Marvel Vs. DC on the Silver Screen

[Vorian]

I agree that the Killian change was just as drastic, but I actually think it was for the better. Villains need to have some kind of personal connection to the hero, and there was no one in the original Extremis story that fit that bill in a way suitable for a big blockbuster movie.

They could have changed Maya less drastically for the role and had better results, in my opinion. Killian was still kinda lame and petty.

Edit: Hmm ... or since it was really more of an AIM story than an Extremis story they could have just used an AIM leader as the main villain. But then again I also think the AIM plot belonged more in Agents of SHIELD - it would have given the show more to work with early in the season and allowed Iron Man 3 to focus on the Mandarin and/or a proper Extremis introduction.

[mia h]

Are you serious? Have you not seen the Avengers? They've proven that up to six heroes can be more or less fairly balanced against one charismatic villain in one film. By the way, there are actually at least four heroes in BvS, since David Momoa was cast as Aquaman. So it's Supes, Bats, Wonderbra and Seaman. Let's see DC screw this one up for other reasons. Like the fact that only Superman got an actual standalone origin story/reboot before this ensemble was thrown together.

I thought they'd cast Cyborg already. And with The Rock confirming he's been cast as Black Adam then we should expect to see news about Billy Baston\Captain Marvel\Shazam before too long.

[Mathim]

I just got a horrifying update on Doctor Strange: While the release date is set for it to take place between the third Cap movie and the Guardians sequel, they're apparently really keen on casting Joaquin Phoenix as the Sorcerer Supreme! I'm seriously concerned about this as I've never seen any of his films that gave me any reason to think he was any kind of competent actor and yet I'm hearing all this stuff about him being Oscar-worthy which I can't wrap my mind around. Then there's the problem of him not really (I could be persuaded if they'd show me a prototype of him being makeupped and stuff) looking all that much like Strange in my opinion. On the plus side, people say he's not been known to go for big-budget pics like this and isn't likely to want to commit to a contract like the other Avengers cast.

Anyone want to render their verdict? Am I being unfair to Merrill Hess and the creepy emperor from Gladiator? I had planned on seeing 'Her' which apparently is interesting but is there anything else with him that won't make me think he sucks as bad as he did in The Village?

[ShadowSlider]

I just got a horrifying update on Doctor Strange: While the release date is set for it to take place between the third Cap movie and the Guardians sequel, they're apparently really keen on casting Joaquin Phoenix as the Sorcerer Supreme! I'm seriously concerned about this as I've never seen any of his films that gave me any reason to think he was any kind of competent actor and yet I'm hearing all this stuff about him being Oscar-worthy which I can't wrap my mind around. Then there's the problem of him not really (I could be persuaded if they'd show me a prototype of him being makeupped and stuff) looking all that much like Strange in my opinion. On the plus side, people say he's not been known to go for big-budget pics like this and isn't likely to want to commit to a contract like the other Avengers cast.

Anyone want to render their verdict? Am I being unfair to Merrill Hess and the creepy emperor from Gladiator? I had planned on seeing 'Her' which apparently is interesting but is there anything else with him that won't make me think he sucks as bad as he did in The Village?

Eh, he wouldn't be my first choice, but Marvel's casting choices thus far haven't truly disappointed me, so if they see something they like in Phoenix, I'll give them the benefit of the doubt.

And I wouldn't judge any actor by their performance in a Shamylan movie. Will Smith is one of my favorite actors of all time, and Shamylan made him look absolutely terrible in After Earth.

[Mathim]

But I didn't care for him in Gladiator either, and that movie won a ton of awards for reasons that baffle my friend and I. I mean, is he just one of those actors who is popular but for no real good reason, like Nicholas Cage and Bruce Willis?

[TheGlyphstone]

Nick Cage isn't really a bad actor - he used to star in good movies, and won a bunch of awards early in his career. It's just that now he's gotten lazy and become the Hollywood version of a two dollar hooker, accepting literally any role thrown his way for a fat paycheck while putting in basically no effort. I can't speak for or against Willis, I only know him from Die Hard and Fifth Element. But that is off-topic, though...

As for Phoenix...I've never seen him on screen, but don't condemn him based on award-winning roles you just happened to personally dislike.

[Oniya]

I seem to recall that he did a Johnny Cash biopic that he put a lot of effort into - to the extent of learning how to play the instruments and sing (with actual vocal instruction) instead of using camera tricks to make the audience think they were seeing more than an overdub.

[Mathim]

Hmm...somehow I don't see him shadowing David Copperfield to learn how to do magic before signing on for this part...

[Jmorty33]

Ehhh I think he's a competent actor. He really pulled off the maniacal and cunning emperor type in Gladiator. But just the way that he sounds, that high pitched, nasally, rasp in his voice can get a bit grating. I think for Steven Strange you need a deeper, much more smoother voice, like Jim Caviezel. I think he'd make a great Doctor Strange.

[Oniya]

I'd have to hear how he did in the biopic - Cash's voice in life was deep and smooth.

[Slywyn]

Nick Cage does crap movies because that's what people expect from him these days. I think he mentioned it in an interview. People expect him to be bad, so he does bad. It's not a bad actor, he's just playing into what people want.

Phoenix did really good in Her, I'd suggest watching it.

[consortium11]

I'm not sure if I particularly like him as Dr Strange but Joaquin Phoenix is an incredible actor. Her, The Master, The Yards, Quills and Walk the Line are all stunning performances from him.

[Mathim]

Hmm...maybe it won't be the end of the world, then. I still don't think there exists an actor more suited to the role than Luke Evans, though, in terms of matching the look and having experience with this kind of fantasy/supernatural role, plus he's talented.

It looks like Phase 3 of Marvel is really coming together; I think Phase 2 had its pecking order arranged pretty early on and they're trying to, apparently, keep the Avengers releases 3 years apart so that being said...

Ant-Man (July 2015)
Cap 3 (May 2016)
Doc Strange (July 2016)
GOTG 2 (July 2017)

Now, if we assume 2 films per year at this point as a constant, that means about 5 films before Avengers 3. Given this patterns, something is likely to go between Dr. Strange and GOTG 2, though I can't help but wonder why they're centering around the months of May and July. Shouldn't the summer blockbusters be between June and August? Or are they just leaving some months/weeks open to compete with the Sony and Fox-owned Marvel films?

Anyway, Avengers: Age of Ultron is about to shove the MCU into the top spot for highest-grossing film franchise. They needed 3 more films than Harry Potter to do it but if it makes over a billion (not likely to be a problem) that'll raise the average of each MCU film even more, since the MCU hasn't actually made that much per film if you go by the numbers from Phase 1. It seems like every Phase 2 film has vastly outperformed all but the first Avengers title, likely due to the Avengers' success. Plus once they get to the top...I don't think they're ever coming back down no matter what DC does. Thoughts?

[Jmorty33]

I think it's definitely plausible that the MCU could definitely claim the top spot... for some time. Like every record, something/ someone comes along to break it. Eventually Marvel will drop a bomb, or just one that doesn't live up to the hype. Slowly something will come along. Whether it be DC, or some other franchise, eventually they will fall.

[Shjade]

I realize I'm responding to something from the first page, but what can I say, this thread got away from me for a while and I didn't see the comic I had in mind mentioned on the "possible Superman movie stories" list, so yeah.

And where, pray tell, is this story? It seems to have eluded six different films. I mean, strike three and you're out, but doing it twice over? Sorry, I'm done giving them chances to wow me and it doesn't look like BvS is going to change that. Then again, forcing him to be downplayed in favor of other heroes does have the potential to keep him from stealing the spotlight.

If I were to suggest a Superman story for a movie, it'd be Kingdom Come.

Long story short: decades after Superman's heyday (Bruce Wayne's a white-haired old fogey using prosthetics by this point), the boy scout's called back into action to deal with modern society's spiral into destruction at the hands of the new generation of "heroes" who constantly fight each other for want of anything better to do with their time. This results in a large three-way factioned conflict between the old guard comprised of most of the old Justice League and their followers under Superman's lead; the new order of some old heroes, some old villains and the forces they pile together (led by Lex Luthor); and a third group that's harder to label but more or less could be summed up as "humanists," led by Batman. It's a story about a lot of things and it would have to be adapted heavily to suit a movie (because just say no to setting up a story as a series of movies when your studio already has a shaky track record), but at its core it would be a movie answering these questions:

What are superheroes, and what is their role? (Alternative phrasing: Do we need them?)

As Glyphstone pointed out, most Superman movies are just attempts to remake his origin story and reintroduce him to the audience. This is foolishness: everyone knows Superman already. If by some miracle someone in the audience doesn't know Superman, he's not hard to explain: alien, raised on earth, goody-two-shoes to the max, holyfuck strong. There you go, Superman introduced. We don't need his origin story; we need to know, as Mathim's disbelief in the idea of an interesting Superman story quite aptly demonstrates, why he's relevant. That's the story a movie needs to sell. Kingdom Come provides ample material to explore that concept, as well as introduce as much (or little - could always scale the story down while retaining its core principles) of the DCU as they want to possibly open up paths to future character movies without then needing big introductions for every character - you get that "Hey, isn't that the guy from that Superman movie?" effect. Maybe they don't know exactly who "that guy" is, but they have some point of reference for what he looks like, what he can do, maybe even what he stands for depending on how much of a role he had in the KC movie, and you can build from there instead of needing to dedicate an entire movie solely to "this is who That Guy is." Hit the ground running.

Not that it'll ever happen. Way too large-scale a project for them to attempt in the current circumstances. Marvel owns the theater.

[consortium11]

If had to adapt a story I'd actually play on the fact that everyone in the audience knows Superman but studios love origin movies.

I give you Superman: Secret Identity

In brief, in a world where Superman is a famous comic book character like in our world, the Kent's have a son and name him Clark (after the character). He gets a lot of Superman related jokes at school etc etc... only to later discover that he actually does have Superman's powers and things go from there.

It's one of the best Elseworld's style DC tales (despite not officially being an Elseworlds book) and well worth a read; it's well written, clever, sweet, enjoyable and generally a damn fine piece of writing.

[Chris Brady]

But I didn't care for him in Gladiator either, and that movie won a ton of awards for reasons that baffle my friend and I. I mean, is he just one of those actors who is popular but for no real good reason, like Nicholas Cage and Bruce Willis?

It's not that they're bad actors.  In fact, it's entirely unfair to blame the entire movie on the actor.  It should be shared with the Director and Writer.  Not every actor can save a script, or work past a terrible director.  They're just doing the job the best that they can.  Sometimes, it's enough to save a movie, other times, they just can't.

It's this sort of mentality that drives me nuts.  We (as a species) just look at the surface, and immediately blame the most obvious target when we should look deeper.  Sometimes, yes, it is one actor that kills a film, but that's incredibly rare, it's often, as I pointed out, a combination of things.  And sometimes, it's not even the actor's fault.

Daredevil was (to me) an OK film.  But Affleck's film Paycheck was pretty good, actually.  Which to me says that the DD script was horrid, and no one could have saved it.  It also tells me that Affleck isn't that good an actor, in that he can save a bad script.

[Mathim]

It's not that they're bad actors.  In fact, it's entirely unfair to blame the entire movie on the actor.  It should be shared with the Director and Writer.  Not every actor can save a script, or work past a terrible director.  They're just doing the job the best that they can.  Sometimes, it's enough to save a movie, other times, they just can't.

It's this sort of mentality that drives me nuts.  We (as a species) just look at the surface, and immediately blame the most obvious target when we should look deeper.  Sometimes, yes, it is one actor that kills a film, but that's incredibly rare, it's often, as I pointed out, a combination of things.  And sometimes, it's not even the actor's fault.

Daredevil was (to me) an OK film.  But Affleck's film Paycheck was pretty good, actually.  Which to me says that the DD script was horrid, and no one could have saved it.  It also tells me that Affleck isn't that good an actor, in that he can save a bad script.

That's not what I meant at all. I was implying that the range of Bruce Willis and Nick Cage's acting ability is to spout lines while scowling.

[TheGlyphstone]

Let's be fair. Cage can also spout lines while grinning maniacally.

[Mathim]

I just watched about 3 dozen videos on youtube about spoilers and comic-con and such in regards to both Marvel and DC's upcoming and rumored projects and all of it is leading me to think that DC should just call it quits if they think they can compete with Marvel at this point. Marvel's got so much going on in the works, it's ridiculous, and the only thing DC has any info on right now as far as future projects is B Vs. S. The whole reason Marvel's killing it right now is because they plan things in advance and take (barely) risks that end up paying off handsomely (Guardians of the Galaxy just broke the 600 million barrier for its worldwide gross). If I were to ask you guys, before even a trailer of BVS comes out (officially), do you think it can break a billion at the box office during its entire run, how would the votes stack up? I could ask the same question about Age of Ultron and I have no doubt everyone here would say 'well, duh' but I can't say with confidence where the responses would tend to fall for DC's first crossover. I sure hope DC isn't raising its hopes up too high if they're counting on this one to eventually let their franchise blow up to MCU proportions. It could surprise me and be the best superhero movie ever, of course; if they're determined to pull out all the stops and take it seriously then it is possible. I just doubt they're capable or willing.

Some seriously spoilerific stuff follows regarding the MCU and goes along with what I've discovered on those videos so read with caution (specifically regarding Age of Ultron and what effect this will have on pretty much every other film leading up to Avengers 3).

Spoiler: Click to Show/Hide

There seems to be a lot of arrows pointing to the conclusion of Age of Ultron having a rift form between the team, specifically polarizing the Captain America and Iron Man characters. Since there is a strong possibility that after Ant-Man, origin stories are no longer going to be the formula for introducing new characters in the MCU, this means the new meat will just have to be thrown in wherever they can, and this leads to the main point of speculation: If Tony Stark and Steve Rogers can no longer agree on anything of significance, this could be the start of the MCU version of the Marvel Civil War, where each side has to bring their own factions and duke it out. There could also be elements of the superhero registration act creating the rift and with SHIELD neutered, there would probably be some significant political and public demand for more control of these superhumans. There is a rumor that Cap will end up cutting ties with Tony and say he's got his own team now, consisting of the introductions of some new heroes, the most popular and seemingly likely candidates being Ms. Marvel/Captain Marvel and Black Panther, if not others. Given Thor's attitude about how humans 'mistrust their champions' and such, I'd guess he'd side with Tony, and I'm fairly sure Bruce Banner's attitude about autonomy and not being kept under scrutiny would also end with him being on that side. If all this is true then Cap's going to really need to step his recruiting game up to match the strength of Iron Man, Hulk and Thor (especially since we won't have any idea how they'd choose to adapt Ms. Marvel's powers from the comics to the screen since she's basically a female Superman).

[ShadowSlider]

I just watched about 3 dozen videos on youtube about spoilers and comic-con and such in regards to both Marvel and DC's upcoming and rumored projects and all of it is leading me to think that DC should just call it quits if they think they can compete with Marvel at this point. Marvel's got so much going on in the works, it's ridiculous, and the only thing DC has any info on right now as far as future projects is B Vs. S. The whole reason Marvel's killing it right now is because they plan things in advance and take (barely) risks that end up paying off handsomely (Guardians of the Galaxy just broke the 600 million barrier for its worldwide gross). If I were to ask you guys, before even a trailer of BVS comes out (officially), do you think it can break a billion at the box office during its entire run, how would the votes stack up? I could ask the same question about Age of Ultron and I have no doubt everyone here would say 'well, duh' but I can't say with confidence where the responses would tend to fall for DC's first crossover. I sure hope DC isn't raising its hopes up too high if they're counting on this one to eventually let their franchise blow up to MCU proportions. It could surprise me and be the best superhero movie ever, of course; if they're determined to pull out all the stops and take it seriously then it is possible. I just doubt they're capable or willing.

Some seriously spoilerific stuff follows regarding the MCU and goes along with what I've discovered on those videos so read with caution (specifically regarding Age of Ultron and what effect this will have on pretty much every other film leading up to Avengers 3).

Spoiler: Click to Show/Hide

There seems to be a lot of arrows pointing to the conclusion of Age of Ultron having a rift form between the team, specifically polarizing the Captain America and Iron Man characters. Since there is a strong possibility that after Ant-Man, origin stories are no longer going to be the formula for introducing new characters in the MCU, this means the new meat will just have to be thrown in wherever they can, and this leads to the main point of speculation: If Tony Stark and Steve Rogers can no longer agree on anything of significance, this could be the start of the MCU version of the Marvel Civil War, where each side has to bring their own factions and duke it out. There could also be elements of the superhero registration act creating the rift and with SHIELD neutered, there would probably be some significant political and public demand for more control of these superhumans. There is a rumor that Cap will end up cutting ties with Tony and say he's got his own team now, consisting of the introductions of some new heroes, the most popular and seemingly likely candidates being Ms. Marvel/Captain Marvel and Black Panther, if not others. Given Thor's attitude about how humans 'mistrust their champions' and such, I'd guess he'd side with Tony, and I'm fairly sure Bruce Banner's attitude about autonomy and not being kept under scrutiny would also end with him being on that side. If all this is true then Cap's going to really need to step his recruiting game up to match the strength of Iron Man, Hulk and Thor (especially since we won't have any idea how they'd choose to adapt Ms. Marvel's powers from the comics to the screen since she's basically a female Superman).

I would LOVE to see a big-screen adaptation of Civil War, but I don't think it's going to happen all that soon. If anything, it'll be the storyline they tackle AFTER Avengers 3, since they have as yet to properly deal with Thanos and the Infinity Stones. We'll see how Age of Ultron plays out, but I just don't see them seriously building up to Civil War already.

As for BvS breaking a billion at the box office, I think it COULD happen, but it would have to be a phenominal film. Based on what happened with Man of Steel, and the fact that general audiences will likely be confused why they're already getting a new Batman (which also hurt The Amazing Spider-Man), I don't see BvS making much more than $800 million in the best-case scenario. Worst-case, the film lives down to all our worst fears and actually performs worse than Man of Steel due to incredibly toxic word of mouth.

Also, here's an interesting thought. Man of Steel made $668 million worldwide. That's WITH Superman's unrivaled name recognition. Meanwhile, Guardians of the Galaxy has NO name recognition, comes across as a seriously weird and confusing move on Marvel's part, and grosses $612 million (and counting) based almost solely on incredible word of mouth.

As for Age of Ultron, I think it could actually pass $2 billion. Think about it. Every Phase 2 Marvel film has performed significantly better than it's predecessor, and with the Avengers making $1.5 billion at the box office, I don't think it's all that unreasonable to think Age of Ultron could easily out-perform it's Phase 1 counterpart. My bet is that it makes at least $1.8 billion, if it doesn't actually hit $2 billion.

[Mathim]

Yeah, that pretty much sums up how I feel about DC's gambit. It feels like not, at the very least, doing a Batman reboot is a really huge obstacle to this. Three heroes (minimum) plus villain(s) with no prior backstory established for their particular incarnations...not a good recipe.

I think that's a (likely) overestimation of the performance power of A2: AoU, and I was frankly amazed the Avengers broke 1.5 billion. It's unlikely there's any fringe groups remaining that haven't been part of that contribution (or IM3's for that matter) so I think we're going to see at least 1.25 billion but I would hesitate to guess it would do any better than 1.75 billion. Then again, I would relish the idea of it replacing Titanic and/or Avatar as highest-grossing film of all time!

[TheGlyphstone]

Avatar's gross was 2.78 billion, it'll take a lot for AoU to approach that benchmark.

[Mathim]

Hey, as long as SOME Marvel movie eventually kicks that much ass, I'll be happy. Take that, James Cameraman!

[TheGlyphstone]

What if it turns out to be Avengers 3, directed by James Cameron?