Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Ex Machina and Annihilation director Alex Garland says he'd direct a Swamp Thing movie.
Quote:
During the AMA [on Reddit], he was asked by a user which comic book characters he would like to write and direct for, to which Garland replied Swamp Thing.
Now, for the record, Swamp Thing is one of my favorite characters. Ever. If you've never read the mind-blowing stories by Wein/Wrightson, Michelinie/Conway/Redondo, Pasko, Yeates, and (mind-blowing, part deux) Moore/Bissette/Totleben/Veitch ...git onnit!
Horror writer Nancy Collins also wrote Swamp Thing for a minute in the '90s, but I still have not read those stories. Grant Morrison wrote some Swampy tales, too. The New 52 re-re-reboot saw Batman writer Scott Snyder also pen a run of Swamp Thing stories, which were pretty good, but still not up to the awfully hard standard-to-meet previously set by Wein and Moore. But he did introduce some new elements.
Warner Bros. has lost another director, this time it’s Batgirl’s Joss Whedon.
“Batgirl is such an exciting project, and Warners/DC such collaborative and supportive partners, that it took me months to realize I really didn’t have a story,” Whedon told The Hollywood Reporter.
It sounds like Whedon decided to leave on his own, and DC Films President Geoff Johns and Warner Bros. President Toby Emmerich were understanding of that decision.
“I’m grateful to Geoff and Toby and everyone who was so welcoming when I arrived, and so understanding when I… uh, is there a sexier word for ‘failed’?,” Whedon added.
Mark Millar Talks DCEU, Explains Why These “Films Aren’t Working”
Quote:
Chatting with Yahoo, Millar says that he believes that DC superheroes themselves are simply uncinematic. Aside from Batman — who is a regular dude, with an tool belt and garage full of gadgets — almost every major character in the DC Comics canon is almost absurdly invulnerable, and who they are aren’t based around characters, but their abilities. At least according to Millar. Here’s what he had to say:
Quote:
I think it’s really simple — the characters aren’t cinematic and I say this as a massive DC fan who much prefers their characters to Marvel’s. Superman, Batman and Wonder Woman are some of my favourites but I think these characters, with the exception of Batman, they aren’t based around their secret identity they are based around their super power.
I don't think anyone who liked Wonder Woman would agree with that.
As for a character being "based around his/her superpower" (or environment), don't Ant-Man and Thor fit the bill? Ant-Man's appeal is his novelty (look! a little guy riding an ant like a mini-Pegasus), and Thor's personality changes from movie to movie, depending on what they feel like throwing out there to appeal to the audience (more jokes, more surfer, but no less powerful, and his hammer is essentially reverse-kryptonite).
DC is loaded with great stories, and for Heaven's sake, there is no need to Marvel-ize them as was done with Justice League.
New Gods. Swamp Thing. Hawkman of Thanagar (you know, the sci-fi version, not Egyptian god).
Look at the Black Lightning show. Very good. I think he should have gotten a feature film, but hey, it's working.
And yes, the Bat Family and its roster will always be there to fall back on, but I don't need Bruce Wayne showing up in every DC movie a la Tony Stark (though Bats' cameo in Squad was cool).
As for being "absurdly invulnerable," well, that knob can be turned from right to left at will. In Civil War, we saw Iron Man's armor getting munched by the Winter Soldier, but back in The Avengers, we saw the armor actually absorb Thor's freakin' lightning and use it against him. Tony's armor even has the uncanny ability to press his suit so it's never wrinkled when he emerges from it. Now THAT is absurd.
I don't think anyone who liked Wonder Woman would agree with that.
We'll see. The first movie was a great origin story. Now what? Can the writers and director keep Diana interesting? I hope so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AFtrEFkt
As for a character being "based around his/her superpower" (or environment), don't Ant-Man and Thor fit the bill? Ant-Man's appeal is his novelty (look! a little guy riding an ant like a mini-Pegasus), and Thor's personality changes from movie to movie, depending on what they feel like throwing out there to appeal to the audience (more jokes, more surfer, but no less powerful, and his hammer is essentially reverse-kryptonite).
The appeal of Ant-Man wasn't his super-power. It was his personal struggle to heal his family and make something of his life.
Thor ... ? I confess I don't have the energy to care. I have never liked Thor in the comics. I thought the first movie was a fun if forgettable popcorn flick. I never managed to sit through the second. Haven't seen the third and don't really care to.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AFtrEFkt
DC is loaded with great stories, and for Heaven's sake, there is no need to Marvel-ize them as was done with Justice League.
I don't think Millar is entirely correct. For one, if he really thinks the appeal of Batman is his gadgets, he (along with several of the movie directors) have SERIOUSLY misunderstood the appeal of the character. Batman is cool because he is a broken little boy on the inside, but on the outside he's always the smartest, most cunning bad-ass in the room.
And lots of great Marvel characters are not based around their secret identity. The FF, Wolverine, etc.
But he is right in that the core of the character MUST be about more than the super power. That's something that historically Marvel did really well. DC has struggled to play catch up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AFtrEFkt
As for being "absurdly invulnerable," well, that knob can be turned from right to left at will. In Civil War, we saw Iron Man's armor getting munched by the Winter Soldier, but back in The Avengers, we saw the armor actually absorb Thor's freakin' lightning and use it against him. Tony's armor even has the uncanny ability to press his suit so it's never wrinkled when he emerges from it. Now THAT is absurd.
Yup. Marvel has made the critical mistake of making Iron Man all about the tech. That was NOT what made Stark so compelling in the first IRON MAN movie.
We'll see. The first movie was a great origin story. Now what? Can the writers and director keep Diana interesting? I hope so.
All you have to do is look to Pérez and Rucka. It's all there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark S.
The appeal of Ant-Man wasn't his super-power. It was his personal struggle to heal his family and make something of his life.
Which didn't resonate. He came off too goofy (they should recast). He's too one-dimensional. Comics-Lang was better.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark S.
Thor ... ? I confess I don't have the energy to care. I have never liked Thor in the comics. I thought the first movie was a fun if forgettable popcorn flick. I never managed to sit through the second. Haven't seen the third and don't really care to.
Thor was kinda meh till Walt Simonson's amazing revamp. THEN Thor was hot sh-t. But like all creators, Walt eventually left the title (he recently revisited the mythos with his creator-owned Ragnarok, published by IDW. Yes, it's good.)
The prob is the way the Walt's material has been adapted to the movies: shabbily!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark S.
I don't think Millar is entirely correct. For one, if he really thinks the appeal of Batman is his gadgets, he (along with several of the movie directors) have SERIOUSLY misunderstood the appeal of the character. Batman is cool because he is a broken little boy on the inside, but on the outside he's always the smartest, most cunning bad-ass in the room.
Right. But I partly agree that Batman's resourcefulness is whatever he uses to apprehend, and the Batcave and the Bat arsenal have always appealed to Batfandom, and Nolan did scale that aspect back a bit too much. We don't need the Batpole any longer (LOL, that sounds wrong), but when all Batman has in his utility belt is an EMP trigger, that's selling his accomplishments short. The vehicles (Tumbler, Batwing) rocked, of course.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark S.
And lots of great Marvel characters are not based around their secret identity. The FF, Wolverine, etc.
The first X-trilogy and the solo movies did a good job of conveying Logan as a guy searching literally for himself. However, Days of Future Past introduced us to Totally Useless Wolverine. I'm glad James Mangold torched that nonsense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark S.
Yup. Marvel has made the critical mistake of making Iron Man all about the tech. That was NOT what made Stark so compelling in the first IRON MAN movie.
In the comics, the armors do became entities unto themselves, but they decided to turn them into a long-form running gag in Iron Man 3.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
