Stan Lee - December 28, 1922 – November 12, 2018

I like watching Nate Fillion in stuff

2679984721_6819ecb7e5.jpg


Especially that
 
Speaking of animated Marvel/DC movies does anyone remember the animated Justice League movie that showed on TV and it was about the Justice League going back to WW 2 because apparently some villain traveled back in time and gave the Nazis better weapons? Reading what you guys said about animated DC films made me think about that one and I can't find the name of it on Google for the life of me.

Side note even though they weren't movies but TV shows Batman the animated series, Spider-Man the animated series, the x-men animated show and CN's Justice League the first one they did were all awesome... Just wanted to put that out there
 
Incorrect Longo. Heath Ledger's Joker was the best. No other portrayal of the Joker captured his truly chaotic and sadistic persona. And no, it doesn't make you cool to think otherwise.
 
I honestly like both interpretations. I think each works really well for the respective universes that each character resides in. Heath Ledger's joker belonged to a much more gritty, realistic batman universe with more serious characters. The animated joker fits into a less serious universe and mark hamil's portrayal is perfect for it there.

Nobody here could seriously say that Mark Hamil's joker would have worked in the Dark Knight, or that Heath Ledger's joker would have worked in the animated series.
 
Rakon said:
Incorrect Longo. Heath Ledger's Joker was the best. No other portrayal of the Joker captured his truly chaotic and sadistic persona. And no, it doesn't make you cool to think otherwise.
Yes, because as we all know there's little more to the Joker than being cruel and sadistic.
 
Longo_2_guns said:
Rakon said:
Incorrect Longo. Heath Ledger's Joker was the best. No other portrayal of the Joker captured his truly chaotic and sadistic persona. And no, it doesn't make you cool to think otherwise.
Yes, because as we all know there's little more to the Joker than being cruel and sadistic.
With the arguments of who's good with Joker:

What did y'all think of John DiMaggio's rendition of Joker in Under the Red Hood?
 
^I liked it a lot. DiMaggio made me believe the Joker could be more darker and sinister than I previously thought. Love Hamill's work, but DiMaggio's was f*cking refreshing.
 
To be honest, I was distracted during most of his scenes in Red Hood; whether I imagined it or not I kept hearing Bender bleed through.

Delorean88 said:
Side note even though they weren't movies but TV shows Batman the animated series, Spider-Man the animated series, the x-men animated show and CN's Justice League the first one they did were all awesome... Just wanted to put that out there

I also recommend hitting up the new Avengers cartoon on Disney XD. It's been really good. It's on mid-season break right now, so they've been re-airing all the episodes thus far.
 
DiMaggio was awesome in Red Hood. I felt his Joker was more akin to Ledger's where as Hamill's is more towards Nicholson. Each one fits the atmosphere of the world they were in. Loved each of their portrayals. Or maybe thats just the beauty of the Joker, he can be played many different ways yet is always an amazing character.
 
In my opinion the Joker is one of those villains that is awesome because it could be played in multiple angles and still hold up and be awesome. The Joker can either the dark, sadistic psychopathic version that we saw and loved in Dark Knight or the less dark more comical side of Joker. Both are gritty and dark but with the cartoon version he obviously can be the psycho from the movies or comics because it's on a channel for kids. But whats awesome about that version is that he's so peppy or "joyful" (probably not the correct terms to use) about trying to destroy Batman and harm the people of Gotham... This all sounded better in my head but I made it this far might as well commit. But hey at least there hasn't been a truly crappy rendition of the Joker or at least not that I know of.

I'm now excited for Captain America, I've been reading the Captain America the First Avenger comic series they released to coincide with the movie and I'm wondering why I've never gotten into Captain America before. A superhero that started in WWII, one of my favorite historical times to study and setting for movies/books/games? That is a awesome formula in my mind. This summer is gonna be a Superhero summer (Thor, Captain America, Green Lantern) and if Hollywood doesn't screw things up all three could be good but my money is on the first two movies.

EDIT:
Rakon said:
I like watching Nate Fillion in stuff
Speaking of Nate Fillion I listen to a podcast called The Nerdist Podcast hosted by Chris Hardwick, Matt Mira and Jonah Ray and the newest episode had Nate Fillion as a guest and he talked about Firefly and other things he's done. Just thought I'd mentioned that
 
The next Daredevil film will soon be underway with the direction of David Slade. Slade directed 30 Days of Night...but also Twilight Eclipse.

I've read conflicting reports; some sources say it will be a reboot, others say it will be a continuation of the last DD film. Regardless, I do know there will be no Affleck.

I'm hoping for a grittier, perhaps noir, version.

Is the time right for a new Daredevil film or should Fox have sold the rights back to Marvel for them to put thier touch on it? Thoughts?
 
I'm okay with DD being a separate entity from the Marvel films for now. Sony and FOX own(?) the rights to some heavy hitters who're big enough to stand on their own, if done correctly.

Not everything has to tie back into the Avengers' grand storyline or the larger Marvel Universe. Would it be nice if it did? I'm not so sure it would, so why force it?

Eventually, SURE, I'd like to see Marvel take control, but let's wait for the Spider-Man 4 fallout first.
(HE'S NO TOBEY MAGUIRE)
The rights will be an easier sell after that stinker flops. Marvel produced Spidey 5 opens with Mary-Jane, as played by Kirsten Dunst, waking from the horrible dream that was Spidey 4. Maguire, of course, will be in the shower. I'm calling it.
 
Never was into DD but then again maybe it was because the movie had Ben Affleck and I don't like that guy. I tolerate him now because of the town but I never found the idea of a blind guy with super powers interesting. If the new movie is good I'll watch it but still won't go crazy over the guy

Also rewatched Watchmen on HBO recently, still holds up in my opinion but rewatching it made me realize that anyone who doesn't know a single thing about the comic will find the movie very boring because 10% is action and the rest is dialogue. But that's what I love about the movie and Watchmen, complex plot (in my mind) and great characters that don't really fit in the generic stereotypes (Rorschach and Comedian being my favorites). It's still on my list of favorite superhero movies along with Dark Knight Kick-Ass and some others but I was wondering, I never read the comic from front to back just parts (cause of the movie I flipped through it at a library) and I was wondering if maybe I'm overappreciating an adaptation that maybe isn't as great as I think it is

Am I wrong or right? Reading the comic from beginning to end is on my to-do list along with Dark Knight Returns. Also realized that the movie is 90% slow motion, wow Zack you love that feature don't you. Not that the slow motion bothered me I just never realized how much of it there was
 

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
16,779
Messages
271,074
Members
97,840
Latest member
krttamah
Top