given stories are dark: One trying to live up to the legend
who died in action--the other afraid of becoming the worst villain the Corp
had ever seen.

>> Ironically, DC
>> titles most people wouldn't connect to DC Comics, Constantine V for
>> Vendetta, The Losers, Stardust, A History of Violence, etc. have
>> gotten adaptations.
>
> True... but that's because they're freer to do things with. Blade is
> a Marvel example of the things.

Freer how? What restrictions have there been on movie adaptations?
bio-webslingers? Hulk's vs Daddy Hulk? Tony Stark / Iron Man in the Middle
East? African American Kingpin? Magneto, Mystique and Havok part of the
first X-Men class?

>> P.S. Ironically, with the recent spotlight on the woeful tv adaptation, a
>> movie adaptations for Wonder Woman is the easiest of all:
>
> Sometimes the easiest are the hardest.
>
> ===
> = DUG.
> ===

Oh puhlease, a plausible take for Wonder Woman is dirt simple:

She's a warrior who's fought gods and monsters, who's an "old knight" from a
time when you said what you meant and were prepared to back it up in
personal combat and not mere political / legal / marketing spin, where honor
was placed above your own life, and a leader fought in *front* of the army.
THAT's the Wonder Woman that has been reimagined post-Crisis. That's a
Wonder Woman that even a rank amateur could come up with a script for:

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

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.comics.dc.universe/msg/8f36539c8be918f1?hl=en

-- Ken from Chicago

[Bill Steele]

On 1/9/12 4:02 AM, Duggy wrote:
> No. It's old news.
>
> It used to be the other way around.
>
> Then Warner started to see DC as a source for licensed properties that
> they owned and could do with what they wanted and Avi Arad took
> control of Marvel licensing and stopped Marvel's old practise of just
> selling to anyone and letting them do what they want and started to
> get approval of the final product.

I think that's the key. Marvel-based films generally stick closer to the
original concepts, while DC lets the producers run loose. It goes all
the way back to animated flying Superman, campy Batman and spinning
Wonder Woman and on up to telekinetic Zod. (nobody's perfect: there's
also Fugitive Hulk and defrocked Thor.)

If there's an underlying principle it might be that Marvel is mostly
about character and DC is mostly about powers.

[Duggy]

On Jan 10, 4:05 am, "Ken from Chicago" <kwicker1b_nos...@comcast.net>
wrote:
> "Duggy" <Paul.Dug...@jcu.edu.au> wrote in message

> > On Jan 9, 10:07 pm, "Ken from Chicago" <kwicker1b_nos...@comcast.net>
> > wrote:
> >> Also Warner Bros owns DC and wouldn't shop around various DC
> >> titles thus the
> >> decade-long drought of Superman movies and the absence of non-
> >> Batman
> >> movies--because Batman has been their most merchandisable
> >> character (despite
> >> Superman's popularity, how many tv series and video games has he > had
> >> versus
> >> Batman--and I'll spot you SMALLVILLE and SUPERMAN: THE ANIMATED SERIES?).
> > Agreed.  Also, because of continuity of ownership you get things like
> > Catwoman a Batman spin-off that gets reworked and reworked until it
> > finally gets made bad.
> CATWOMAN certainly got reworked bad.

Yes.

> >> Meanwhile Wonder Woman, Flash, Aquaman, Green Arrow, Martian Manhunter,
> >> etc. have been cooling their heels waiting for adaptations.
> > True, but to be fair darker heroes or reimaginings of the genre have
> > been the main focus... and most of those won't do that well.

> If they had went with the Wally and Kyle versions of Flash and Green
> Lantern, their given stories are dark: One trying to live up to the legend
> who died in action--the other afraid of becoming the worst villain the Corp
> had ever seen.

Maybe.

> >> Ironically, DC
> >> titles most people wouldn't connect to DC Comics, Constantine V for
> >> Vendetta, The Losers, Stardust, A History of Violence, etc. have
> >> gotten adaptations.
> > True... but that's because they're freer to do things with.  Blade is
> > a Marvel example of the things.
> Freer how? What restrictions have there been on movie adaptations?
> bio-webslingers?

Minor.

> Hulk's vs Daddy Hulk?

Happens.

> Tony Stark / Iron Man in the Middle
> East?

Obviously.

> African American Kingpin?

Not the worst part of the film.

> Magneto, Mystique and Havok part of the
> first X-Men class?

Happens.

> >> P.S. Ironically, with the recent spotlight on the woeful tv adaptation, a
> >> movie adaptations for Wonder Woman is the easiest of all:
> > Sometimes the easiest are the hardest.

> Oh puhlease, a plausible take for Wonder Woman is dirt simple:

The take is simple. Making a good film on a simple take can be hard.

> She's a warrior who's fought gods and monsters, who's an "old knight" from a
> time when you said what you meant and were prepared to back it up in
> personal combat and not mere political / legal / marketing spin, where honor
> was placed above your own life, and a leader fought in *front* of the army.
> THAT's the Wonder Woman that has been reimagined post-Crisis. That's a
> Wonder Woman that even a rank amateur could come up with a script for:

Yes. And Green Lantern had a simple take on the script. Superman
Returns had a simple take on the script/

Sometimes the simplest are the hardest.

===
= DUG.
===

[Duggy]

On Jan 10, 8:13 am, Bill Steele <w...@cornell.edu> wrote:
> On 1/9/12 4:02 AM, Duggy wrote:
>
> > No.  It's old news.
>
> > It used to be the other way around.
>
> > Then Warner started to see DC as a source for licensed properties that
> > they owned and could do with what they wanted and Avi Arad took
> > control of Marvel licensing and stopped Marvel's old practise of just
> > selling to anyone and letting them do what they want and started to
> > get approval of the final product.
>
> I think that's the key. Marvel-based films generally stick closer to the
> original concepts, while DC lets the producers run loose.  It goes all
> the way back to animated flying Superman, campy Batman and spinning
> Wonder Woman and on up to telekinetic Zod.

All very successful.

> (nobody's perfect: there's
> also Fugitive Hulk

Again very successful.

Are you saying that not following the comics is a good thing.

> and defrocked Thor.)

OK.

> If there's an underlying principle it might be that Marvel is mostly
> about character and DC is mostly about powers.

Superman Returns was too much about character the wrong way.

===
= DUG.
===

[Duggy]

On Jan 10, 1:52 am, noisyblocks <noisyblo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm more interested in understanding why they always make the movies/
> TV shows based on comics--versus actually generating a new storyline/
> character group. If anything, Pixar has shown that you can make great
> stories out of thin air, so why not great comicbook heroes too?

No Ordinary Family?
The Specials?
SUPER?

> But like you say, it's the sequel thing currently driving it, and so
> recognizable names (Spiderman etc) is what sells. Hmm.

Duh.

===
= DUG.
===

[Tim Turnip]

On Mon, 09 Jan 2012 17:13:21 -0500, Bill Steele <ws...@cornell.edu>
wrote:

That's getting close to my theory, which is that the sensibility of
DC's characters is primarily derived from the 1940s, while Marvels' is
of the 1960s; hence closer to home, semiotically, and easier to
translate. (This is despite the fact that this past year, Marvel's
big movie was of a '40s character while DC's was of a '60s character;
both were exceptions that prove the rule.)

[T987654321]

DC only has three big names

Superman - lots of films out, they need a new villan

Batman - doing big bucks

Wonder Woman - this I don't get, why has it been so hard to get what
would be a slam dunk hit out?


DC hasn't done much to promote thier second tier and the GL movie
didn't help.

[Duggy]

On Jan 10, 11:35 am, T987654321 <qwrtz...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Wonder Woman - this I don't get, why has it been so hard to get what
> would be a slam dunk hit out?

Because the longer the Amazon bit is the slower the film will feel and
the rest is girl-Superman.

> DC hasn't done much to promote thier second tier and the GL movie
> didn't help.

But what was wrong with the GL film from the POV we're talking about?

It seems to me it was pretty much "put the basics of the comic origin
on screen and make fight a villain".

These are things things that people are saying is why Wonder Woman and
Superman should be easy to make.

But there's more than a good basic idea to make an enjoyable film.

===
= DUG.
===

[Ken from Chicago]

"Duggy" <Paul....@jcu.edu.au> wrote in message

news:a50e6c0d-1c62-42e2...@o14g2000vbo.googlegroups.com...

> On Jan 10, 1:52 am, noisyblocks <noisyblo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I'm more interested in understanding why they always make the movies/
>> TV shows based on comics--versus actually generating a new storyline/
>> character group. If anything, Pixar has shown that you can make great
>> stories out of thin air, so why not great comicbook heroes too?
>
> No Ordinary Family?

Which had horribly flawed writing--especially the ep with the wife's parents
visited. The single worst tv episode I've ever seen with her parents being
the most horribly written characters I've seen in 30+ years of tv watching.
It took hours to watch the episode due to literally pausing the dvr to
mentally recover after something totally annoyingly assinine they said with
starring super couple allowing the parents to say it without responding to
it.

> The Specials?

Wow, that's more obscure than MYSTERY MEN and got somewhat worse ratings on
Rotten Tomatoes.

> SUPER?

Yes, the ultra-violent low-budget vigilante movie--again. For ... some ...
reason those aren't so popular. At least not such an unpolished version of
same.

Aside from MYSTERY MEN, some other choices that got better ratings and / or
box offices would have been HANCOCK, HELLBOY, PUSH, and even, going really
old school, HERO AT LARGE.

>> But like you say, it's the sequel thing currently driving it, and so
>> recognizable names (Spiderman etc) is what sells. Hmm.
>
> Duh.
>
> ===
> = DUG.
> ===

That also reflects a lot of comic book market. For all the people
complaining about the lack of originality or new characters, the lion's
share of the market still goes to not only the Big Two, but much of the same
top-selling characters.

-- Ken from Chicago

[Duggy]

On Jan 10, 3:41 pm, "Ken from Chicago" <kwicker1b_nos...@comcast.net>
wrote:
> "Duggy" <Paul.Dug...@jcu.edu.au> wrote in message

>
> news:a50e6c0d-1c62-42e2...@o14g2000vbo.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Jan 10, 1:52 am, noisyblocks <noisyblo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> I'm more interested in understanding why they always make the movies/
> >> TV shows based on comics--versus actually generating a new storyline/
> >> character group. If anything, Pixar has shown that you can make great
> >> stories out of thin air, so why not great comicbook heroes too?
>
> > No Ordinary Family?
>
> Which had horribly flawed writing--especially the ep with the wife's parents
> visited. The single worst tv episode I've ever seen with her parents being
> the most horribly written characters I've seen in 30+ years of tv watching.
> It took hours to watch the episode due to literally pausing the dvr to
> mentally recover after something totally annoyingly assinine they said with
> starring super couple allowing the parents to say it without responding to
> it.
>
> > The Specials?
>
> Wow, that's more obscure than MYSTERY MEN and got somewhat worse ratings on
> Rotten Tomatoes.

I actually enjoyed it, very Common Grounds-like. No action. They
may have annoyed some.

> > SUPER?
> Yes, the ultra-violent low-budget vigilante movie--again. For ... some ...
> reason those aren't so popular. At least not such an unpolished version of
> same.

If you want a higher budget, a comic book title is probably needed to
sell it.

> Aside from MYSTERY MEN,

Based on a comic.

> some other choices that got better ratings and / or
> box offices would have been HANCOCK,

True, but not a team as requested.

> HELLBOY,

Based on a comic.

> PUSH,

Don't know it.

> and even, going really
> old school, HERO AT LARGE.

Possible.

Teams: Skyhigh.
Non-Teams: Jumper.

> That also reflects a lot of comic book market. For all the people
> complaining about the lack of originality or new characters, the lion's
> share of the market still goes to not only the Big Two, but much of the same
> top-selling characters.

True. It's the same names in the Top 10/20 unless something special's
happening that month.

===
= DUG.
===

[notbob]

On 2012-01-09, Ken from Chicago <kwicker1...@comcast.net> wrote:

> Cap was the #10 top-grossing box office movie in America for 2011.

Which pretty much indicates the piss-poor state of the industry, these
days. Hell, they're even remaking the original comic books. How
pathetic is that.

nb

--
vi --the root of evil

[Bill Steele]

On 1/9/12 6:20 PM, Duggy wrote:
>> I think that's the key. Marvel-based films generally stick closer to the
>> > original concepts, while DC lets the producers run loose. It goes all
>> > the way back to animated flying Superman, campy Batman and spinning
>> > Wonder Woman and on up to telekinetic Zod.
> All very successful.
>

Depends whether we're talking about financial or artistic success. I'm
not sure now which the OP was addressing. When I saw the subject line I
thought it was about how Marvel made "better movies." Looking back, I
think it was really about boxoffice success, so you have a point.

I will still argue, though, that the best road to success is not to
acquire the rights to something that has been successful and then change
it.

[Ken from Chicago]

"T987654321" <qwrt...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:fc8c2434-d61f-498a...@u32g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...

> DC only has three big names
>
> Superman - lots of films out, they need a new villan

Brainiac
Metallo
Myxlpltk

> Batman - doing big bucks
>
> Wonder Woman - this I don't get, why has it been so hard to get what
> would be a slam dunk hit out?

Totally agree.

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

> DC hasn't done much to promote thier second tier and the GL movie
> didn't help.

-- Ken from Chicago

[Ken from Chicago]

"Duggy" <Paul....@jcu.edu.au> wrote in message

news:f0d0aea1-08a5-4f89...@k5g2000vba.googlegroups.com...

> On Jan 10, 11:35 am, T987654321 <qwrtz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Wonder Woman - this I don't get, why has it been so hard to get what
>> would be a slam dunk hit out?
>
> Because the longer the Amazon bit is the slower the film will feel and
> the rest is girl-Superman.

No. The Amazon part can be just as if not more exciting.

FADE IN: Show the Amazons battling gods and monsters, showing how some
element or focus is sealed on Themyscira island. It would explain why the
Greek gods, titans and monsters no longer manifest around the planet.

FADE TO: A coliseum where a bedraggled-haired, barefoot slave in chains is
dragged out by a guard in polished Greek armor, to face a roaring crowd--and
a squadron of soldiers also in Greek armor. He's wearing a rough-hewn toga,
barely more than a potato sack, shield his eyes from the bright glaring
sun--when the guard spins around and attacks.

The slave dodges so that his chains are cut and he disarms the guard, takes
the sword as the squadron rushes him. After a few minutes, the battered,
bruised, bleeding slave stands victorious and wipes his brow of
sweat--revealing he is a woman--Diana. Just as another squadron of soldiers
fire a volley of arrows at her, which she deflects with the shackles on
wrists--and catching the final arrow in her hand.

The crowd erupts with a standing ovation when suddenly a two fighter planes
jet across the sky, only to explode--with a parachuted figure falling from
one of them. The guards and crowds start to head toward the figure floating
slowly down--with Diana leading the way sprinting to . . . Col. Steve
Trevor, Air Force.

>> DC hasn't done much to promote thier second tier and the GL movie
>> didn't help.
>
> But what was wrong with the GL film from the POV we're talking about?
>
> It seems to me it was pretty much "put the basics of the comic origin
> on screen and make fight a villain".
>
> These are things things that people are saying is why Wonder Woman and
> Superman should be easy to make.
>
> But there's more than a good basic idea to make an enjoyable film.
>
> ===
> = DUG.
> ===

Steve would explain he was chasing some terrorist who had stolen a prototype
long-range fighter when the rogue plane simply disappeared in mid-air over
open water, when suddenly their island appeared and several flying creatures
got clogged in the rogue's intake causing him to explode and Steve barely
enough time to eject before his plane crashed into exploding plane.

The rest of the movie would be Diana showing off the island to him and
taking him back home to Man's World and touring the world outside their
island. Where Steve was a fish out of water on her island, Diana is a fish
out of water off the island--for comic, dramatic and even tragic results as
she discovers about celebrities, commercialism, politics, legalese and
poverty in the face of massive wealth--yet heartened to see people helping
the helpless, defending the weak against criminals, natural disasters or
disease.

While Diana is considering whether to return home, the finale would be
discovering, natch, some creatures had managed to follow them, ever so
slowly along the ocean's floor, back to the US coast. Of course Diana ends
up leading the fight against them.



See? Simple enough. Yet for 30 years big fat goose egg for WW movie.

-- Ken from Chicago

[William George Ferguson]

On Mon, 9 Jan 2012 17:35:36 -0800 (PST), T987654321 <qwrt...@gmail.com>
wrote:

There is this perception that the GL movie, and other superhero movies,
were failures at the box office. It is just that, a perception, not
reality.

I did this in the fall, but now that 2011 is all wrappted up, here's how
the 'superhero' movies did

Movie est.Bdgt US Foreign Worldwide
Thor 150m 181m 268m 449m
Captain America 140m 177m 192m 369m
X-Men: 1st Class 160m 146m 207m 353m
Green Lantern 200m 117m 103m 220m
The Green Hornet 120m 99m 129m 228m
Priest 60m 29m 49m 78m

Basically, if a movie took in twice as much as its estimated production
budget, it pretty much certainly made money (theatrical rental receipts,
that is, what the theatres pay the distributers to show the movie, are
about 54% of gross ticket sales). If it took in more than its estimated
budget, it probably ended up making money considering all revenue streams.
It's only likely to have lost money if its box office comes in
sginificantly below its estimated budget (Scott Pilgrim brought in 47m
worldiwide, and its budget was 60m). Even there, once all the ancillary
revenue streams are added it might stll have mmade money.


--
I have a theory, it could be bunnies

[Duggy]

On Jan 11, 6:22 am, "Ken from Chicago" <kwicker1b_nos...@comcast.net>
wrote:

> > Because the longer the Amazon bit is the slower the film will feel and
> > the rest is girl-Superman.
> No. The Amazon part can be just as if not more exciting.

I can be. For an Xena film or a Lost Islands of the Amazon film.

But no matter who exciting it is it's treading water until the real
film begins.

It's like the Pod Race in The Phantom Menace it was very exciting, but
it slowed the movie down which made it boring and annoying.


And the rest is girl Superman.

> > But what was wrong with the GL film from the POV we're talking about?

> > It seems to me it was pretty much "put the basics of the comic origin
> > on screen and make fight a villain".
>
> > These are things things that people are saying is why Wonder Woman and
> > Superman should be easy to make.

> > But there's more than a good basic idea to make an enjoyable film.

There's more than a good basic idea to make an enjoyable film.

> See? Simple enough. Yet for 30 years big fat goose egg for WW movie.

Green Lantern was a simple enough idea. People hated it.

===
= DUG.
===

[Duggy]

On Jan 11, 5:22 am, Bill Steele <w...@cornell.edu> wrote:
> On 1/9/12 6:20 PM, Duggy wrote:
>
> >> I think that's the key. Marvel-based films generally stick closer to the
> >> >  original concepts, while DC lets the producers run loose.  It goes all
> >> >  the way back to animated flying Superman, campy Batman and spinning
> >> >  Wonder Woman and on up to telekinetic Zod.
> > All very successful.
>
> Depends whether we're talking about financial or artistic success. I'm
> not sure now which the OP was addressing. When I saw the subject line I
> thought it was about how Marvel made "better movies." Looking back, I
> think it was really about boxoffice success, so you have a point.

Box Office success is (partially) chartable.
Artistic success is subjective.

> I will still argue, though, that the best road to success is not to
> acquire the rights to something that has been successful and then change
> it.

I hate changes to things (beyond things that need to be changed for
the media).

A lot of times it leads to failure, but there have been some massive
successes even with major changes that shit on the original product...
so there is no rule.

===
= DUG.
===

[Captain Infinity]

Once Upon A Time,

Duggy wrote:

>It's like the Pod Race in The Phantom Menace it was very exciting, but
>it slowed the movie down which made it boring and annoying.

The pod race was the only part of The Phantom Menace that wasn't boring and
annoying.


**
Captain Infinity

[Duggy]

On Jan 11, 6:44 am, William George Ferguson <wmgfr...@newsguy.com>
wrote:

> There is this perception that the GL movie, and other superhero movies,
> were failures at the box office.  It is just that, a perception, not
> reality.

Blockbusters are rated at a different level to normal films. A
blockbuster can make a small profit and still be a "failure"
financially.

> I did this in the fall, but now that 2011 is all wrappted up, here's how
> the 'superhero' movies did

> Movie            est.Bdgt    US      Foreign    Worldwide

> Green Lantern      200m    117m        103m        220m

It made 10%... and that's Box Office as you detail.

If you're going to invest $200million you'll want it to do a lot
better than that.

However, that tells us that a second tier DC film can probably make
$200mil so if you can make a, say, Flash, film for $100mil you'll do
better.

> Basically, if a movie took in twice as much as its estimated production
> budget, it pretty much certainly made money

GL didn't.

===
= DUG.
===

[Edward McArdle]

In article
<eeb5c69c-539a-45f8...@s18g2000vby.googlegroups.com>, Duggy
<Paul....@jcu.edu.au> wrote:

>On Jan 11, 6:22=A0am, "Ken from Chicago" <kwicker1b_nos...@comcast.net>

Am I the only one in the world who enjoyed it?
But I agree that the plot for Wonder Woman is girl Superman. Or, Superman
in a bathing suit, which amazingly stays on through all the action.
Possibly care of retakes.

I suspect that for audiences to be interested, WW has to be in modern day
America, though we'd welcome her in Australia, if we had any
supervillains, or even really tall buildings. No, that's Spidey.

Another film which was messed up was Supergirl. If they had left out all
the crap about her being in the Phantom Zone (!!!) the middle of the film
wasn't too bad. And I think it still sells a few DVDs.

I think the problem with Superman, as with a couple of others such as
Flash, is that there isn't really any problem he can't solve immediately.
Off topic, when I saw Superman Returns my reaction was why make such a
short film, wherew hardly anything happened - and then discovered it had
run well over two hours! So it must certainly have held my interest.

--
Edward McArdle

[Duggy]

On Jan 11, 5:46 am, "Ken from Chicago" <kwicker1b_nos...@comcast.net>
wrote:
> "T987654321" <qwrtz...@gmail.com> wrote in message

> > DC only has three big names
> > Superman - lots of films out, they need a new villan
> Brainiac

Brainiac, like Hector Hammond is an ugly genius. They can seem lame
and silly unless done right.

> Metallo

Can be good if done right. But can a film version challenge Superman?

> Myxlpltk

Not filmic.

===
= DUG.
===

[Captain Infinity]

Once Upon A Time,
Ken from Chicago wrote:

>Myxlpltk

ITYM "Mxyzptlk".


**
Captain Infinity

[Ken from Chicago]

"Duggy" <Paul....@jcu.edu.au> wrote in message

news:134c87d3-888b-43c1...@p4g2000vbt.googlegroups.com...

> On Jan 11, 5:22 am, Bill Steele <w...@cornell.edu> wrote:
>> On 1/9/12 6:20 PM, Duggy wrote:
>>
>> >> I think that's the key. Marvel-based films generally stick closer to
>> >> the
>> >> > original concepts, while DC lets the producers run loose. It goes
>> >> > all
>> >> > the way back to animated flying Superman, campy Batman and spinning
>> >> > Wonder Woman and on up to telekinetic Zod.
>> > All very successful.
>>
>> Depends whether we're talking about financial or artistic success. I'm
>> not sure now which the OP was addressing. When I saw the subject line I
>> thought it was about how Marvel made "better movies." Looking back, I
>> think it was really about boxoffice success, so you have a point.
>
> Box Office success is (partially) chartable.
> Artistic success is subjective.

Critical success is (partially) chartable, ala Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritics,
Yahoo!Movies reviews that aggregate and average out critics ratings and
separately audience ratings.

>> I will still argue, though, that the best road to success is not to
>> acquire the rights to something that has been successful and then change
>> it.
>
> I hate changes to things (beyond things that need to be changed for
> the media).

Comic book adaptations are special--especially of the Big Two, because often
the character in question has such a lengthy, decades-long, history that
there's no way to even to begin to capture in a movie or even a trilogy.
Moreover there are often conflicting stories as different writers come and
go, or even having the character regularly appear in a team book and whose
portrayal differs from their own title(s). At some point an adaptation has
to pick and choose--and sometimes that can be a very good thing.

For example, I liked the Cap America adaptation, plus the changes making
Bucky an adult, and even getting into the army BEFORE Steve does. That was
some great creative alteration. Plus making Cap part of a USO show (which I
and most comic book fans cringed at hearing about in 2010) totally worked
and explained the various uniforms.

> A lot of times it leads to failure, but there have been some massive
> successes even with major changes that shit on the original product...
> so there is no rule.
>
> ===
> = DUG.
> ===

That's why I argue for prose adaptation, read the book AFTER the movie. You
can have a good or even great movie--that's a bad adaptation. While reading
the book afterwards, adds backstory to the movie, while the movie
illustrates the book for you--which if you did in reverse, can ruin the
movie because you envisioned certain characters and scenes differently.

-- Ken from Chicago

[Ken from Chicago]

"Captain Infinity" <Infi...@captaininfinity.us> wrote in message
news:gtlpg711kftdneth4...@4ax.com...

You misspelled the final "3-way 2-bladed lightsaber duel"--that Lucas had
the least involvement with.

-- Ken from Chicago

[Ken from Chicago]

"Edward McArdle" <mca...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
news:mcardle-1101...@10.1.1.3...
> In article

<snip>

>>Green Lantern was a simple enough idea. People hated it.
>>
>
> Am I the only one in the world who enjoyed it?

Nope, I enjoyed it mildly too. It was in the top-25 grossing films of 2011,
so we're not alone. Like THOR the focus seemed to narrow, focused only on a
couple handful of people.

> But I agree that the plot for Wonder Woman is girl Superman. Or, Superman
> in a bathing suit, which amazingly stays on through all the action.
> Possibly care of retakes.

Not quite, more like Clash of the Titans, Jurassic Park, with a dash of
Independence Day fighter sequence and the standard round-the-dial celebrity
/ talk show / pundit show analysis sequence.

> I suspect that for audiences to be interested, WW has to be in modern day
> America, though we'd welcome her in Australia, if we had any
> supervillains, or even really tall buildings. No, that's Spidey.
>
> Another film which was messed up was Supergirl. If they had left out all
> the crap about her being in the Phantom Zone (!!!) the middle of the film
> wasn't too bad. And I think it still sells a few DVDs.
>
> I think the problem with Superman, as with a couple of others such as
> Flash, is that there isn't really any problem he can't solve immediately.
> Off topic, when I saw Superman Returns my reaction was why make such a
> short film, wherew hardly anything happened - and then discovered it had
> run well over two hours! So it must certainly have held my interest.
>
> --
> Edward McArdle

The key to a Flash movie is having a smart villain who plans multiple
simultaneous attacks.

-- Ken from Chicago

[Ken from Chicago]

"Duggy" <Paul....@jcu.edu.au> wrote in message

news:fe31eef4-4da7-4868...@i26g2000vbt.googlegroups.com...

> On Jan 11, 5:46 am, "Ken from Chicago" <kwicker1b_nos...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>> "T987654321" <qwrtz...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> > DC only has three big names
>> > Superman - lots of films out, they need a new villan
>> Brainiac
>
> Brainiac, like Hector Hammond is an ugly genius. They can seem lame
> and silly unless done right.

Which Brainiac?

>> Metallo
>
> Can be good if done right. But can a film version challenge Superman?

He's robot with a human brain and a kryptonite heart. I think he can
challenge Superman.

>> Myxlpltk
>
> Not filmic.

More like Superman vs The Mask, lots of cgi and easily filmable. Tho I'd
recommend it for a middle of a trilogy since it would be more comedic in
tone.

> ===
> = DUG.
> ===

-- Ken from Chicago

[Duggy]

On Jan 11, 1:51 pm, "Ken from Chicago" <kwicker1b_nos...@comcast.net>
wrote:

> "Duggy" <Paul.Dug...@jcu.edu.au> wrote in message

> > Box Office success is (partially) chartable.
> > Artistic success is subjective.
> Critical success is (partially) chartable, ala Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritics,
> Yahoo!Movies reviews that aggregate and average out critics ratings and
> separately audience ratings.

Sure. But people will still argue the point.

> > I hate changes to things (beyond things that need to be changed for
> > the media).
> Comic book adaptations are special--especially of the Big Two, because often
> the character in question has such a lengthy, decades-long, history that
> there's no way to even to begin to capture in a movie or even a trilogy.

I'm fine with the movie of an ongoing comic not covering an exact
story or exact history.

> > A lot of times it leads to failure, but there have been some massive
> > successes even with major changes that shit on the original product...
> > so there is no rule.

> That's why I argue for prose adaptation, read the book AFTER the movie. You
> can have a good or even great movie--that's a bad adaptation. While reading
> the book afterwards, adds backstory to the movie, while the movie
> illustrates the book for you--which if you did in reverse, can ruin the
> movie because you envisioned certain characters and scenes differently.

I disagree. Reading a book after the movie can taint a book... make
you see the actor no imagine the character as written.

===
= DUG.
===

[Duggy]

On Jan 11, 10:29 am, Captain Infinity <Infin...@captaininfinity.us>
wrote:

YMMV.

===
= DUG.
===

[Sol L. Siegel]

> Any other theories?

Except for Bats and Spidey, the characters aren't all that interesting.
That's basically it.

- Sol L. Siegel, Philadelphia, PA USA

[Duggy]

On Jan 11, 2:52 pm, "Sol L. Siegel" <vod...@aol.com> wrote:
> > Any other theories?
>
> Except for Bats and Spidey, the characters aren't all that interesting.
> That's basically it.

I wouldn't say Spidey was an interesting character.

===
= DUG.
===

[Kenneth M. Lin]

Marvel had a lot of stinkers and just got lucky last year with three hits.
All the Punisher movies were awful. Fantastic Four had nothing to write
home about. Even the last Spider-Man movie was extremely lackluster to the
point that they had to relaunch the franchise. And let's not talk about The
Man-Thing.

The Amazing Spider-Man could suck big time. I just can't picture Peter
Parker looking so pretty as the guy they hired.

[grinningdemon]

Of course you wouldn't...you don't like Marvel.

[Duggy]

On Jan 11, 4:31 pm, grinningdemon <grinningde...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Jan 2012 21:07:16 -0800 (PST), Duggy
> <Paul.Dug...@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
> >On Jan 11, 2:52 pm, "Sol L. Siegel" <vod...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> > Any other theories?
> >> Except for Bats and Spidey, the characters aren't all that interesting.
> >> That's basically it.
> >I wouldn't say Spidey was an interesting character.

> Of course you wouldn't...you don't like Marvel.

While it is true that I don't like Marvel I do think Deadpool is an

[grinningdemon]

Deadpool is an interesting character? He's a clown with no depth at
all (at least not the current incarnation)...his books are
occasionally good for a few laughs (and usually not even that these
days) but that's all.

Spidey actually was an interesting character...until the retcon turned
him and most of his supporting cast into assholes.

[Mike Hall]

On 11/01/2012 03:53, Ken from Chicago wrote:
> "Captain Infinity" <Infi...@captaininfinity.us> wrote in message
> news:gtlpg711kftdneth4...@4ax.com...
>> Once Upon A Time,
>> Duggy wrote:
>>
>>> It's like the Pod Race in The Phantom Menace it was very exciting, but
>>> it slowed the movie down which made it boring and annoying.
>>
>> The pod race was the only part of The Phantom Menace that wasn't
>> boring and
>> annoying.

> You misspelled the final "3-way 2-bladed lightsaber duel"--that Lucas
> had the least involvement with.

A duel is a two-way fight by definition, I believe. The pod race had
nothing to do with the creation of Jar Jar Binks, who killed the movie
single-handedly. Fast-forward through the Binks parts and you have a
pretty exciting Star Wars movie, even though the kid who plays young
Anakin can't act very well.

Fast forward to the Binks parts and you have a Rastafarian alien who is
hated by his people and is apparently stoned for several scenes, who
defeats an invading droid army by doing a prat-fall. He is then
considered a hero.

This probably has nothing to do with the OP but I just can't let go of
the hurt!


Mike Hall

[Captain Infinity]

Once Upon A Time,
Ken from Chicago wrote:

>> The pod race was the only part of The Phantom Menace that wasn't boring
>> and annoying.
>

>You misspelled the final "3-way 2-bladed lightsaber duel"--that Lucas had
>the least involvement with.

I actually found that tedious. Too obviously choreographed.


**
Captain Infinity

[Duggy]

On Jan 11, 6:56 pm, grinningdemon <grinningde...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
> Deadpool is an interesting character?  He's a clown with no depth at
> all

And everyone loves a clown.

> Spidey actually was an interesting character...until the retcon turned
> him and most of his supporting cast into assholes.

I always found him a whiny brat. But people get different things from
characters.

I noticed you dodged your false claim.

===
= DUG.
===

[Duggy]

On Jan 11, 2:12 pm, "Ken from Chicago" <kwicker1b_nos...@comcast.net>
wrote:

> "Duggy" <Paul.Dug...@jcu.edu.au> wrote in message

> > On Jan 11, 5:46 am, "Ken from Chicago" <kwicker1b_nos...@comcast.net>
> > wrote:
> >> "T987654321" <qwrtz...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >> > DC only has three big names
> >> > Superman - lots of films out, they need a new villan
> >> Brainiac
> > Brainiac, like Hector Hammond is an ugly genius.  They can seem lame
> > and silly unless done right.
> Which Brainiac?

Any that they'd use.

It can be done... but can go wrong.

> >> Metallo
> > Can be good if done right.  But can a film version challenge Superman?
> He's robot with a human brain and a kryptonite heart. I think he can
> challenge Superman.

Robot - no challenge.
Kryptonite Heart - the same as Lex with a chuck.

Metallo seems more a wasted-as-muscle character for films.

The only interesting part of him for a film is "Looks like Superman
with a mustache" thing but I doubt that will be used.

> >> Myxlpltk
> > Not filmic.

> More like Superman vs The Mask, lots of cgi and easily filmable.

Filmable but not filmy.

> Tho I'd
> recommend it for a middle of a trilogy since it would be more comedic in
> tone.

And magic... doesn't work in a Superman film.

Plus the trickster element makes a weak climax. He's a good recurring
TV villain.

===
= DUG.
===

[Bill Steele]

On 1/10/12 7:02 PM, Duggy wrote:
> A lot of times it leads to failure, but there have been some massive
> successes even with major changes that shit on the original product...
> so there is no rule.
>

Indeed. Classic examples would be Tarzan and the radio versioin of The
Shadow. Tremendous financial successes but fans were pissed. OTOH,
Spiderman and Suprman (mostly) satisfied both sides: a consumation
devoutly to be wished.

[Bill Steele]

On 1/10/12 7:07 PM, Duggy wrote:
> On Jan 11, 6:22 am, "Ken from Chicago"<kwicker1b_nos...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>>> Because the longer the Amazon bit is the slower the film will feel and
>>> the rest is girl-Superman.
>> No. The Amazon part can be just as if not more exciting.
>
> I can be. For an Xena film or a Lost Islands of the Amazon film.
>
> But no matter who exciting it is it's treading water until the real
> film begins.

Superman started off with a few minutes of Krypton, and that came off
OK. You have to set up Diana's reason for leaving the Island, and her
relationship with Steve.

>
> It's like the Pod Race in The Phantom Menace it was very exciting, but
> it slowed the movie down which made it boring and annoying.
>
>
> And the rest is girl Superman.

Hopefully the rest is S&M fantasies.

>
>
>>> But what was wrong with the GL film from the POV we're talking about?
>
>>> It seems to me it was pretty much "put the basics of the comic origin
>>> on screen and make fight a villain".
>>
>>> These are things things that people are saying is why Wonder Woman and
>>> Superman should be easy to make.
>
>>> But there's more than a good basic idea to make an enjoyable film.
>
> There's more than a good basic idea to make an enjoyable film.
>
>> See? Simple enough. Yet for 30 years big fat goose egg for WW movie.
>
> Green Lantern was a simple enough idea. People hated it.

The trouble there was that DC had already added a ton of stuff to the
original simple idea.

[Bill Steele]

On 1/11/12 5:07 AM, Mike Hall wrote:
> The pod race had nothing to do with the creation of Jar Jar Binks, who
> killed the movie single-handedly. Fast-forward through the Binks parts
> and you have a pretty exciting Star Wars movie, even though the kid who
> plays young Anakin can't act very well.

Try substituting Smiley Burnette and Gene Autry in the above.

[Bill Steele]

On 1/10/12 2:46 PM, Ken from Chicago wrote:
>
> "T987654321" <qwrt...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:fc8c2434-d61f-498a...@u32g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...

>> DC only has three big names
>>
>> Superman - lots of films out, they need a new villan
>
> Brainiac

> Metallo
> Myxlpltk

I keep saying this: Atom Man from the radio show. I suppose no one in
Hollywood is old enough to remember.
>
>> Batman - doing big bucks
>>
>> Wonder Woman - this I don't get, why has it been so hard to get what
>> would be a slam dunk hit out?
>
> Totally agree.
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.tv/msg/896ef286046b7184?hl=en
>
>> DC hasn't done much to promote thier second tier and the GL movie
>> didn't help.

And there may lie the anseer to the original question. Marvel doesn't
really have "tiers."

[Ken Arromdee]

In article <jekvtv$dom$1...@ruby.cit.cornell.edu>,

Bill Steele <ws...@cornell.edu> wrote:
>I keep saying this: Atom Man from the radio show. I suppose no one in
>Hollywood is old enough to remember.

Atomic powered villains just don't have the resonance that they did back
then. Not to mention that the radio show version was a Nazi and those
really don't work as villains any more.
--
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'."

[Ken from Chicago]

"Bill Steele" <ws...@cornell.edu> wrote in message
news:jekvtv$dom$1...@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...

Actually they do:

Spider-Man, Hulk, X-Men, Iron-Man, Captain America, Bucky, Fantastic Four

Those are fairly widely-known characters in the mainstream, due in part to
various adapted live-action tv shows, movies and animation. After them:

Thor, Avengers, Daredevil, Elektra, Ghost Rider, Punisher, Submariner

They have had adaptations but most of the public would struggle to name or
recall details about them. After them:

Tigra, Iron Fist, Squirrel Girl, Hawkeye, Machine Man, everyone else, et al.

They exist in the comics but the vast public have never heard of them and
many comic book fans might struggle to name or recall details about them.

-- Ken from Chicago

[Duggy]

On Jan 12, 7:36 am, Bill Steele <w...@cornell.edu> wrote:
> Superman started off with a few minutes of Krypton, and that came off
> OK. You have to set up Diana's reason for leaving the Island, and her
> relationship with Steve.

Yes... which would take more than a few minutes.

> > Green Lantern was a simple enough idea.  People hated it.
> The trouble there was that DC had already added a ton of stuff to the
> original simple idea.

Well that's bound to happen.

===
= DUG.
===

[Duggy]

Agreed.

===
= DUG.
===

[Duggy]

On Jan 12, 7:45 am, Bill Steele <w...@cornell.edu> wrote:
> On 1/10/12 2:46 PM, Ken from Chicago wrote:

> > "T987654321" <qwrtz...@gmail.com> wrote in message

> >news:fc8c2434-d61f-498a...@u32g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
> >> DC only has three big names
> >> Superman - lots of films out, they need a new villan

> > Brainiac
> > Metallo
> > Myxlpltk

> I keep saying this: Atom Man from the radio show. I suppose no one in
> Hollywood is old enough to remember.

We said "no" to reusing Lex Luthor again.

> And there may lie the anseer to the original question. Marvel doesn't
> really have "tiers."

Really? Did all the Avengers from the upcoming film get their own
movie?

===
= DUG.
===

[Edward McArdle]

In article <jekvgo$daq$2...@ruby.cit.cornell.edu>, Bill Steele

Good lord, you must be in my age range!
I have a classic serial in DVD, The Phantom Empire, bith in video and DVD.
Interestingly, the video is in "colour", the DVD is not, though I think
they may have produced a better version lately. I bought the DVD after
finding that videos don't last!

I think young Anakin and Jar-Jar are better actors than Gene Autry. The
lamppost outside my house is a better actor than Gene Autry.

--
Edward McArdle

[Ken from Chicago]

"Ken Arromdee" <arro...@rahul.net> wrote in message
news:jel1vi$7l2$1...@blue-new.rahul.net...

No, Nazis can always work as villains. Behold:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4KEueJnsu80&skipcontrinter=1

-- Ken from Chicago

[Ken from Chicago]

"Duggy" <Paul....@jcu.edu.au> wrote in message

news:c55f4a88-83fc-46c8...@u32g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...

> On Jan 12, 7:36 am, Bill Steele <w...@cornell.edu> wrote:
>> Superman started off with a few minutes of Krypton, and that came off
>> OK. You have to set up Diana's reason for leaving the Island, and her
>> relationship with Steve.
>
> Yes... which would take more than a few minutes.

Steve crashed his plane on Themyscira. Diana returned him home.

>> > Green Lantern was a simple enough idea. People hated it.
>> The trouble there was that DC had already added a ton of stuff to the
>> original simple idea.
>
> Well that's bound to happen.
>
> ===
> = DUG.
> ===

True, that's comic books in general. Green Lantern has gone thru 3-5
universal reboots. And that's just with Hal Jordan.

-- Ken from Chicago

[Super-Menace]

In article <mcardle-1201...@time.asia.apple.com>, Edward

I *loved* The Phantom Empire. Radio Ranch! The Thunder Riders! "He
is speaking the language of the dead!"

Gene Autry never had to act. All he had to do was look stolid.

[Duggy]

On Jan 12, 2:14 pm, "Ken from Chicago" <kwicker1b_nos...@comcast.net>
wrote:

> "Duggy" <Paul.Dug...@jcu.edu.au> wrote in message

> > Yes... which would take more than a few minutes.
> Steve crashed his plane on Themyscira. Diana returned him home.

And the contest for the Champion of the Amazons?

===
= DUG.
===

[Ken from Chicago]

"Duggy" <p.allan...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ebc1ef18-16c9-4920...@c6g2000pbd.googlegroups.com...

Unnecessary. We know who'd win. That's why I simply in my suggested outline
feature Diana versus a squadron of Amazons, which would be revealed as
simply entertainment for the Amazons and her mother.

She'd be introduced as the best Amazon warriors, and as Princess to the
throne, would be the chosen delegate to escort Steve back home--and act as
diplomat to Man's World.

-- Ken from Chicago

[Bill Steele]

On 1/11/12 8:23 PM, Edward McArdle wrote:
> In article<jekvgo$daq$2...@ruby.cit.cornell.edu>, Bill Steele
> <ws...@cornell.edu> wrote:
>
>> On 1/11/12 5:07 AM, Mike Hall wrote:
>>> The pod race had nothing to do with the creation of Jar Jar Binks, who
>>> killed the movie single-handedly. Fast-forward through the Binks parts
>>> and you have a pretty exciting Star Wars movie, even though the kid who
>>> plays young Anakin can't act very well.
>>
>> Try substituting Smiley Burnette and Gene Autry in the above.
>
> Good lord, you must be in my age range!

I probably am, but the movies are there for anyone to see today on
Encore Westerns.

> I have a classic serial in DVD, The Phantom Empire, bith in video and DVD.
> Interestingly, the video is in "colour", the DVD is not, though I think
> they may have produced a better version lately. I bought the DVD after
> finding that videos don't last!
>
> I think young Anakin and Jar-Jar are better actors than Gene Autry. The
> lamppost outside my house is a better actor than Gene Autry.
>

The point is, Smiley and Jar-Jar were both comic relief introduced into
a place where people came to see action.

No offense to Smiley. He seems to have been a very smart and talented
guy and a decent musician, doing what the directors told him to do. He
had a bit more control over it than Jar-Jar, so it came out a bit better.

Shall we go into comparisons of Phantom Empire with Cowboys and Aliens?

[Bill Steele]

No, we've got to keep the idea that she defied her mother.

None of it would take longer than the Krypton/growing up in Smallville
segment of Superman.

[Bill Steele]

True, every system has coirporals and privates.

What I probably should have said is that with the possible exception of
Spidey, none the Marvel characters were mainstream until they made their
first movies, while Superman, Batman and Wonder Woman have always been
cultural icons.

"Tiers" probably isn't the words to use there, although it applies
within the comic-book culture.

[Marcovaldo]

On Jan 10, 1:22 pm, "Ken from Chicago" <kwicker1b_nos...@comcast.net>
wrote:

(SNIP)

Pretty good, but you left out the most important element of the Wonder
Woman mythos: BONDAGE!

[Duggy]

On Jan 13, 2:13 am, "Ken from Chicago" <kwicker1b_nos...@comcast.net>
wrote:
> "Duggy" <p.allan.dug...@gmail.com> wrote in message

>
> news:ebc1ef18-16c9-4920...@c6g2000pbd.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Jan 12, 2:14 pm, "Ken from Chicago" <kwicker1b_nos...@comcast.net>
> > wrote:
> >> "Duggy" <Paul.Dug...@jcu.edu.au> wrote in message
> >> > Yes... which would take more than a few minutes.
> >> Steve crashed his plane on Themyscira. Diana returned him home.
>
> > And the contest for the Champion of the Amazons?

> Unnecessary. We know who'd win.

Yes, but it's not the who'd we bit, it's the that she's banned from
competiting.

I'd hate to see it missing, but like the pod race - pointless action
with an obvious winner stops forward momentum of the story.

> That's why I simply in my suggested outline
> feature Diana versus a squadron of Amazons, which would be revealed as
> simply entertainment for the Amazons and her mother.

Eh.

> She'd be introduced as the best Amazon warriors, and as Princess to the
> throne, would be the chosen delegate to escort Steve back home--and act as
> diplomat to Man's World.

Drain all the interesting stuff out why don't you.

===
= DUG.
===

[Duggy]

On Jan 13, 4:48 am, Bill Steele <w...@cornell.edu> wrote:
> No, we've got to keep the idea that she defied her mother.

> None of it would take longer than the Krypton/growing up in Smallville
> segment of Superman.

It would take longer than the Krypton bit and the growing up in
Smallville bit took too long.

===
= DUG.
===

[Duggy]

On Jan 13, 5:02 am, Bill Steele <w...@cornell.edu> wrote:
> True, every system has coirporals and privates.

> What I probably should have said is that with the possible exception of
> Spidey, none the Marvel characters were mainstream until they made their
> first movies, while Superman, Batman and Wonder Woman have always been
> cultural icons.

To be fair serials, movies and television have made and maintained
that.

===
= DUG.
===

[The Loan Arranger]

"Marcovaldo" <tana...@hushmail.com> wrote in message
news:390a076d-828e-438d...@g41g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...

================================================
Linda Carter STILL looks hot but back in the day she was SMOKIN!

[Duggy]

On Jan 13, 2:20 pm, "The Loan Arranger" <l...@loan.xxx> wrote:
> ================================================
> Linda Carter STILL looks hot but back in the day she was SMOKIN!

Smoking isn't as cool as it once was.

===
= DUG.
===

[Ken from Chicago]

"Marcovaldo" <tana...@hushmail.com> wrote in message
news:390a076d-828e-438d...@g41g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...

I'm not going further than having her start out on gladiatorial contest in
chains--and that's mostly explain her skill deflecting projectiles with
bracelets.

-- Ken from Chicago

[Ken from Chicago]

"Duggy" <Paul....@jcu.edu.au> wrote in message

news:e058bd14-185b-4dc7...@iu7g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...

Fine, so the opening gladiatorial fight is punishment for Diana previously
secretly competing in the gladiatorial games--since during the games, the
contestants are actually semi-mortal (i.e. able to be killed--by other
contestants--which had last occurred centuries before Diana's birth).

Hippolyta had long decreed that as heir to the throne Diana was forbidden to
needlessly endanger herself. Diana disagreed since Hippolyta occasionally
competed to show a leader leads from the front. To that Hippolyta countered
that Diana is not their leader and that for the Amazons to lose both Queen
and Princess would make moot having a designated heir in the first place.

Diana would have disagreed and sporadically compete in the games over the
centuries. However unlike other contestants who won, she wouldn't remove her
helmet which hid her identity but claim to be just a humble Amazon like any
other. So the legend of the Masked Warrior who always won grew--until
Hippolyta discovered Diana was not watching the games amongst the rest of
the Amazons like she had claimed. Diana needed to learn that the price of
breaking their laws is high.

Diana's punishment was to compete in lopsided games. While Hippolyta altered
those contests so Diana wouldn't be mortal but would feel the pain as any
mortal. Yet still, Diana's skill was so great, she would keep besting her
opponents--cheered on by the audience--until the day Steve Trevor's jet
exploded and her parachuted to the island.

Diana would be the first to find him and saves him from one the island's
creatures. However Hippolyta orders his death as no man is allowed on the
island is one of the oldest laws they have. It is why the island of screened
off, invisible and intangible from anyone simply sailing to it--landing from
the air was a loophole. Diana wants to save him. Hippolyta orders Steve off
the island and banishes Diana as well for her defiance.

Diana sees her in private before leaving and Hippolyta breaks down and
reveals the truth. The Amazons were not chosen by the Greek gods to seal off
a doorway to "Doom" on an island far from the Greek coast and guard it from
the rest of the world, but punished with this immortal vigil. The punishment
was for taking vengeance on an squadron of men who had drugged their wine
and raped and pillaged them and their city, the original Themyscira--in
defiance of Athena and the ideals she advocated. Hippolyta fears Diana is
repeating the same mistakes she herself made and sends her away for her own
good.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippolyta_(DC_Comics)#Rape

How's that for angst and rebelliousness? >=^>

-- Ken from Chicago

[Duggy]

On Jan 13, 8:15 pm, "Ken from Chicago" <kwicker1b_nos...@comcast.net>

I thought you said "simple idea".

===
= DUG.
===

[Ken from Chicago]

"Duggy" <Paul....@jcu.edu.au> wrote in message

news:20a6a638-8602-4e33...@h7g2000pbs.googlegroups.com...

Fine, Diana rebels against Hippolyta to compete in the games and is punished
with the lopsided games. Steve shows up and Hippolyta has Diana escort him
back--and to see the chaos in society when rules are constantly broken.

The whole secret backstory is revealed in the sequel so the 1st movie is
more upbeat.

-- Ken from Chicago

[FSogol]

Too complicated. The Amazon contests can be mud-wrestling and wet
t-shirt contests.

--
FSogol

[SparkoHeaps]

On Jan 13, 1:57 am, "Ken from Chicago" <kwicker1b_nos...@comcast.net>
wrote:
> "Marcovaldo" <tanaka...@hushmail.com> wrote in message

So she's not tying anyone up with her magic lasso in your version?

[Marcovaldo]

Bummer.

[Ken from Chicago]

"SparkoHeaps" <spark...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:e479efb4-7eba-4d51...@n30g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...

I seriously doubt that's what Marcovaldo or most people are referring to.

-- Ken from Chicago

[Madlove]

TMC wrote:
> I hope I am not the only one who has noticed that DC has seriously
> fallen short of Marvel in the movie department. Not for the lack of
> trying, but outside of the Batman movies DC has yet to have any
> success on the levels Marvel has: Catwoman and Jonah Hex both bombed
> flat out, Superman Returns, Watchmen, and Green Lantern didn't exactly
> do badly but they all fell far short of expectations and got crucified
> by critics. They are preparing a fresh round with plans for a Superman
> relaunch and a Wonder Woman movie, but it is hard to feel optimistic
> with their track record so far. So what gives?


Characters who are demi-gods aren't as interesting as flawed beings,
with Superman being the worst in this regard.

I'd love to see an experiment where S.Lee rewrites several of DC's top
cats, but in the Marvel style. Bats would be even more messed up in the
head than he is now! :-D

[William George Ferguson]

On Tue, 10 Jan 2012 16:16:21 -0800 (PST), Duggy <Paul....@jcu.edu.au>
wrote:

>On Jan 11, 6:44 am, William George Ferguson <wmgfr...@newsguy.com>
>wrote:
>> There is this perception that the GL movie, and other superhero movies,
>> were failures at the box office.  It is just that, a perception, not
>> reality.
>
>Blockbusters are rated at a different level to normal films. A
>blockbuster can make a small profit and still be a "failure"
>financially.
>
>> I did this in the fall, but now that 2011 is all wrappted up, here's how
>> the 'superhero' movies did
>
>> Movie            est.Bdgt    US      Foreign    Worldwide
>> Green Lantern      200m    117m        103m        220m
>
>It made 10%... and that's Box Office as you detail.
>
>If you're going to invest $200million you'll want it to do a lot
>better than that.

You would. The jury is out on whether Warners is happy or unhappy with the
take.

>However, that tells us that a second tier DC film can probably make
>$200mil so if you can make a, say, Flash, film for $100mil you'll do
>better.
>
>> Basically, if a movie took in twice as much as its estimated production
>> budget, it pretty much certainly made money
>
>GL didn't.

And my next sentence was "If it took in more than its estimated
budget, it probably ended up making money considering all revenue streams."

GL did take in more than its estimated budget, and probably ended up making
money. (not on paper, of course)

One key thing to keep in mind about estimated budgets, specifically
estimated budgets over $100m, they are almost always inflated. This is one
of the key areas Hollywood Accounting uses to ensure that films do not show
a net profit, as long as the studio is better off with it not showing a net
profit (pretty much 'forever').For how the studios work (barely) within the
law to do this inflation, read the Buchwald transcripts, or read the Peter
Jackson filing on LOtR.

As to whether GL's performance was or wasn't satisfactory, the vote that
counts is Warner's. If there isn't a sequel, the vote isn't neccesarily
unsatisfactory, because there are so many factors, not all of them
economic, that go into a film being greenlighted, but 'unsatisfactory'
would surely be on the table. The only certainty is that a sequel is very
strong circumstantial evidence that Warner's was happy with the numbers.

As of today, Warner's has taken the various steps on the way to a sequel.
Since commentators have stated that GL1 was an economic failure, and since
commentators will never admit they are wrong, they will find other reasons
(including 'incompetence') rather than the simple one that their perception
of GL's performance and Warner's perception aren't the same, and Warner,
being the entity that is spending, and collecting, bucks, gives more weight
to their own.


--
"Oh Buffy, you really do need to have
every square inch of your ass kicked."
- Willow Rosenberg

[Duggy]

On Jan 18, 5:03 am, William George Ferguson <wmgfr...@newsguy.com>
wrote:

> And my next sentence was "If it took in more than its estimated
> budget, it probably ended up making money considering all revenue streams."

> GL did take in more than its estimated budget, and probably ended up making
> money.  (not on paper, of course)

Well, Hollywood accounting - nothing makes money.

Theatrical and DVD, maybe a booster to the Emerald Knights video
sale. Was there a upswing in the GL comic sales?

> One key thing to keep in mind about estimated budgets, specifically
> estimated budgets over $100m, they are almost always inflated.  This is one
> of the key areas Hollywood Accounting uses to ensure that films do not show
> a net profit, as long as the studio is better off with it not showing a net
> profit (pretty much 'forever').For how the studios work (barely) within the
> law to do this inflation, read the Buchwald transcripts, or read the Peter
> Jackson filing on LOtR.

Or stuff said by JMS. Or the reason the Forest Gump writer has
refused to let them make a sequel.

> As to whether GL's performance was or wasn't satisfactory, the vote that
> counts is Warner's.  If there isn't a sequel, the vote isn't neccesarily
> unsatisfactory, because there are so many factors, not all of them
> economic, that go into a film being greenlighted, but 'unsatisfactory'
> would surely be on the table.  The only certainty is that a sequel is very
> strong circumstantial evidence that Warner's was happy with the numbers.

Or happy with the income and the estimate drop in it. They used to
estimate that a sequel would have a box office 70% of what the
original pulled in. Obviously there are exceptions. However, a
sequel just means that they think that they can make money with a
budget under that number.

> As of today, Warner's has taken the various steps on the way to a sequel.
> Since commentators have stated that GL1 was an economic failure, and since
> commentators will never admit they are wrong, they will find other reasons
> (including 'incompetence') rather than the simple one that their perception
> of GL's performance and Warner's perception aren't the same, and Warner,
> being the entity that is spending, and collecting, bucks, gives more weight
> to their own.

There are always plans for a sequel at this stage.

Superman IV: The Quest for Peace sequel:
http://www.supermansupersite.com/supermanv.html

Superman Returns sequel:
http://au.movies.ign.com/articles/690/690806p1.html

Batman & Robin sequel:
http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117435255

It keeps the contracts warm and shooting schedules open. And the
result will be based not on whether they think that Green Lantern made
money or enough money but whether they think Green Lantern 2 can make
enough money.

In all of the above cases audience backlash was more important than
pure numbers.

===
= DUG.
===

[Will Dockery]

On Jan 9, 3:14 am, TMC <tmc1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> http://realwrestlecrap.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=offtopic&action=...

>
> I hope I am not the only one who has noticed that DC has seriously
> fallen short of Marvel in the movie department.

<snip for brevity>

Strange how things change... the first two Superman films set a
standard that really hasn't been matched as far as a comic book making
a truly great film.

Brando, Hackman... legendary icons.

Meet...

Reeve, Kidder... two instantl icons, now legends themselves.

It just doesn't get much better than those two movies, in *any* genre.

--
Shadowville All-Stars 2012:
http://www.reverbnation.com/willdockery

[Marcovaldo]

On Jan 17, 12:03 pm, William George Ferguson <wmgfr...@newsguy.com>
wrote:

>

> As of today, Warner's has taken the various steps on the way to a sequel.
> Since commentators have stated that GL1 was an economic failure, and since
> commentators will never admit they are wrong, they will find other reasons
> (including 'incompetence') rather than the simple one that their perception
> of GL's performance and Warner's perception aren't the same, and Warner,
> being the entity that is spending, and collecting, bucks, gives more weight
> to their own.

If I were betting money, I'd put better odds on a do-over, analogous
to Marvel's Hulk do-over, vs. a sequel.

[Bill Steele]

A Guy Gardner version?

[Duggy]

On Jan 19, 2:47 am, Marcovaldo <tanaka...@hushmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 17, 12:03 pm, William George Ferguson <wmgfr...@newsguy.com>
> wrote:
> > As of today, Warner's has taken the various steps on the way to a seque

> > Since commentators have stated that GL1 was an economic failure, and since
> > commentators will never admit they are wrong, they will find other reasons
> > (including 'incompetence') rather than the simple one that their perception
> > of GL's performance and Warner's perception aren't the same, and Warner,
> > being the entity that is spending, and collecting, bucks, gives more weight
> > to their own.
>
> If I were betting money, I'd put better odds on a do-over, analogous
> to Marvel's Hulk do-over, vs. a sequel.

Both Punisher & Hulk had ambiguous reboots... sequelly enough that
many don't realize it wasn't.

Meanwhile, Fantastic Four got a sequel and Daredevil a spin off.

I think better than a sequel do another second tier film (say, The
Flash) see if you can get some good JLA vibes going.

Then again, a sequel does not need the rest of the corps and the ring
FX have been developed so it should be a lot cheaper.

===
= DUG.
===

[Brian C. Saunders]

"Just Imagine Stan Lee" wasn't good enough for you? That's all we are
likely to see from Stan at DC.

Brian

[grinningdemon]

On Wed, 11 Jan 2012 05:20:13 -0800 (PST), Duggy
<p.allan...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Jan 11, 6:56 pm, grinningdemon <grinningde...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
>> Deadpool is an interesting character?  He's a clown with no depth at
>> all
>
>And everyone loves a clown.
>
>> Spidey actually was an interesting character...until the retcon turned
>> him and most of his supporting cast into assholes.
>
>I always found him a whiny brat. But people get different things from
>characters.
>
>I noticed you dodged your false claim.
>
>===
>= DUG.
>===

What false claim? That you don't like Marvel? You just admitted it.

Or are we back on the reboot/retcon thing? Because I could make an
argument either way on this one but I didn't feel like starting that
same pointless discussion with you all over again.

[grinningdemon]

In my opinion, a WW adaptation is better off without Steve Trevor (as
a love interest, anyway) because, no matter how many times they try to
dress it up, it always makes the character look weaker when her chief
motivation is following a guy around just because he happens to be the
first one she ever met...Perez got it right when he dropped that
element in his reboot.

[Duggy]

On Jan 23, 11:06 am, grinningdemon <grinningde...@austin.rr.com>
wrote:

> On Wed, 11 Jan 2012 05:20:13 -0800 (PST), Duggy
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <p.allan.dug...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Jan 11, 6:56 pm, grinningdemon <grinningde...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
> >> Deadpool is an interesting character?  He's a clown with no depth at
> >> all
>
> >And everyone loves a clown.
>
> >> Spidey actually was an interesting character...until the retcon turned
> >> him and most of his supporting cast into assholes.
>
> >I always found him a whiny brat.  But people get different things from
> >characters.
>
> >I noticed you dodged your false claim.

> What false claim?  That you don't like Marvel?  You just admitted it.

That I wouldn't say Spider-man was an interesting character because I
don't like Marvel.

Marvel does have some interesting characters. Spider-man isn't one of
them.

As always you've made false claims about how I think.

Doesn't that ever get old?

> Or are we back on the reboot/retcon thing?

Why are you trying to restart that one?

Aren't you sick of making everything the same argument?

===
= DUG.
===

[grinningdemon]

On Sun, 22 Jan 2012 17:53:23 -0800 (PST), Duggy
<Paul....@jcu.edu.au> wrote:

>On Jan 23, 11:06 am, grinningdemon <grinningde...@austin.rr.com>
>wrote:
>> On Wed, 11 Jan 2012 05:20:13 -0800 (PST), Duggy
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> <p.allan.dug...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >On Jan 11, 6:56 pm, grinningdemon <grinningde...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
>> >> Deadpool is an interesting character?  He's a clown with no depth at
>> >> all
>>
>> >And everyone loves a clown.
>>
>> >> Spidey actually was an interesting character...until the retcon turned
>> >> him and most of his supporting cast into assholes.
>>
>> >I always found him a whiny brat.  But people get different things from
>> >characters.
>>
>> >I noticed you dodged your false claim.
>> What false claim?  That you don't like Marvel?  You just admitted it.
>
>That I wouldn't say Spider-man was an interesting character because I
>don't like Marvel.
>
>Marvel does have some interesting characters. Spider-man isn't one of
>them.
>
>As always you've made false claims about how I think.
>
>Doesn't that ever get old?

You have made it very clear on many occasions that you are not a
Marvel fan...it is only natural to assume a connection when you make a
general negative statement about one of the most popular and prominent
Marvel characters.

You said "everyone loves a clown"...I don't...so why are you making
false claims about how I think?

Doesn't that ever get old?

>> Or are we back on the reboot/retcon thing?
>
>Why are you trying to restart that one?

I honestly wasn't sure what you meant...and, since you generally try
to pick a fight every time "reboot" or "retcon" comes up in our
discussions, it entirely reasonable to think you might be doing so
again...so I asked if you were...asking for clarification isn't the
same as trying to restart the arguement.

>Aren't you sick of making everything the same argument?

I often wonder the same thing about you.

[Madlove]

Brian C. Saunders wrote:
> "Just Imagine Stan Lee" wasn't good enough for you? That's all we are
> likely to see from Stan at DC.
>
> Brian

Thanx! Never heard of this before. Gotta get it!!! :-D :-D :-D

[Duggy]

On Jan 13, 11:06 pm, "Ken from Chicago" <kwicker1b_nos...@comcast.net>

This sounds far more complex then you were initially claiming.

===
= DUG.
===

[Duggy]

On Jan 23, 11:17 am, grinningdemon <grinningde...@austin.rr.com>
wrote:

> In my opinion, a WW adaptation is better off without Steve Trevor (as
> a love interest, anyway) because, no matter how many times they try to
> dress it up, it always makes the character look weaker when her chief
> motivation is following a guy around just because he happens to be the
> first one she ever met...Perez got it right when he dropped that
> element in his reboot.

But... but... but... Hollywood movies need a love interest.

Don't make the execs cry.

===
= DUG.
===

[Duggy]

On Jan 23, 1:09 pm, grinningdemon <grinningde...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
> >As always you've made false claims about how I think.

> You have made it very clear on many occasions that you are not a
> Marvel fan...it is only natural to assume a connection when you make a
> general negative statement about one of the most popular and prominent
> Marvel characters.

The 2 don't follow. I hate Firefly, but I love the character of Wash.

You have a very limited view of the world and people.

PS: Please don't turn this into an excuse to start another of your
fights about Firefly.

> You said "everyone loves a clown"...I don't...so why are you making
> false claims about how I think?

Maybe you haven't met the clown I'm talking about.

> >> Or are we back on the reboot/retcon thing?
> >Why are you trying to restart that one?

> I honestly wasn't sure what you meant...

Suuuure.

> and, since you generally try
> to pick a fight every time "reboot" or "retcon" comes up in our
> discussions,

Did they?

> it entirely reasonable to think you might be doing so
> again...so I asked if you were...asking for clarification isn't the
> same as trying to restart the arguement.

Suuure.

> >Aren't you sick of making everything the same argument?
> I often wonder the same thing about you.

Suuure.

===
= DUG.
===

[Ken from Chicago]

"Duggy" <p.allan...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:919b1c13-64d9-41e8...@rk3g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...

NO! My simple idea was that Diana just be an "old knight" with simpler
medieval values of being more open and honest and caring in a modern world
with legalese, political spin, and marketing hype, with a callous
indifference to the suffering of others.

YOU were the one insisting that Diana also just HAD to have a rebellious
history and secretly enter the games and have some conflict with her
cockadoodie mother! Well you got it, but you better start showing me a
little appreciation around here, MISTER MAN!!!

-- Ken from Chicago (who has to calm down with some Liberace records to
recover from all this misery)

[Ken from Chicago]

"grinningdemon" <grinni...@austin.rr.com> wrote in message
news:v3dph79lip4rn5qus...@4ax.com...

<snip>

> In my opinion, a WW adaptation is better off without Steve Trevor (as
> a love interest, anyway) because, no matter how many times they try to
> dress it up, it always makes the character look weaker when her chief
> motivation is following a guy around just because he happens to be the
> first one she ever met...Perez got it right when he dropped that
> element in his reboot.

Steve is the macguffin to get her off the island. She wouldn't be following
him after she returned him home. She would be exploring the world after
dropping him off. They'd meet up again battling the monsters that followed
them along the ocean floor, but that would be by chance: He's based on the
Atlantic coast, which is why his jet first got to Themyscira. She would
recognize the creatures from news coverage.

-- Ken from Chicago

[Duggy]

On Jan 23, 8:59 pm, "Ken from Chicago" <kwicker1b_nos...@comcast.net>
wrote:
> "grinningdemon" <grinningde...@austin.rr.com> wrote in message

[Ken from Chicago]

"Duggy" <p.allan...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:47a49481-a81d-4f2d...@3g2000pbd.googlegroups.com...

I'm not opposed to them being love interests. I think Diana would be
intrigued by him as the first guy she's met in centuries, but would have a
greater interest in the world he's from. Steve I think would be more smitten
by her after she saved him from getting eaten by monsters on Themyscira and
getting to know about her during their time on the island and their flight
back home.

Btw, the Amazons reverse engineer a jet plane from the debris from Steve's
plane, and give set jet a miniature version of the cloak that shields the
island, resulting in Diana's invisible jet. Altho it's capable of VTOL.

-- Ken from Chicago