The Jury Room

by **Steve T Power** » Thu Feb 10, 2011 8:06 pm

X-men: First Class

First Trailer!

And yes, I am definitely on board!

by **Andrew Forbes** » Thu Feb 10, 2011 8:32 pm

I don't know...

Points for Fassbender and the period setting. It feels as though it may be overcrowded, though.

by **HGervais** » Thu Feb 10, 2011 11:54 pm

Yes there look like a lot of mutants but this really looks like the Charles/Erik movie to me. Love the idea of a 1960s set X-Men movie with a heavy 007 vibe to it. I think Vaughn's track record speaks for itself but the true test will be how rushed does the whole thing feel....they are still shooting last I heard....and how much does the heavy hand of Fox executives undermine the film.

by **Steve T Power** » Fri Feb 11, 2011 8:35 am

HGervais wrote:Yes there look like a lot of mutants but this really looks like the Charles/Erik movie to me. Love the idea of a 1960s set X-Men movie with a heavy 007 vibe to it. I think Vaughn's track record speaks for itself but the true test will be how rushed does the whole thing feel....they are still shooting last I heard....and how much does the heavy hand of Fox executives undermine the film.

Based on what I'm hearing, I'd be more worried about Marvel films than Fox, not that Fox doesn't have a ridiculous penchant for meddling.

by **HGervais** » Fri Feb 11, 2011 12:13 pm

I suppose I look at Fox & Marvel Films differently. With Marvel I at least know comic book creators are deeply involved with the process and as a smaller studio Marvel execs are trying to protect and build a very specific brand. And as a studio they can't afford failures the way a studio such as Fox can. Fox on the other hand has a reputation for meddling almost for the sake of meddling. They don't have the investment in the characters the way Marvel Films does. For one studio Marvel properties are just that. For Marvel films, those properties are their lifeblood.

Website · by **azul017** » Fri Feb 11, 2011 11:47 pm

HGervais wrote:I suppose I look at Fox & Marvel Films differently. With Marvel I at least know comic book creators are deeply involved with the process and as a smaller studio Marvel execs are trying to protect and build a very specific brand. And as a studio they can't afford failures the way a studio such as Fox can. Fox on the other hand has a reputation for meddling almost for the sake of meddling. They don't have the investment in the characters the way Marvel Films does. For one studio Marvel properties are just that. For Marvel films, those properties are their lifeblood.

I totally agree. But I'm with Andrew on this overcrowding problem -- and that this is a Fox production, not a Marvel one. Not to mention Thor and Captain America look much more promising than another X-Men film.

by **J.M. Vargas** » Mon Feb 14, 2011 1:33 pm

Columbia releases first pic of Garfield in costume; names next movie THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN.

by **Steve T Power** » Mon Feb 14, 2011 1:39 pm

J.M. Vargas wrote:
Columbia releases first pic of Garfield in costume; names next movie THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN.

That's pretty bad ass...

Website · by **azul017** » Mon Feb 14, 2011 1:39 pm

Hate the title, and the suit redesign is terrible. I recognize there are several dozen suit looks through Spider-Man's comic-book history, but that and the webshooters are second-rate. I hate bringing up Raimi's Spider-Man, but the suit design was perfect. The reboot's design is trying too hard to make it different.

And about the title -- it's too predictable, a la Marvel's The Incredible Hulk. Why not use a title that connotes Spider-Man without using 'Spider-Man'? It worked well with The Dark Knight.

by **J.M. Vargas** » Mon Feb 14, 2011 1:43 pm

How about just SPIDEY?

by **Dan Mancini** » Mon Feb 14, 2011 1:54 pm

J.M. Vargas wrote:How about just SPIDEY?

Web-Head: The Motion Picture

by **HGervais** » Mon Feb 14, 2011 3:17 pm

How about The Amazing Spiderman is perfect? I mean the title has only worked for going on 50 years. If the movie gets one thing right it's that. As far as the costume, it isn't anything to get excited over either way yet. As always you need to see these things in motion before one can pass anything close to a judgment.

Website · by **azul017** » Mon Feb 14, 2011 3:29 pm

HGervais wrote:How about The Amazing Spiderman is perfect? I mean the title has only worked for going on 50 years. If the movie gets one thing right it's that. As far as the costume, it isn't anything to get excited over either way yet. As always you need to see these things in motion before one can pass anything close to a judgment.

That title, for me, is almost too easy to use. And critics would have a field day with the title, if the film ends up disappointing them.

by **HGervais** » Mon Feb 14, 2011 3:34 pm

azul017 wrote:
HGervais wrote:How about The Amazing Spiderman is perfect? I mean the title has only worked for going on 50 years. If the movie gets one thing right it's that. As far as the costume, it isn't anything to get excited over either way yet. As always you need to see these things in motion before one can pass anything close to a judgment.

That title, for me, is almost too easy to use. And critics would have a field day with the title, if the film ends up disappointing them.

Too easy? It simply shows respect for the history of the property and you know what? Spiderman should be amazing. If the worst thing you can say is that it gives critics an easy headline in the event that the movie isn't any good, then I can live with that.
And thank goodness they went back to the mechanical web shooters. The biggest part of Parker's character that really got short drift in Raimi's trilogy is that Peter is an absolute scientific genius and the organic web shooters seemed like a cop-out. It was a terrible idea when James Cameron proposed it and it was a terrible idea when Raimi made it so.

by **Steve T Power** » Mon Feb 14, 2011 3:50 pm

HGervais wrote:
azul017 wrote:
HGervais wrote:How about The Amazing Spiderman is perfect? I mean the title has only worked for going on 50 years. If the movie gets one thing right it's that. As far as the costume, it isn't anything to get excited over either way yet. As always you need to see these things in motion before one can pass anything close to a judgment.

That title, for me, is almost too easy to use. And critics would have a field day with the title, if the film ends up disappointing them.

Too easy? It simply shows respect for the history of the property and you know what? Spiderman should be amazing. If the worst thing you can say is that it gives critics an easy headline in the event that the movie isn't any good, then I can live with that.
And thank goodness they went back to the mechanical web shooters. The biggest part of Parker's character that really got short drift in Raimi's trilogy is that Peter is an absolute scientific genius and the organic web shooters seemed like a cop-out. It was a terrible idea when James Cameron proposed it and it was a terrible idea when Raimi made it so.

There's SO MUCH wrong with Raimi's flicks. I don't even want to get into it...

*cough* wrestling match to buy car to impress MJ instead of helping Aunt and Uncle *cough*.

by **Andrew Forbes** » Mon Feb 14, 2011 3:55 pm

azul017 wrote:Hate the title, and the suit redesign is terrible. I recognize there are several dozen suit looks through Spider-Man's comic-book history, but that and the webshooters are second-rate. I hate bringing up Raimi's Spider-Man, but the suit design was perfect. The reboot's design is trying too hard to make it different.

Maybe it's the fact that I'm not a comic geek but doesn't that suit just look like Spider-Man? I mean, what is so extreme about the design that could cause anyone to call it terrible unless they hated the Spider-Man costume to begin with. The only particularly distinctive thing I see is that it's made of a woven or web-like material, which is a pretty cool texture and makes sense for the character.

Uh, I mean... thaet suit is crppy SUXORZ!!!!

Website · by **azul017** » Mon Feb 14, 2011 4:17 pm

I'm taking all the Spider-Man reboot news with a healthy dose of skepticism. That's why I'm not excited about things like the new suit, title, et al because this is still a Sony film. They've screwed over directors before and unless they've let Marc Webb room to make his own film -- I have no faith we'll get another good Spider-man film until the proof is in the pudding. I'll be happy to be proved wrong.

Now, If Marvel was producing the film with Sony distributing -- I'd be more optimistic. But everything so far -- bar the cast and writers -- hasn't impressed me. And given how people pointed out changes in the Raimi films to the comic book material, I'm pretty sure the Spider-Man reboot will have some creative liberties too. Just because they're rectifying changes with Gwen Stacy being Peter's first love, having mechanical webshooters, et al doesn't mean they won't change things elsewhere.

And Forbes, the new suit looks like something a Comic-Con fan would wear. It just doesn't look right.

by **HGervais** » Mon Feb 14, 2011 5:04 pm

I don't disagree with one word of the comments about Sony. All I'm saying is the title fits, the organic web shooters are gone and it's way too early to really comment about the suit. As for changes being made...eh. I don't have a problem with changes that help the property become a good movie. It certainly seems like they are going more with the Ultimate Spiderman than with with the current Spiderman...and I'm okay with that. To be honest, with Thor, Captain America & X-Men: First Class due up fast and The Avengers getting ready to start filming, Sony's Spiderman plans really don't have my full attention.

Website · by **azul017** » Mon Feb 14, 2011 5:12 pm

HGervais wrote:To be honest, with Thor, Captain America & X-Men: First Class due up fast and The Avengers getting ready to start filming, Sony's Spiderman plans really don't have my full attention.

Yes, Captain America and The Avengers are on my radar. I'm not too sure on Thor (not a fan of the comic material) and X-Men: First Class seems rushed.

The Avengers will finally show the world what Joss Whedon can do with a great cast and a $150M budget.

by **Andrew Forbes** » Mon Feb 14, 2011 6:42 pm

azul017 wrote:I'm taking all the Spider-Man reboot news with a healthy dose of skepticism. That's why I'm not excited about things like the new suit, title, et al because this is still a Sony film.

But you didn't say "This doesn't excite me." You said you hated the new title and the costume looked terrible. People tend to respond to the things you write, not the things you think.

azul017 wrote:And Forbes, the new suit looks like something a Comic-Con fan would wear.

Comic-Con fans must have a hell of a lot more money and design sense than I've been led to believe.

by **Dan Mancini** » Tue Feb 15, 2011 8:48 am

azul017 wrote:
HGervais wrote:How about The Amazing Spiderman is perfect? I mean the title has only worked for going on 50 years. If the movie gets one thing right it's that. As far as the costume, it isn't anything to get excited over either way yet. As always you need to see these things in motion before one can pass anything close to a judgment.

That title, for me, is almost too easy to use. And critics would have a field day with the title, if the film ends up disappointing them.

The only thing retarded about the title is that that's what Raimi wanted to call his second movie, but Marvel said no because it would dilute the franchise by co-opting the name of the book or some such nonsense. I guess they changed their minds.

There's been nothing discouraging in anything I've seen or heard about the reboot, yet I still can't muster an iota of interest in it. I just don't care.

But, hey, at least Spidey and First Class are free of the burden of having to bow at the altar of Joss Whedon's Avengers flick, which I pray is awesome while being resigned to the likelihood that it will be a clusterf*@k of the highest order.

by **Boba Fett** » Thu Feb 17, 2011 7:20 pm

New THOR trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHBnrJowBZE

Thor enjoying coffe and then shattering the cup on the ground while demanding more made me laugh.

by **Steve T Power** » Thu Feb 17, 2011 9:14 pm

Dammit Marvel, even the flick that started out looking shitty looks bloody awesome.

by **HGervais** » Thu Feb 17, 2011 11:13 pm

MUCH better trailer that gives a much better sense of tone & scope to the movie. All of a sudden I'm much more excited about seeing this.

by **Boba Fett** » Thu Feb 17, 2011 11:43 pm

So is the film supposed to start on Asgard then finish on Earth, or is Earth a middle section? One scene makes it seem like Thor gets back to Asgard at some point and pleads for someone (Loki?) to not destroy the planet.

by **HGervais** » Fri Feb 18, 2011 12:04 am

My favorite summation of the trailer is from Bleeding Cool: "It’s like Starman meets Flash Gordon. What’s not to like?"

by **HGervais** » Fri Feb 18, 2011 12:06 am

Shane Black/Iron Man 3 Done deal?

by **Steve T Power** » Fri Feb 18, 2011 8:43 am

HGervais wrote:Shane Black/Iron Man 3 Done deal?

Well I know Downey has final say over who gets hired, and I know he likes Shane Black...

Website · by **azul017** » Fri Feb 18, 2011 9:52 am

I like Black. Seems like he'd be a natural fit as writer for Iron Man 3. I'm not sure whether he can handle directing a visual effects-heavy blockbuster, but Marvel has confidence in him and Downey likes him.

Hope Black can make this a better-written film than Iron Man 2. He's got more time than Justin Theroux did.

by **J.M. Vargas** » Tue Mar 01, 2011 8:14 am

Pics from THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN set.

by **tucco** » Wed Mar 02, 2011 1:02 pm

I gotta say I love the mask.....or more to the point, the vintage style webbing on it....very sixties..The eyes are a little different but they drew the eyes many different ways so I'm fine with it.
Don't like the blue hands, and they did change the costume somewhat....but I like it....it looks less like CGI animation ...and more like a guy in a suit.....which I hope is how it comes across in the finished product.

And yay to the mechanical web-shooters....I thought the organic ones were a fine idea but I have to agree with above comment that the mechanical ones play to his scientific genius ......which was def. not touched upon in the other films.

Website · by **azul017** » Wed Mar 02, 2011 1:46 pm

J.M. Vargas wrote:Pics from THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN set.

The official pictures Sony released make it look a LOT better, but the untouched set photos -- yuck. What's with the black crotch and the blue gloves? That is not Spider-Man at all.

by **tucco** » Wed Mar 02, 2011 7:06 pm

azul017 wrote:
J.M. Vargas wrote:Pics from THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN set.

The official pictures Sony released make it look a LOT better, but the untouched set photos -- yuck. What's with the black crotch and the blue gloves? That is not Spider-Man at all.

The blue gloves and motocross outfit forearm design are two things I do not like about the costume.....The blue hands def. bother me....but I guess we have to live with it..
I'm just so used to a lifetime of Spidey having red hands....ya know like *every time he shoots a web* etc. Blue gloves def. not Spidey at all....
Otherwise I like the old school type webbing on the mask, etc.

by **HGervais** » Wed Mar 02, 2011 7:12 pm

It does have kind of a Spiderman 2099 vibe to it.

by **tucco** » Wed Mar 02, 2011 7:23 pm

HGervais wrote:It does have kind of a Spiderman 2099 vibe to it.

Spider-Man with gauntlets like Batman.....that's yucky....

Ya know actually as far as the new movie, I kinda wish they went with the webbing under the arms, since the mask seems to be retro-sixties with the webbing and all...

by **Andrew Forbes** » Thu Mar 03, 2011 8:10 am

Judith Crist, are folks ever bitchy over the tiniest things. There is blue on the hands? F***ing sacrilege!

by **HGervais** » Thu Mar 03, 2011 9:17 am

And the bad guys in Joss Whedon's Avengers movie are...

Website · by **azul017** » Thu Mar 03, 2011 12:03 pm

Andrew Forbes wrote:Judith Crist, are folks ever bitchy over the tiniest things. There is blue on the hands? F***ing sacrilege!

Sony has a lot to prove with rebooting a series. Not going to retread territory, but the costume just looks off.

That said, I'm pleased with how The Avengers is shaping up. Only a guy like Joss can handle so many elements and characters well -- but the thing is that he has one 2-hour film to do it well.

by **HGervais** » Thu Mar 03, 2011 12:52 pm

Oh yes. Hugo Weaving is indeed the Red Skull.

by **Steve T Power** » Thu Mar 03, 2011 4:52 pm

That is deliciously EVIL!

by **Dunnyman** » Fri Mar 04, 2011 10:05 pm

I'm loving this!!
http://www.filmbuffonline.com/FBOLNewsr ... n-america/
We're not just getting Cap in the movie????? Holy red white and blue!!! Yow!!!

by **HGervais** » Fri Mar 04, 2011 11:24 pm

That's an old piece of news....I may have posted it myself a year or so ago when it hit the trades but based on what I have heard that isn't so much the case now. We may get a little Invaders in the movie but nothing in casting that we have seen suggests they will play a major role. I would gladly be wrong on this one because I love me some Invaders but I don't see it happening.
What I will say is I get more & more excited with every bit of footage & every still shot that gets released. Johnson & Marvel have gotten all the physical details just right or so it would appear.

by **Observer** » Sat Mar 05, 2011 8:24 am

Hey, did you know Thor was the God of Thunder?

by **Dan Mancini** » Sat Mar 05, 2011 4:30 pm

Observer wrote:Hey, did you know Thor was the God of Thunder?

Clearly, the folks at Marvel Studios have never been to my pad after I've had fish tacos and a few Modelo Especials.

by **Jim_Thomas** » Mon Mar 07, 2011 8:03 am

Dan Mancini wrote:
Observer wrote:Hey, did you know Thor was the God of Thunder?

Clearly, the folks at Marvel Studios have never been to my pad after I've had fish tacos and a few Modelo Especials.

EPA Superfund Site != God of Thunder.

And dear God, but that's a lame poster.

by **Jon Mercer** » Mon Mar 07, 2011 9:25 am

The best news I've had all morning. I wonder if it'll take place over Christmas?

by **Andrew Forbes** » Mon Mar 07, 2011 10:30 am

Jon Mercer wrote:The best news I've had all morning. I wonder if it'll take place over Christmas?

Yesyesyesyesyes.

Website · by **azul017** » Mon Mar 07, 2011 11:10 am

Nice. Thank god RDJ and Black realize the problems in IM2 and plan on fixing them for the third.

by **J.M. Vargas** » Wed Mar 16, 2011 6:41 am

DAVID SLADE ("30 DAYS OF NIGHT") SET TO DIRECT SEQUEL TO 2003's "DAREDEVIL": http://www.deadline.com/2011/03/david-slade-is-set-to-direct-new-daredevil-for-fox/. It will be a continuation of the original (with or without Affleck I guess) so no reboot for Murdock. Question is, is it a sequel to the 2003 theatrical version of the much-better director's cut released on DVD?

by **Steve T Power** » Wed Mar 16, 2011 8:34 am

J.M. Vargas wrote:DAVID SLADE ("30 DAYS OF NIGHT") SET TO DIRECT SEQUEL TO 2003's "DAREDEVIL": http://www.deadline.com/2011/03/david-slade-is-set-to-direct-new-daredevil-for-fox/. It will be a continuation of the original (with or without Affleck I guess) so no reboot for Murdock. Question is, is it a sequel to the 2003 theatrical version of the much-better director's cut released on DVD?

I like this idea! It'd be cool to see Ben back, I guess it would depend on the shooting schedule, as I can't see Ben going for big budget/long shoot.

The Jury Room

Who is online