Comic Book Films & TV

[Benjamin]

I'm pretty sure he was already playing with ideas, at least in his head, about making it a trilogy as he was making TDK. You can see it in the way he ended it, with the Joker going to Arkham, and Dent dying causing Gotham to turn against Batman. There is no way in hell that he thought that story was over with, the TDK ends on a sort of cliffhanger, because anybody watching would be dying to know what happens next. And I'm sure he probably knew that after introducing the Joker, Batman's ultimate arch nemesis, Nolan sort of knew that bringing in a new villain to be the main one would fall a little flat, which is why he kept the Joker alive. Heath Ledger tragically passing away just ended whatever original plans he probably had, but I'm damn sure he had some, and it changed somewhat after Ledger died.

I also don't think they crammed Dent's story in. I think it was told really well, Dent had a lot of development throughout that movie.

[Liam]

Just to weigh in on the debate over the last couple of pages, The Dark Knight and Nolan Batman's in general aren't as amazing as people make them out to be as far as I'm concerned, including TDK, but that is just me.

Also, saw Guardians today. Really enjoyed it, vey vey vey good.

[TheSqauredCircleMessiah]

I'm pretty sure he was already playing with ideas, at least in his head, about making it a trilogy as he was making TDK. You can see it in the way he ended it, with the Joker going to Arkham, and Dent dying causing Gotham to turn against Batman. There is no way in hell that he thought that story was over with, the TDK ends on a sort of cliffhanger, because anybody watching would be dying to know what happens next. And I'm sure he probably knew that after introducing the Joker, Batman's ultimate arch nemesis, Nolan sort of knew that bringing in a new villain to be the main one would fall a little flat, which is why he kept the Joker alive. Heath Ledger tragically passing away just ended whatever original plans he probably had, but I'm damn sure he had some, and it changed somewhat after Ledger died.

I also don't think they crammed Dent's story in. I think it was told really well, Dent had a lot of development throughout that movie.

I thin both of Nolan's Batman films suggested he at least had an idea of how a series of films would go. He supposedly wanted to have Harvey Dent in Batman Begins in a minor part to get him established, but didn't do it because he didn't want to waste the character in minor role. So (if you believe that) that suggests he already knew what he would want to do with multiple films

[Benjamin]

I'm pretty sure he was already playing with ideas, at least in his head, about making it a trilogy as he was making TDK. You can see it in the way he ended it, with the Joker going to Arkham, and Dent dying causing Gotham to turn against Batman. There is no way in hell that he thought that story was over with, the TDK ends on a sort of cliffhanger, because anybody watching would be dying to know what happens next. And I'm sure he probably knew that after introducing the Joker, Batman's ultimate arch nemesis, Nolan sort of knew that bringing in a new villain to be the main one would fall a little flat, which is why he kept the Joker alive. Heath Ledger tragically passing away just ended whatever original plans he probably had, but I'm damn sure he had some, and it changed somewhat after Ledger died.

I also don't think they crammed Dent's story in. I think it was told really well, Dent had a lot of development throughout that movie.

I thin both of Nolan's Batman films suggested he at least had an idea of how a series of films would go. He supposedly wanted to have Harvey Dent in Batman Begins in a minor part to get him established, but didn't do it because he didn't want to waste the character in minor role. So (if you believe that) that suggests he already knew what he would want to do with multiple films

So you're agreeing with me, right?

[Benjamin]

Don't know if this has been posted, but this article has a video of a huge ton of easter eggs in the MCU, excluding the two that came out this year:

http://www.avclub.com/article/video-catalogs-every-easter-egg-marvel-cinematic-u-207707?utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=SocialMarketing&utm_campaign=Default:Week1:Default

The one that surprised me the most is that the infinity gauntlet is in the vault in Asgard. Is it supposed to be there?

[TKz]

Don't know if this has been posted, but this article has a video of a huge ton of easter eggs in the MCU, excluding the two that came out this year:

http://www.avclub.com/article/video-catalogs-every-easter-egg-marvel-cinematic-u-207707?utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=SocialMarketing&utm_campaign=Default:Week1:Default

The one that surprised me the most is that the infinity gauntlet is in the vault in Asgard. Is it supposed to be there?

Yeah, that was a pretty famous one. I doubt it'll be canon eventually, unless they actually do the whole "Loki wanted to lose to The Avengers" thing.

[stokeriño]

I remember reading about the Infinity Gauntlet being in the Asgardian vaults after Thor first came out. The one problem of course is that it appears to have all the gems set in it! I would have thought that the gauntlet itself could be anywhere in an unpowered "just a big gold glove" state...

...But really I suspect that they put it in there to amuse themselves before anyone had planned out the direction of the MCU's upcoming arcs properly.

[TKz]

Having looked at some 1080p shots of the Hellicarrier targets in Cap 2, I'm pretty shocked that they didn't throw in any hero names in there. I think we've started to reach a point of them thinking ahead that you'll see less throw-away references in future. Don't want to mess up the canon by having Marc Spector listed as a threat to Hydra and then they decide to just make him a villain or something.

[Avenged Probably]

Which makes it more exciting when they do mention something now, because it's probably for a reason.

Like Stephen Strange being mentioned was pretty much the firstly real confirmation that it was happening.

[RoyWill Rumble]

I'll be in the minority and say that Amazing Spider-Man was very necessary, because regardless of the quality of the movie overall, to me, most of the characters were so much better than the Sam Raimi movies. It was a much more compelling origin story because I actually liked the characters. Tobey Maguire was fucking HORRID, and somehow Kirsten Dunst was even worse. Willem Dafoe was great, but aside from that, the characterization in the Raimi movies ate a giant bag of dicks and Emma Stone and Andrew Garfield are/were the perfect Gwen and Peter. And because of that, I've enjoyed the reboot of Spider-Man a lot more than the Raimi movies.

[TKz]

I think everyone agrees that the actors and so on are much better. It's just that you could've skipped nearly everything from before he became Spider-Man, people didn't need to know how it happens all over again. I guess they kind of made up for it by mixing his origin in further with Oscorp, but I think there were other ways they could've done that without going through Uncle Ben dying again and all that. Spider-Man has arguably the most well known origin of all superheroes. And they really didn't change it enough to warrant spending 45 minutes reminding everyone of it.

I do like Amazing Spider-Man better than most of the Raimi films, though. Even if the boring villain means it doesn't hold a candle to Doctor Octopus in Spider-Man 2.

[Colly]

Or Willem Dafoe. I liked Tobie, though I do agree Garfield is better. Plus he loves lasagne.

[RoyWill Rumble]

I think everyone agrees that the actors and so on are much better. It's just that you could've skipped nearly everything from before he became Spider-Man, people didn't need to know how it happens all over again. I guess they kind of made up for it by mixing his origin in further with Oscorp, but I think there were other ways they could've done that without going through Uncle Ben dying again and all that. Spider-Man has arguably the most well known origin of all superheroes. And they really didn't change it enough to warrant spending 45 minutes reminding everyone of it.

I do like Amazing Spider-Man better than most of the Raimi films, though. Even if the boring villain means it doesn't hold a candle to Doctor Octopus in Spider-Man 2.

Though the origins of MJ and Gwen are virtually interchangeable in the sense that they're just crushes for Peter, I actually didn't mind the opening of Amazing Spider-Man just because, again, Emma Stone and Andrew Garfield were god-damned adorable and the set up for their characters was solid. The set up for MJ and Peter, by comparison, is pretty horrible. Gwen actually has some characterization beyond "love interest", unlike MJ (in the movies, mind), and Amazing Spider-Man does well to show that Gwen's more than just "love interest". MJ's pretty bland by comparison.

Also, I enjoyed the Uncle Ben dying bits in Amazing because, again, the character choice was awesome. Martin Sheen was great in his limited role. That shit was pretty awful in Raimi's films. I will give Raimi credit for the wrestling bit, though. That was fun.

I'll also say that I'm actually excited for Amazing Spider-Man 3. It'll probably be a clusterfuck, but I hope they do MJ/Peter right with proper weight given to Gwen's death/Gwen's death playing a part in MJ/Peter's relationship. The best Spider-Man comics have always done that shit right, and Andrew Garfield, again, is rad, and him tearing up over Gwen just punched me right in the gut, so I'm cautiously optimistic about that part at least.

[Colly]

On a similar note to that Easter Egg thing, I watched X-Men 2 tonight for the first time in yonks, and I'd imagine for the first time in HD which means that bit where Mystique hacks into Stryker's computer even more of a geek out. I managed to pause it just as she scrolls over 'Cassidy (2)', and there's a submenu for Tom and Sean (detail!), plus there's files for the Morlocks, Gamma Flight and all sorts. I love X-Men...

[TKz]

Yeah, I don't disagree, I just still think you could've worked all that in with Peter already being Spider-Man.

I definitely think that now we're in the age of superheroes being a huge thing, any reboots (bar Fantastic Four) that aren't going in a totally different direction would be better served going the Batman 1989 approach and starting with the hero established. We don't need to see Bruce Wayne train as a hero again, for example. If they reboot Iron Man down the line, we don't need to see him become Iron Man again.

[RoyWill Rumble]

Fair enough. I feel like with Spider-Man and Batman, though, those two dudes became heroes because of a very specific tragic event. And to alter that takes away their reason to exist, as heroes. It was a bit superfluous, obviously, but I was down with it just because it was yet another origin story, I know what I was getting into, and again, the characterization and choice of actors was so, so much better than the Raimi movies.

I also think going in a totally different direction is much, much more dangerous than going a Batman 1989 route for superhero movies. Look at the vitriol over the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles backstory changing in their new movie. Granted, the origins of the turtles is fucking stupid to begin with (and this is coming from the biggest TMNT fan ever), but that change to their backstory nearly caused riots among loyal fans. Changes like Peter being involved with Oscorp, for example, I think, are quite welcome, but fundamental changes to characters hinder quite a bit. Spider-Man is born out of a responsibility. Peter wasn't responsible and didn't stop the dude who shot Uncle Ben. Without that very key factor in Spider-Man's origin, he doesn't have a reason to exist. Same reason Batman always needs to be born out of Bruce Wayne's parents dying, because Bruce Wayne doesn't want that shit to happen to any other kid.

Maybe, for argument's sake, the shooting of Uncle Ben could have happened in a flashback or something, but that's a lot of emotional resonance sucked out of the story. And I still get real teary-eyed every time I see Uncle Ben die.

[TKz]

I'm not saying they should change the backstory... I can't think of any situation where that's a good idea, really. I was saying that if they were to, that's the only reason after a reboot to tell the entire origin again. Otherwise you're just repeating a story of a different film for the first 45 minutes.

[RoyWill Rumble]

Right, but, in the case of, say, Spider-Man, without showing Uncle Ben as a pretty cool dude, you lose the emotional impact of him dying, and the impact of Spider-Man becoming Spider-Man, and all that shit. And the opening bits show Gwen and Peter before shit starts popping off and sets up their relationship. It is, indeed, well-worn and familiar, but I also think that it's quite necessary a lot of the time and in the case of Amazing Spider-Man, had that time not been spent setting up those characters the emotional punch wouldn't have been as good for Ben's death or later Gwen's—we're given all that set-up to connect with the characters. Without that set-up, I have no reason to care why Spider-Man became Spider-Man and I don't much care about Gwen and Peter's relationship. Am I familiar with it? Obviously. But in the case of Spider-Man, I went into that movie wanting to see how they would portray the familiar origin story and what, if any details, they'd change. And I really enjoyed it because the casting and acting was rad. Again, it's well-worn, but you're going into an origin story movie knowing that, and I don't think glossing over familiar territory is necessarily a good thing all the time.

Also also, in the particular case of Amazing Spider-Man, we got The Lizard, who quite obviously is not the most well-known Spider-Man villain, and his ties to Peter's dad were pretty rad. In the case of, say, Batman, it was really cool to see Ra's Al Ghul and Scarecrow, considering a lot of people's knowledge of Batman villains kinda begins and ends at The Joker.

And for people not familar with the comics, Gwen was definitely a new thing, consider she wasn't the main love interest in the Raimi films. Comic book films are largely successful now due to the "average" movie-goer who doesn't read comics, so origin stories are pretty necessary sometimes—maybe not so much in the case of say Superman, Batman, or Spider-Man, but that's where I'd argue it's about how the origin story is told rather than the necessity of it to introduce the masses to a character.

[EWB's Best Poster.]

I think in the case of batman and spiderman, we need to know not the tragedy, bit how each new one absorbs it and moves on. Batman begins was good because we learn how he turns to becomes the batman, and watching the reaction of TobeyvsAndrew having Ben die

These defining moments are how we view them from then on. Its important to know. It also let's us see the directors vision of that moment and tells us how the rest of the movie(s) will go from there. We know the story, we want to know how they present it to see if it matches our expectations.

In that sense, it is needed for these two.

[HC]

I will just say in regards to origins that I have no desire to watch Uncle Ben die a third damn time any time in the next 20 years or so. Dem feels are too hard.