Being a huge comic geek can at times be a double-edged sword despite the fact that with Marvel Studios, DC Entertainment and others producing record amounts of superhero-based content.
Part of the trepidation is due to the fact that studios aren’t catering exclusively to comic book readers, so they have produce movies with the non-comic reader in mind.
Which is a subtle way of saying that what comic readers typically find acceptable, non-comic readers don’t.
This is why, when Bryan Singer produced the movie based on Marvel’s X-Men they were dressed in black leather, with little indication–at least in terms of costumes–of their comic book origins.
And to a degree that’s understandable, but for people who’ve followed these characters since childhood–I actually learned to read from comics, so they’re particularly important to me–it’s a bit disappointing.
Which is why when I saw the pictures of Benedict Cumberbatch from Marvel Studio’s upcoming Doctor Strange, part of me sang with glee.
As far as I can tell, it’s a pretty good interpretation, though don’t take my word for it, check out the original below!
That being said I am not sure what’s going on with the belt (I am getting a definite Iron Man vibe from it–not a good thing).
“Ant-Man Shows That Great Things Come In Small Packages.”
Considering how well put together Peyton Reed’s Ant-Man is, it’s a shock that just a few months ago a lot of people were talking about how it would be Marvel Studios’ first misstep.
And I can understand–prior to having seen the movie– how one could come to such a conclusion. The character was virtually unknown to the general public–then again, so was Iron Man and the Guardians Of The Galaxy–and the production was thrown into doubt when Edgar Wright, who was originally chosen to direct, abandoned the production due to “creative differences.”
The writing was on the wall, so Marvel brought in Payton Reed (Bring It On) to replace Wright. Along the way they also hired Adam McKay and Paul Rudd to build on the original screenplay by Wright and Joe Cornish.
I have officially reached the point of trailer saturation–when a trailer starts to reveal more information than I am comfortable knowing, as far as Ant-Man is concerned, at any rate. Like when Hulk caught Iron Man during the first Avengers–which was featured prominently in the trailer–I honestly don’t want any more surprises, no matter how small someone thinks they are, spoiled.
Don’t get me wrong, I’ve already got my ticket for Thursday (Yea!) but now they’re just preaching to the converted, and there’s no need. I also get that that I am not the only person they’re promoting the movie for, but was giving away that Ant-Man meets the Falcon really necessary?
So no more Ant-Man trailers (other than to add to the upcoming review).
Seriously, why does Marvel Studios even bother with trailers, especially for a property like The Avengers? They already have my money, and I am sure the same applies for millions of other people.
Just don’t give away any more of the movie (which the new trailers don’t seem to be doing) because I am still smarting over when the commercials from the first movie, that featured the Hulk saving Iron Man after he blew up the Chitari installation. It didn’t make the movie any less awesome, but it did rob me of a little joy.
In reference to my first point, I am not kidding. If I didn’t literally didn’t see another trailer for Age Of Ultron it would make no difference at all. In other words, short of something physically stopping me from doing so, I have every intention of seeing this movie.
I caught the Ant-Man trailer–for some reason it’s still being called a “teaser”–and I have to say, it looks awesome. You’ve got Paul Rudd in his Ant-Man costume, running about, riding an ant and looking bulked-up.
As I said, it’s pretty awesome.
You also see Corey Stoll strolling down a corridor, and I have to say that I have never seen him look more bad-ass. You also see Hope Van Dyne (Evangeline Lilly), looking gorgeous.
Interestingly enough, I get a very Iron Man-vibe from the trailer; not an accident, I assume.
I also am willing to bet that most people are going to quickly forget that Edgar Wright was even considered to direct.
Worldwide, its earned over $160 million; pretty impressive for a movie that’s based on a bunch of characters literally no one was familiar with before the movie.
Though what’s most interesting is how risky a venture it actually is, for I think three reasons:
First, there’s nothing like Guardians of the Galaxy. Marvel Studios features, from Iron Man to The Avengers, have always featured a balance of action as well as humor. That’s has always been a part of the Marvel formula, but Guardians is different. Some have described it as a comedy, and while there’s plenty that funny, it’s more a case of viewers caring and being invested in the characters–particularly Groot and Rocket–that they come off as fully-realized characters that just happen to be a raccoon and an alien tree, as opposed to just a bunch of pixels.
Second, as many have stated prior, there are no recognizable characters in Guardians of the Galaxy (other than Thanos, and I think it’s reasonably same to assume that no one is seeing it for him–which is something that Sony should keep in mind before doing a movie based on The Sinister Six, most of whom are unknown to most viewers and whom are also villains) which goes without saying is a huge risk, made even more so when you take into account that it was directed by James Gunn, who prior directed two smaller films, Slither and Super, which cost 17.5 million to produce.
For both movies. While Guardians cost $170 million.
And when you combine this fact with the fact that Gunn doesn’t particularly like making movies (around the 12: 58 mark) then the odds were more than even that Guardians could have potentially been Marvel’s weakest performer, if not a box office failure.
Have you ever dealt with someone who was so set in their ways that they ignored any common sense response to their predicament?
That’s what i feel about what’s going on with Warner Bros. scheduling their upcoming “Superman Vs. Batman” against the currently untitled Captain America 3. Disney had originally had that space staked out for an unnamed Marvel Studios movie, and Warners put their upcoming blockbuster on the same spot.
It’s a very bad move on their part for five reasons, off the top of my head.
“Captain America: The Winter Soldier” Is Doing Really, Really Well. Shockingly Well, In Fact
“Man Of Steel” earned just over $668 million during its theatrical run. That’s a lot of money, though you have to put it into context. Superman was created in 1933 and eventually became one of the most popular characters in comic history. He’s an American icon, but prior to “Man Of Steel” he appeared in “Superman Returns,” which underperformed at the box office, earning just over $391 million on a $270 million dollar budget.
“Man Of Steel” almost doubled those figures, but not remarkably so (it helped that it was also slightly cheaper to produce, at $225 million).
Now, Captain America was never as popular as Superman, and interest in the character has ebbed and flowed. But the thing is the latest film, “Captain America: The Winter Soldier,” has earned almost $604 million after less than a month (twenty days, as of this writing). It also cost less to produce, at $170 million, which seems to me to say that it is close to being as profitable as “Man Of Steel” RIGHT NOW, despite the fact that its theatrical run is no where close to being over (as evidence I should add that it’s been the number one film in the United States for about three weeks now).