Superheroes!

[EgonSpengler]

I'm spotting a theme with the "... and punches Nazis" bit.

Well, it was WWII. And it seems fitting to have a bunch of people who punched Nazis in the 1940s wake up today, only to find...

 

[Patine]

Well, it was WWII. And it seems fitting to have a bunch of people who punched Nazis in the 1940s wake up today, only to find...

The tongue-in-cheek, sardonc retort to finish your sentence I won't say, but leave to the imagination, as I'm not supposed to be discussing modern politics in this sub-forum.

 

[EgonSpengler]

Well, it was WWII. And it seems fitting to have a bunch of people who punched Nazis in the 1940s wake up today, only to find...

I swear to God, right after I typed this, the radio program I'm listening to played a soundclip of some of my local dirtbags, NSC-131, shouting "refugees, go home!" No kidding.

 

[EgonSpengler]

I read this morning that, in 2007, Neil Gaiman and Guillermo Del Toro pitched a Doctor Strange movie to Marvel, but the idea was rejected because Strange was too obscure a character. Their idea was that Stephen Strange's origin story would take place in the 1920s. It would then be revealed that as the Sorcerer Supreme, he was essentially ageless and living in present-day New York, in the same townhouse. Nothing about casting, or whether or how it would have fit into a larger universe with other Marvel characters. I imagine it would have very much resembled a Del Toro movie, with a kind of "secret New York" of magic and oddball creatures. Hellboy II: The Golden Army (2008) came out the following year, so we can see for ourselves what the world of Del Toro's Dr. Strange might have looked like, but also wonder how this idea might have differed from that movie. Presumably, he wouldn't want to make the same movie again so soon. He must have had some ideas for Dr. Strange that he hadn't already used for Hellboy, although they could certainly have been ideas he had for Hellboy, but didn't end up using. I know that one of Del Toro's passion projects for decades now has been an adaptation of an H.P. Lovecraft story, whose stories of course are often set in the 1920s. I wonder if approaching Marvel about Dr. Strange might have been a sneaky attempt to film some of his ideas for a Lovecraft movie, without actually doing a Lovecraft movie.

In this reality, Del Toro's next project was Pacific Rim (2013), and while that movie has its fans, I don't know anyone who thinks it's essential. Del Toro's fans in that alternate universe may pity us for not having seen his Doctor Strange, in exchange for a serviceable Charlie Hunnam movie about giant robots. Gaiman's next major work was The Ocean at the End of the Lane (2013), which I haven't read, but I don't know if writing a movie script would have greatly impacted the releases of his other work. Fans of Gaiman's writing in this other universe might still have this novel, even if it was published in 2014 instead of 2013.

 

[RobAnybody]

Just watched Across the Spider-Verse. I enjoyed it for the most part. The main problems I had I'll point out below (while avoiding spoilers), 'cause saying "it was pretty fun!" & "Gwen is totes awesome*" would sum up my opinion, but probably be worth very little.
(*although, I mean, I have to note that I have the CGC 9.8 1st appearance of Spider-Gwen prominently on display, & 3 other CGC 9.8 Gwen comics nearby & 4 Gwen action figures... so, "Gwen is totes awesome" is just something I do free of charge)

The first 1/3rd of the movie was... boring, just tedious. Even the Gwen parts. And especially the Miles parts. When it's not stuff we already saw in the last movie, it's so "super-hero paint by numbers". Almost a Mad Lib: Insert Angst! Teen Feels! Muh Secret Identity Causes Me Such Angst Feels [error: ran out of cliches]!

I mean, it's fine, just, like I said, the first 1/3rd is dull & so done before.

But, then once they introduce the actual plot, & Spot, & his conflict/origin with Miles it gets interesting.

That whole 2nd third of the plot is pretty good (still trying to avoid spoilers so...) when [people] are recruiting [other people], & explaining the situation of what is actually happening, & a whole bunch of Member-berries are introduced, but in a good way. That is totally fun, especially if you recognize the [other people].

But then, towards the end, in the last third, I started to actually root against Miles, & be Team Miguel & Jessica. I'm not sure that's what they intended. Also Miles gets insane Plot Armor in this act. And we get some more [Insert Angst! Teen Feels! Muh Secret Identity] we've seen a million times before from other characters.

Still trying to avoid specifics/spoilers, 'cause I do recommend watching the movie, but on the overall "dilemma" presented, I personally lean more towards Spock in Wrath of Khan: "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few... or the one." Miguel showed what happens when you make it all about yourself - you can erase a whole universe.

Anyway, I'm extremely interested in how they wrap this up in the next movie. Despite my criticisms, I definitely recommend it (& also the first one: Into the Spider-Verse).

 

[RobAnybody]

I read this morning that, in 2007, Neil Gaiman and Guillermo Del Toro pitched a Doctor Strange movie to Marvel, but the idea was rejected because Strange was too obscure a character. Their idea...

I'm not sure I take it as fact that the idea of "from 1920s but ageless Doctor Strange" was actually rejected because Doctor Strange was too obscure (I mean 9 years later Marvel made a "true-ish to the comics" Doctor Strange movie). Their premise sounds so dumb that it was likely rejected because it was just a dumb idea, but more likely the studio gave them a more "polite" reason for refusal.

Gaiman used to be amazing - his original Sandman run, Black Orchid, Books of Magic (which could be argued was an inspiration for Harry Potter, although there is no evidence for that), & especially Good Omens (along with Terry Pratchett of course, GNU): Spectacular. But IMO he just lost that "spark" he used to have later in life. His later works were not... even good. And I'm a huge fan. It's not unusual I suppose. Even Pratchett lost a step, well, several steps, later in life. Still massive respect for their earlier works, which were both unrivalled.

 

[Patine]

"true-ish to the comics" Doctor Strange movie

A middle-aged White British woman instead of the clearly elderly Tibetan-esque man as the Ancient One?

 

[Arakhor]

Just watched Across the Spider-Verse. I enjoyed it for the most part. The main problems I had I'll point out below (while avoiding spoilers), 'cause saying "it was pretty fun!" & "Gwen is totes awesome*" would sum up my opinion, but probably be worth very little.
(*although, I mean, I have to note that I have the CGC 9.8 1st appearance of Spider-Gwen prominently on display, & 3 other CGC 9.8 Gwen comics nearby & 4 Gwen action figures... so, "Gwen is totes awesome" is just something I do free of charge)

The first 1/3rd of the movie was... boring, just tedious. Even the Gwen parts. And especially the Miles parts. When it's not stuff we already saw in the last movie, it's so "super-hero paint by numbers". Almost a Mad Lib: Insert Angst! Teen Feels! Muh Secret Identity Causes Me Such Angst Feels [error: ran out of cliches]!

I mean, it's fine, just, like I said, the first 1/3rd is dull & so done before.

But, then once they introduce the actual plot, & Spot, & his conflict/origin with Miles it gets interesting.

That whole 2nd third of the plot is pretty good (still trying to avoid spoilers so...) when [people] are recruiting [other people], & explaining the situation of what is actually happening, & a whole bunch of Member-berries are introduced, but in a good way. That is totally fun, especially if you recognize the [other people].

But then, towards the end, in the last third, I started to actually root against Miles, & be Team Miguel & Jessica. I'm not sure that's what they intended. Also Miles gets insane Plot Armor in this act. And we get some more [Insert Angst! Teen Feels! Muh Secret Identity] we've seen a million times before from other characters.

Still trying to avoid specifics/spoilers, 'cause I do recommend watching the movie, but on the overall "dilemma" presented, I personally lean more towards Spock in Wrath of Khan: "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few... or the one." Miguel showed what happens when you make it all about yourself - you can erase a whole universe.

Anyway, I'm extremely interested in how they wrap this up in the next movie. Despite my criticisms, I definitely recommend it (& also the first one: Into the Spider-Verse).

Spoiler for my response :

You can certainly sympathise with Miguel, but he's still making it all about himself. He thinks that the alternate world that collapsed because he "corrected" a canon event, so he's now obsessed with trying to stop anyone else from doing that, despite the fact that the mess in Mumbatten was partially caused by the Spot interfering. Besides, if these are canon events, they will continue to happen, so Miles preventing one from happening in Pavitr's universe doesn't mean that they won't continue to happen to Pavitr's friends and family.

Moreover, Miguel condemns Miles as an anomaly who killed his universe's Spiderman and thus can't be trusted, but also insists that Spiderman's canon events are happening to Miles and therefore he can't be allowed to change them, which is clearly Miguel struggling with unresolved grief and refusing to admit that he might be wrong about some things.

 

[RobAnybody]

Without going into specifics, I find that an extremely odd definition of making something all about oneself. Seems like twisting logic into a pretzel in an attempt to equate both characters' motivations.

By your definition, Peter Parker is making it all about himself when he stops bad guys because he feels guilty about Uncle Ben. Batman fighting crime due his parents' death would be considered making it all about himself. If a bad event happens, I don't view a character as selfish or making it about themself simply for wanting to prevent similar events from happening in the future.

 

[Arakhor]

The whole point of that event is that it happens despite Spiderman's involvement. If it can be stopped by Spiderman, then clearly it's not that particular event. Miguel has taken upon himself to decide whether or not Miles is even allowed to try, and Miles is the one who's being selfish?

 

[RobAnybody]

Yes, he is.
[I'm going to have to delve into some spoilers here, so avert your eyes if you haven't seen the movie &... go watch the movie! It's good!]

We were shown what happened when Miguel violated a Canon event, & the consequences of that. Unless you contend that didn't actually happen & a whole universe didn't get erased due to Miguel's actions (& Spot's sure, but Miguel instigated it), I guess? But given that it did happen, they (Miguel & Jessica & Gwen & 100's of other Spider-People) all sincerely believe that not stopping Miles from saving one person will result in the destruction of a whole universe's worth of people. Trying to stop that is not a selfish action.

Now, they are going to be wrong of course: given that Miles is the protagonist, plus Gwen & the other Into The Spider-Verse characters have switched sides, that's obviously going to turn out to be the case, but they believe "Doing X triggers: Erased Entire Universe" & they haven't seen enough movies to know Miles is going to turn out to be right somehow because he's the protagonist of the movies.

But, their current belief is not in any way self-centered; I bet 95%+ of them simply saw what happened to Miguel, like we did, & concluded stopping Miles from repeating that epic disaster was simply the right thing to do.

 

[Arakhor]

I agree that Miguel seems to think that he's doing the right thing, but that's the sort of justification that has turned many people down the villainous route. Everybody is going to want to save close family members from danger if they can, particularly a teenage boy, and that goes double if the one telling him not to has already turned out to be adversarial and dismissive in the first place.

 

[Patine]

I agree that Miguel seems to think that he's doing the right thing, but that's the sort of justification that has turned many people down the villainous route. Everybody is going to want to save close family members from danger if they can, particularly a teenage boy, and that goes double if the one telling him not to has already turned out to be adversarial and dismissive in the first place.

The again, there is the cautionary tale, "I've lived it. It was a disaster. I would be remiss of me, morally, to stand here and let you try it," which is not necessarily selfish or dismissive, from a certain point of view, either.

 

[EgonSpengler]

I guess Marvel Comics is re-launching Thunderbolts with the characters who will be in the movie. The cover art for issues 1-4 have been assembled into a... if a tryptych has 3 panels, what do we call something with 4? Anyway, the art's by Josemaria Casanovas, who I've never heard of before, but this reminds me of Bill Sienkiewicz's work, of whom I was a huge fan back in the day.



So that's Red Guardian & Winter Soldier fighting The Red Skull (seems like overkill, don't need both of them for that); Natasha in black & Yelena in white vs Wilson Fisk (at first glance, I thought that was Tandy/Dagger from Cloak & Dagger); Shang-Chi & USAgent vs some kind of dragon (Fin Fang Foom?); and I'm told the women in the last part are The Contessa and Sharon Carter against Doctor Doom (that doesn't seem like a good matchup for our anti-heroines).

Obviously, the MCU can't include Natasha. I actually think Sharon Carter/Emily Van Camp could be a good addition to the Thunderbolts movie, and I don't really know what else they're going to do with her, if anything at all. I feel like they could do something better with Shang-Chi/Simu Liu.

 

[RobAnybody]

I agree that Miguel seems to think that he's doing the right thing, but that's the sort of justification that has turned many people down the villainous route. Everybody is going to want to save close family members from danger if they can, particularly a teenage boy, and that goes double if the one telling him not to has already turned out to be adversarial and dismissive in the first place.

I liken it more to Scarlet Witch & Vision in Infinity War. They both knew that sacrificing Vision was the only way to save half the universe at that point. It hurt Wanda terribly, & arguably did turn her down a very dark path, but the act itself, in the moment, of killing Vision to save... trillions, maybe (what's next after trillions? quadrillions?) of lives throughout the universe was the noble thing to do. Granted, it didn't work, but the act was selfless.

Similarly, Miguel, Jessica, Gwen, Peter B Parker, & the 100s of Spider-People are trying to save countless lives, even more than Wanda/Vision, at least from their point of view (even though as movie watchers we know they're going to turn out to be wrong). As an observer with no stakes, I just tend to view their POV as the "correct" one. I don't at all disagree that Miles's actions are entirely appropriate for him, & what most of us would probably do in that situation though.

Anyway, no worries, I think we both understand where each other is coming from.

...Natasha in black & Yelena in white vs Wilson Fisk (at first glance, I thought that was Tandy/Dagger from Cloak & Dagger)...

I wasn't sure who that was at first either, & I knew Yelena was going to be in the Thunderbolts movie! (it's literally the only reason I have any interest in it) But, the costume doesn't have Tandy's classic "plunging dagger-shaped neckline" so that didn't occur to me. Anyway, not a fan of that outfit for Yelena. She should at least have her vest from the movie over it. "And you can put so much stuff in there! You wouldn't even know."

 

[EgonSpengler]

There's an interesting episode of Happy, Sad, Confused with David Goyer that might be of interest to my fellow nerds. There's a [stink]ton of "what might have beens" and "in an alternate world" stuff. Goyer himself mentioned Elseworlds when describing some of what didn't happen. (He's a big comics nerd, it turns out.) Among other things...

• Goyer said Wesley Snipes is one of the best actors he's ever known, and is sad that Snipes' career didn't take off more than it did. He thinks Mahershala Ali is a great choice to succeed Snipes (I don't know if he knows Ali personally, or just through his work).
• Jake Gyllenhaal was an early candidate to play Bruce/Batman in Christopher Nolan's trilogy. Goyer thinks there might be screentest footage of Gyllenhaal in costume around somewhere. He didn't say when this was, but we can speculate. Gyllenhaal is 7 years younger than Christian Bale, and to my eye, has a 'baby face', so I think Gyllenhaal's Bruce would have been younger than Bale's, or at least would have looked younger. In that sense, maybe he would have more resembled Robert Pattinson's version. Batman Begins (2005) came out the same year as Brokeback Mountain, so if Gyllenhaal had done the former it's possible he wouldn't have done the latter, so fans of that film would likely be thankful he didn't do Batman, although Bale did a ton of movies around the Batman trilogy, so maybe it wouldn't have disrupted Gyllenhaal's schedule too much. I'm a fan of Zodiac (2007), myself.
• After doing The Dark Knight, Goyer and Nolan were talking about a third Batman movie, but couldn't settle on which villain to use. Someone at the studio pushed Leonardo DiCaprio as The Riddler, but after Scarecrow and Joker, Goyer & Nolan wanted someone more physical, who could be a threat to Batman in a fight. Goyer didn't mention who else was considered.
• Goyer did the first draft of Man of Steel (2013) while he & Nolan were taking a break from writing The Dark Knight Rises (2012). He took it to Nolan to look at, informally, just because they were friends, and Nolan immediately picked up the phone and started talking to Warner Bros. about it. Neither Goyer nor Nolan was ever in a position to direct it themselves. Goyer says it came down to two finalists for director: Zack Snyder, who of course got the job. Goyer said he liked Snyder's ideas about using hand-held cameras. The other finalist was Tony Scott. From the way Goyer was talking, I got the feeling Scott might have been his preference, but he didn't want to say anything that could be interpreted as negative about Snyder.
• Having Superman kill Zod was Goyer's idea. He felt Man of Steel was all about Clark becoming Superman, and having to kill Zod would have been why Superman never killed anyone after that. It's been forever since I saw that movie, but I don't remember getting that. But the next thing Goyer said perhaps clears it up a little...
• Goyer said he felt Warner Bros. rushed the entire Justice League project. He wanted to do Man of Steel 2 before Batman v Superman, and wasn't given the chance. He didn't elaborate on what that movie might have been. He said there was a "revolving door" of executives who were pushing for a DC version of the MCU's Avengers franchise, and didn't let the creatives do it at their pace.
• He also mentioned that he wanted Man of Steel to have a flashback scene with Pa Kent taking 12-yr-old Clark deer hunting, but it didn't get into the final script.

There was a lot more, this is just what I can remember right now. He talked about Foundation a lot, if you're into that show.

 

[EgonSpengler]

Disney Spent Over $270 Million To Make ‘The Marvels’

Disney has revealed that it spent more than $270 million on making The Marvels, the latest instalment in its Marvel Comics super hero saga, which will be released in theaters in November.

www.forbes.com

Whoa.

[Disney filings] show that over the two-year period from the incorporation of the company to September 30, 2022, it spent $274.8 million (£221.8 million) and banked a $55 million (£44.4 million) subsidy from the government of the United Kingdom where the movie was made. This brought its net spending down to $219.8 million meaning that the movie will have to gross at least $439.6 million at the box office to break even as studios get around half of theater takings. Passing this threshold might not be child's play.

Marvel's latest big screen production was February's Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania which grossed a measly $476.1 million despite introducing the villain at the heart of the super hero saga's next series of films.

The takings were barely enough to cover the pre-production and filming of the movie which came to $193.2 million as we revealed.

And if you're wondering, like I was, "...over the two-year period from the incorporation of what company?"

Movie budgets are usually kept a closely-guarded secret as studios tend to absorb the cost of individual pictures in their overall expenses and don't itemise how much they spent on each one. Movies made in the United Kingdom are an exception and The Marvels is one of them.

Studios are prepared to put up with greater levels of disclosure in the UK because they benefit from the government's Film Tax Relief scheme. This gives them a cash reimbursement of up to 25% of the money spent in the UK provided that it represents at least 10% of the film's total costs.

In order to demonstrate this to the government, studios set up separate companies to make each film and they have to file financial statements showing everything from staff numbers, salaries and costs, to the amount of the subsidy they receive.

The companies usually have code names so that they don’t raise attention when filing for permits to film on location. The Marvels was made by Disney's UK subsidiary Warbird Productions II UK in a nod to the former job of Larson's character.

 

[RobAnybody]

• Jake Gyllenhaal was an early candidate to play Bruce/Batman in Christopher Nolan's trilogy.

That could have gotten very... awkward in The Dark Knight.

 

[EgonSpengler]

That could have gotten very... awkward in The Dark Knight.

I was thinking the same thing.

A 2007 CinemaBlend article said that Emily Blunt was being considered to replace Katie Holmes for The Dark Knight before they went with Maggie Gyllenhaal. Wikipedia claims that Rachel McAdams was also considered, but doesn't provide a source.

Of course, we don't know for sure that Holmes would have been cast for Rachel in the first place, if they'd gone with Jake. I think a lot of times, they cast the lead and then do 'chemistry tests' with candidates for the supporting cast, particularly the romantic lead. I have no idea who else might've been considered to play Rachel in the first movie, though. I don't know if Mean Girls and The Notebook (both 2004) had come out yet when they were casting for Batman Begins, so McAdams might not have been on their radar. Blunt hadn't broken out yet, even by the time they were looking for someone to succeed Holmes in Dark Knight; when they were casting for Batman Returns, she'd done almost nothing. I think Jake Gyllenhaal's relative youth - and youthful appearance - could have affected the casting of Rachel. To my eye, Katie Holmes and Rachel McAdams both look older than he is. I think that could still work, don't get me wrong, but it does create a different dynamic. Some other cute, young actresses who were getting some attention, circa 2004 (well, okay, they were getting my attention around that time, but I don't think I was the only one): Scarlett Johansson, Reese Witherspoon, Thandiwe Newton, Kate Hudson, Ashley Judd, Jennifer Garner.