🚀 go-pugleaf

> The ten Marvel characters in the arrangement are Captain America, The
> Avengers, Nick Fury, Black Panther, Ant-Man, Cloak & Dagger, Dr. Strange,
> Hawkeye, Power Pack, and Shang-Chi. Each film is expected to have a budget
> of up to $165 million dollars and a rating no more restrictive than PG-13.

Has the world REALLY been waiting for Ant-Man, Power Pack, Shang-Chi amd
Cloack & Dagger movies???
--
--- "Damn dirty fleas..."
--- "Ever notice that at the start of a cartoon, Casper has no friends, and
by the end, he has some. Yet, in the next cartoon, he's friendless again?
Therefore, I think Casper is a soul-sucking-vampire-ghost."
--- Proud loser of TWO 2004 RSPW Poster Awards
--- 3rd Highest Vote-Getter in KORSPW 2005
--- Space (Animal) Hero #1 of the 1950's and 60's

"Lord Hatred" <lordhatred@spammelatergmail.com> wrote in message
news:lordhatred-3C7B19.11325406092005@newsclstr01.news.prodigy.com...
> In article <buiTe.49228$Wa6.576232@weber.videotron.net>,
> "Smart Ape - bring back War Games" <Zaius@POTA.com> wrote:
>
>> > The ten Marvel characters in the arrangement are Captain America, The
>> > Avengers, Nick Fury, Black Panther, Ant-Man, Cloak & Dagger, Dr.
>> > Strange,
>> > Hawkeye, Power Pack, and Shang-Chi. Each film is expected to have a
>> > budget
>> > of up to $165 million dollars and a rating no more restrictive than
>> > PG-13.
>>
>> Has the world REALLY been waiting for Ant-Man, Power Pack, Shang-Chi amd
>> Cloack & Dagger movies???
>
>   I would love to do an Ant-Man movie in the style of the comics from
> the Essential book. I would add to your list: Captain American,
> Avengers, Dr. Strange, Black Panther and Hawkeye. And Nick Fury would be
> ok if only if it is like the Steranko books. Otherwise hell no.

Cap is a legend, even if his character is as nteresting/boring as Superman.
Dr. Strange can work if it's done in the style of Ditko.
And the Avengers????? Come on, they have Kang and Ultron and a few other
great villains. The only problem is that we probably won't get to see Thor,
Iron Man, Cap, Hawkeye, Ant Man, Hulk or any of the original guys. It's
probably gonna have the line-up of Vision, Quicksilver, Scarlet Witch, and
Wasp.
--
--- "Damn dirty fleas..."
--- "Ever notice that at the start of a cartoon, Casper has no friends, and
by the end, he has some. Yet, in the next cartoon, he's friendless again?
Therefore, I think Casper is a soul-sucking-vampire-ghost."
--- Proud loser of TWO 2004 RSPW Poster Awards
--- 3rd Highest Vote-Getter in KORSPW 2005
--- Space (Animal) Hero #1 of the 1950's and 60's

Smart Ape - bring back War Games wrote:
> > The ten Marvel characters in the arrangement are Captain America, The
> > Avengers, Nick Fury, Black Panther, Ant-Man, Cloak & Dagger, Dr. Strange,
> > Hawkeye, Power Pack, and Shang-Chi. Each film is expected to have a budget
> > of up to $165 million dollars and a rating no more restrictive than PG-13.
>
> Has the world REALLY been waiting for Ant-Man, Power Pack, Shang-Chi amd
> Cloack & Dagger movies???

There was a kids' movie int he 80s called "Cloak and Dagger," or are
you thinking of something different?

> --
> --- "Damn dirty fleas..."
> --- "Ever notice that at the start of a cartoon, Casper has no friends, and
> by the end, he has some. Yet, in the next cartoon, he's friendless again?
> Therefore, I think Casper is a soul-sucking-vampire-ghost."
> --- Proud loser of TWO 2004 RSPW Poster Awards
> --- 3rd Highest Vote-Getter in KORSPW 2005
> --- Space (Animal) Hero #1 of the 1950's and 60's

This is great news! Marvel producing their own films. This could finally
allow talented writers like JMS (or J. Michael Straczynski) to write
their own films instead of letting a hack director like Sam Raimi step
over the job of the script writer and write his own thing stories.

anakin

Smart Ape - bring back War Games wrote:
> http://www.newsarama.com/forums/showthread.php?s0d13d5a7b42801b73b78521eaa832d&threadidB601
>
>
> Reflecting the completion of a $525 million non-recourse debt facility
> (originally announced in April), Marvel today announced that, effective
> immediately, it has changed its name to "Marvel Entertainment, Inc."
>
> The deal, Newsarama readers will recall, will allow Marvel to produce
> the films itself, rather than option the properties to third parties,
> while Paramount will distribute the films. While there are specific
> differences (such as Marvel not having an in-house production facility),
> the relationship between the two is akin to the previous Pixar/Disney
> deal, where Pixar produced films, and had a distribution deal with
> Disney. As stated by Marvel, along with greater creative control over
> the film versions of its properties, the new deal allows Marvel greater
> profit potential, as it will no longer need profit-sharing arrangements
> with studios.
>
> These relationships, particularly the Sony/Marvel partnership to create
> the Spider-Man film franchise, have been both a blessing and curse for
> the company. For example, while Sony's weight helped attract attention
> (and money, talent, etc) to the film, Marvel and Sony occasionally found
> themselves at legal loggerheads over accounting issues, with the two
> occasionally brandishing suits and countersuits at one another ("The
> Mother of All Contract Suits") in regards to the Spider-Man profits. The
> suits were "amicably settled" last June.
>
> As previously reported, the Marvel-produced film slate includes up to 10
> movies, based on characters that include Captain America, Nick Fury and
> The Avengers, with the first theatrical release expected for summer 2008.
>
> It was due to this change in the company's larger operations that it
> opted to change its name to "Marvel Entertainment," according to a
> statement from the company.
>
> Although, this is not the first time the larger company has gone by this
> name. Prior to the 1997-1998 bankruptcy proceedings (paperwork was filed
> in 1996), Marvel went by the name "Marvel Entertainment Group, Inc." It
> had taken that name in 1989, when it was sold by New World Pictures to
> Andrews Group Incorporated, and saw Terry Stewart step in as President
> in 1990. Andrews Group, Marvel observers will remember, was the Ron
> Perelman-financed organization which, many claim, led to Marvel's
> massive early '90s debt, and the utter financial ruin of Marvel, and the
> bankruptcy.
>
> "Marvel Entertainment Group, Inc." was the official name the company
> carried through its bankruptcy proceedings.
>
>  From Marvel's release:
>
> These film production activities, to be carried out by subsidiaries of
> Marvel Studios, Inc., will complement existing and future film projects
> licensed to other studios. Marvel has a strong track record of working
> closely on Marvel character-based films it has licensed to other
> studios, such as Sony Pictures, 20th Century Fox, New Line Cinema,
> Universal Studios, and Lions Gate Entertainment. In 2006, Marvel
> anticipates the release of Ghost Rider, X-Men III and Punisher II
> through Sony, Fox and Lions Gate, respectively.
>
> The seven-year, $525 million facility was arranged by Merrill Lynch,
> Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc. and consists of $465 million in revolving
> senior bank debt and $60 million in mezzanine debt. Both S&P and Moody's
> have given the senior bank debt an investment grade rating. In addition,
> Ambac Assurance Corporation has insured the senior debt, raising its
> rating to AAA. MVL Film Finance LLC, a special purpose,
> bankruptcy-remote subsidiary of Marvel, will be the borrower under the
> facility. That subsidiary has pledged the theatrical film rights to the
> ten characters included in the film slate as collateral for the
> borrowings. The borrowings are non-recourse to Marvel Enterprises, Inc.
> and its other affiliates.
>
> Avi Arad, Chairman and CEO of Marvel Studios, commented: "The film slate
> financing enables us to evolve our entertainment operations into film
> production, an area where we have experienced past success with our
> partners and which offers significant profit potential for our company.
> The characters involved are some of the most valuable in the Marvel
> Universe, and we are excited to launch them as consumer brands via
> feature film releases under our direction. We look forward to working
> with Brad Grey and the exceptional team he has put together at Paramount
> and are confident that this will be a successful venture for us both."
>
> Brad Grey, Chairman and CEO of Paramount Pictures, commented: "Marvel
> has emerged as one of the strongest, most successful entertainment
> brands around the globe, with an enviable track record in feature films.
> We are excited to be working with Marvel on this new business."
>
> "Merrill Lynch is pleased to have worked with Marvel in structuring and
> arranging this innovative and unique financing," said Michael Blum, head
> of global structured finance at Merrill Lynch.
>
> "Obtaining a vast majority of financing at the AAA rating level backed
> by the intellectual property value of ten Marvel characters plus the
> movies created by Avi and his team is at the cutting edge of
> entertainment structured finance techniques."
>
> Funds under the facility will be used for the production of films.
> Marvel will receive a gross participation on all revenues from the
> facility as the producer of each film and will retain all of the
> film-related merchandising revenues. These merchandising revenues and
> the gross participation are neither pledged as collateral nor subject to
> any cash restrictions under the facility. Marvel will also receive all
> profits, including all revenue streams (including box office receipts,
> DVD/VHS sales, television, and soundtrack sales) after film costs,
> distribution fees, marketing, principal repayment, and interest. In
> addition, Marvel will have the ability to build its own film library
> through this initiative. Marvel's distribution agreement with Paramount
> guarantees distribution for 10 films and encompasses two prime release
> periods each year - the spring/summer and fall/holiday seasons.
> Paramount has guaranteed Marvel wide distribution with commensurate
> advertising and marketing efforts. This is a worldwide arrangement with
> the exception of Japan, Germany, Australia/New Zealand, Spain and
> France, which Marvel will sell directly.
>
> The ten Marvel characters in the arrangement are Captain America, The
> Avengers, Nick Fury, Black Panther, Ant-Man, Cloak & Dagger, Dr.
> Strange, Hawkeye, Power Pack, and Shang-Chi. Each film is expected to
> have a budget of up to $165 million dollars and a rating no more
> restrictive than PG-13. Although the financing allows for the production
> of animated films, Marvel currently intends to use the financing to make
> only live-action films.
>
> Marvel will fund initial development including scripts for each
> production. Once a film is "green lit" (approved for production), the
> facility will reimburse Marvel for these costs. Marvel Studios will
> oversee the slate and has sole green light control. Unreimbursed
> overhead expenses and any unreimbursed development costs represent
> Marvel's only direct financial risk. The operating results for the film
> slate will be consolidated with those of Marvel and separate segment
> disclosure will be provided in Marvel's periodic financial reporting.
> However, there are restrictions on the cash generated by the films that
> will prevent Marvel from withdrawing any profits until after the release
> of the third film, and then only if financial tests are met. As is
> consistent with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, the costs of
> each film will be capitalized until theatrical release.
>
> Relativity Media LLC assisted Marvel with the structuring of the financing.

ugh! please... no marvel family friendly movies.. i couldn't take it.

anakin

David Meadows wrote:
> Power Pack - YES! If they follow the original concept and storylines, it
> could be a great "family friendly" movie.
>
>

On Tue, 6 Sep 2005 11:21:45 -0400, "Smart Ape - bring back War Games"
<Zaius@POTA.com> wrote:

>> The ten Marvel characters in the arrangement are Captain
>> America, The Avengers, Nick Fury, Black Panther, Ant-Man,
>> Cloak & Dagger, Dr. Strange, Hawkeye, Power Pack, and
>> Shang-Chi. Each film is expected to have a budget of up to
>> $165 million dollars and a rating no more restrictive than
>> PG-13.
>
> Has the world REALLY been waiting for Ant-Man, Power
> Pack, Shang-Chi amd Cloack & Dagger movies???

And at a cost of $165 million? I spy financial problems on the
horizon...

On Tue, 6 Sep 2005 11:52:09 -0400, "Smart Ape - bring back War Games"
<Zaius@POTA.com> wrote:

>>> Has the world REALLY been waiting for Ant-Man, Power
>>> Pack, Shang-Chi amd Cloack & Dagger movies???
>>
>> I would love to do an Ant-Man movie in the style of the
>> comics from the Essential book. I would add to your list:
>> Captain American, Avengers, Dr. Strange, Black Panther
>> and Hawkeye. And Nick Fury would be ok if only if it is
>> like the Steranko books. Otherwise hell no.
>
> Cap is a legend, even if his character is as nteresting/boring
> as Superman.

It's virtually impossible to imagine a non-satirical Cap movie
that would work.

> And the Avengers????? Come on, they have Kang and
> Ultron and a few other great villains. The only problem is
> that we probably won't get to see Thor, Iron Man, Cap,
> Hawkeye, Ant Man, Hulk or any of the original guys. It's
> probably gonna have the line-up of Vision, Quicksilver,
> Scarlet Witch, and Wasp.

Or some of the other second stringers. That's far from "the
only problem" with an Avengers film. The team's complete
lack of any real premise is a much larger barrier to film
translation.

In article <buiTe.49228$Wa6.576232@weber.videotron.net>,
 "Smart Ape - bring back War Games" <Zaius@POTA.com> wrote:

> > The ten Marvel characters in the arrangement are Captain America, The
> > Avengers, Nick Fury, Black Panther, Ant-Man, Cloak & Dagger, Dr. Strange,
> > Hawkeye, Power Pack, and Shang-Chi. Each film is expected to have a budget
> > of up to $165 million dollars and a rating no more restrictive than PG-13.
>
> Has the world REALLY been waiting for Ant-Man, Power Pack, Shang-Chi amd
> Cloack & Dagger movies???


   I would love to do an Ant-Man movie in the style of the comics from
the Essential book. I would add to your list: Captain American,
Avengers, Dr. Strange, Black Panther and Hawkeye. And Nick Fury would be
ok if only if it is like the Steranko books. Otherwise hell no.

--
Stefan
http://pillartopost.blogspot.com
http://www.livejournal.com/users/lord_hatred/

In article <HWiTe.50218$Wa6.581027@weber.videotron.net>,
 "Smart Ape - bring back War Games" <Zaius@POTA.com> wrote:

> "Lord Hatred" <lordhatred@spammelatergmail.com> wrote in message
> news:lordhatred-3C7B19.11325406092005@newsclstr01.news.prodigy.com...
> > In article <buiTe.49228$Wa6.576232@weber.videotron.net>,
> > "Smart Ape - bring back War Games" <Zaius@POTA.com> wrote:
> >
> >> > The ten Marvel characters in the arrangement are Captain America, The
> >> > Avengers, Nick Fury, Black Panther, Ant-Man, Cloak & Dagger, Dr.
> >> > Strange,
> >> > Hawkeye, Power Pack, and Shang-Chi. Each film is expected to have a
> >> > budget
> >> > of up to $165 million dollars and a rating no more restrictive than
> >> > PG-13.
> >>
> >> Has the world REALLY been waiting for Ant-Man, Power Pack, Shang-Chi amd
> >> Cloack & Dagger movies???
> >
> >   I would love to do an Ant-Man movie in the style of the comics from
> > the Essential book. I would add to your list: Captain American,
> > Avengers, Dr. Strange, Black Panther and Hawkeye. And Nick Fury would be
> > ok if only if it is like the Steranko books. Otherwise hell no.
>
> Cap is a legend, even if his character is as nteresting/boring as Superman.
> Dr. Strange can work if it's done in the style of Ditko.
> And the Avengers????? Come on, they have Kang and Ultron and a few other
> great villains. The only problem is that we probably won't get to see Thor,
> Iron Man, Cap, Hawkeye, Ant Man, Hulk or any of the original guys. It's
> probably gonna have the line-up of Vision, Quicksilver, Scarlet Witch, and
> Wasp.


   They all suck. Admit it. Even their comics suck (except for current
Cap which is nothing like anything done before).

--
Stefan
http://pillartopost.blogspot.com
http://www.livejournal.com/users/lord_hatred/

There were alot of adult jokes in Shrek, so I wouldn't exactly call it
family friendly.

I'd add Finding Nemo to the list of family friendly movies.

I don't really like Raimi either.  He seems to jam in dialogue when it
isn't needed, or when it doesn't work in the scene.  That said, I think
Cloak and Dagger would work as a film, but not as a PG-13 film, Shang
Chi, to me, could not work now, especially since he would need better
skills, or cooler powers, if you will, than "Being a Master of Kung
Fu", and there lies the problem, compared to Batman, who has studied
all forms of Martial Arts, and is rich, and has cool gadgets, and is
interesting, Shang Chi, who probably would not last 10 minutes in a
fight with Batman, seems boring.  Plus there is the problem of his back
story featuring Fu Manchu, who I believe is not in the Public domain,
and would pose a problem, tho a character resembling Fu Manchu, with
similar personality, goals, and characteristics could be used instead.

On Tue, 6 Sep 2005 19:01:21 +0100, "David Meadows"
<david@no.spam.here.uk> wrote:

>"Smart Ape - bring back War Games" <Zaius@POTA.com> wrote in message
>news:buiTe.49228$Wa6.576232@weber.videotron.net...
>> > The ten Marvel characters in the arrangement are Captain America, The
>> > Avengers, Nick Fury, Black Panther, Ant-Man, Cloak & Dagger, Dr.
>Strange,
>> > Hawkeye, Power Pack, and Shang-Chi. Each film is expected to have a
>budget
>> > of up to $165 million dollars and a rating no more restrictive than
>PG-13.
>>
>> Has the world REALLY been waiting for Ant-Man, Power Pack, Shang-Chi amd
>> Cloack & Dagger movies???
>
>Power Pack - YES! If they follow the original concept and storylines, it
>could be a great "family friendly" movie.
>

There is no such thing as a great "family friendly" movie.

"Smart Ape - bring back War Games" <Zaius@POTA.com> wrote in message
news:buiTe.49228$Wa6.576232@weber.videotron.net...
> > The ten Marvel characters in the arrangement are Captain America, The
> > Avengers, Nick Fury, Black Panther, Ant-Man, Cloak & Dagger, Dr.
Strange,
> > Hawkeye, Power Pack, and Shang-Chi. Each film is expected to have a
budget
> > of up to $165 million dollars and a rating no more restrictive than
PG-13.
>
> Has the world REALLY been waiting for Ant-Man, Power Pack, Shang-Chi amd
> Cloack & Dagger movies???

Power Pack - YES! If they follow the original concept and storylines, it
could be a great "family friendly" movie.


--
David Meadows
"Dear Grandfather, I know I haven't written for a while but
 it's difficult when we are being chased by alien werewolf
 soldiers." -- Chi-Yun, Heroes #27
http://www.heroes.force9.co.uk/scripts

In article <1126034577.526216.316670@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
 "David E. Powell" <David_Powell3006@msn.com> wrote:

> Smart Ape - bring back War Games wrote:
> > > The ten Marvel characters in the arrangement are Captain America, The
> > > Avengers, Nick Fury, Black Panther, Ant-Man, Cloak & Dagger, Dr. Strange,
> > > Hawkeye, Power Pack, and Shang-Chi. Each film is expected to have a budget
> > > of up to $165 million dollars and a rating no more restrictive than PG-13.
> >
> > Has the world REALLY been waiting for Ant-Man, Power Pack, Shang-Chi amd
> > Cloack & Dagger movies???
>
> There was a kids' movie int he 80s called "Cloak and Dagger," or are
> you thinking of something different?
>


   This is something different.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloak_and_Dagger_%28comics%29

   They got their powers by smoking crack.



--
Stefan
http://pillartopost.blogspot.com
http://www.livejournal.com/users/lord_hatred/

On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 14:18:58 -0400, Anakin <noemail@please.com> wrote:

>This is great news! Marvel producing their own films. This could finally
>allow talented writers like JMS (or J. Michael Straczynski) to write
>their own films instead of letting a hack director like Sam Raimi step
>over the job of the script writer and write his own thing stories.

The same Sam Raimi who is making the most financially successful films
in the history of cinema?  That Sam Raimi?

On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 20:16:35 +0100, Christian Smith wrote:

> Star Wars: A New Hope

I'll see that and raise you a superhero family-friendly movie: The
Incredibles.

--
Ian Merrithew - ADM Systems Engineering
ian.merrithew "at" ieee.org

On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 18:45:14 GMT,rgorman@block.net (David Johnston)
wrote

>On Tue, 6 Sep 2005 19:01:21 +0100, "David Meadows"
><david@no.spam.here.uk> wrote:
>
>>"Smart Ape - bring back War Games" <Zaius@POTA.com> wrote in message
>>news:buiTe.49228$Wa6.576232@weber.videotron.net...
>>> > The ten Marvel characters in the arrangement are Captain America, The
>>> > Avengers, Nick Fury, Black Panther, Ant-Man, Cloak & Dagger, Dr.
>>Strange,
>>> > Hawkeye, Power Pack, and Shang-Chi. Each film is expected to have a
>>budget
>>> > of up to $165 million dollars and a rating no more restrictive than
>>PG-13.
>>>
>>> Has the world REALLY been waiting for Ant-Man, Power Pack, Shang-Chi amd
>>> Cloack & Dagger movies???
>>
>>Power Pack - YES! If they follow the original concept and storylines, it
>>could be a great "family friendly" movie.
>>
>
>There is no such thing as a great "family friendly" movie.

Star Wars: A New Hope

Christian
--
"The Dark Phoenix may have been a threat to all life in the universe...
But she had great taste in costumes." (Rachel Summers Excalibur #65)

On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 20:16:35 +0100, Christian Smith
<christian@jasdigital.com> wrote:


>>>Power Pack - YES! If they follow the original concept and storylines, it
>>>could be a great "family friendly" movie.
>>>
>>
>>There is no such thing as a great "family friendly" movie.
>
>Star Wars: A New Hope
>

In a family friendly movie nobody cuts people's limbs off.  And Han
doesn't shoot first.

On Tue, 6 Sep 2005 11:21:45 -0400, "Smart Ape - bring back War Games"
<Zaius@POTA.com> wrote:

>> The ten Marvel characters in the arrangement are Captain America, The
>> Avengers, Nick Fury, Black Panther, Ant-Man, Cloak & Dagger, Dr. Strange,
>> Hawkeye, Power Pack, and Shang-Chi. Each film is expected to have a budget
>> of up to $165 million dollars and a rating no more restrictive than PG-13.
>
>Has the world REALLY been waiting for Ant-Man, Power Pack, Shang-Chi amd
>Cloack & Dagger movies???

CLoak and Dagger could be used to tap into a more teen, Buffy fanbase
and with the popularity of Hong kong films Shang Chi might have an
audience.  Hopefully they don't decide to take their cue from Steven
Chow's recent western success and go for a comedy.  Power Pack would
probably work better as a cartoon ala Krypto or Static Shock.

Lynley

"Ian Merrithew" <optimus2861@nooospammm.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2005.09.06.20.12.38.853653@nooospammm.com...
> On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 20:16:35 +0100, Christian Smith wrote:
>
>> Star Wars: A New Hope
>
> I'll see that and raise you a superhero family-friendly movie: The
> Incredibles.
>
I'll see that and raise you two Shreks (not superheroes, but still).

D.

"David Johnston" <rgorman@block.net> wrote in message
news:431d8ae8.9966180@news.telusplanet.net...
>>
>>Power Pack - YES! If they follow the original concept and storylines, it
>>could be a great "family friendly" movie.
>>
>
> There is no such thing as a great "family friendly" movie.
>
That is so wrong, it's ridiculous. Truly "family friendly" movies, as
opposed to a kiddie movies, have been among the best in recent years. From
Toy Story onwards, animated films with across the board appeal have been
intelligent, inventive and often ever so slightly radical in their concepts
(because no-one takes cartoons seriously). Compared to most of the dross
Hollywood puts out, Shrek 1 & 2, Finding Nemo, Monsters Inc. etc were
shining lights on the landscape.

D.

What I see happening is that most of these films wind up being "dumped"
in off-season (late winter/early spring) releases or going straight to
video.

A few months ago, I would have said this is the beginning of a process
that will have Marvel acquired by Viacom, Paramount's parent...but
Viacom is now undergoing a restructuring under which it is spinning off
some of its properties, including Paramount Studios.

But the spun-off properties are still going to be majority-owned by
Sumner Redstone, so who knows?

M.O.R wrote:
> There were alot of adult jokes in Shrek, so I wouldn't exactly call it
> family friendly.

I would.  In fact, that's partly why.  The adult jokes were funny to
the adults in the movie while generally over the heads of the children
- something for everyone without really offending anyone.

JD

"M.O.R" <predator@esatclear.ie> wrote in message
news:1126051886.918072.179930@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> There were alot of adult jokes in Shrek, so I wouldn't exactly call it
> family friendly.

That's exactly what family friendly means - safe for kiddies, but with
elements in it that adults appreciate, but go over the heads of children.

D.

David Johnston wrote:

> On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 20:16:35 +0100, Christian Smith
> <christian@jasdigital.com> wrote:


> >>>Power Pack - YES! If they follow the original concept and storylines, it
> >>>could be a great "family friendly" movie.
> >>>
> >>
> >>There is no such thing as a great "family friendly" movie.
> >
> >Star Wars: A New Hope
> >

> In a family friendly movie nobody cuts people's limbs off.  And Han
> doesn't shoot first.

I saw Star Wars when I was 11, along with two other generations of my
family. We all came out inspired and happy. And Han shot first.

/David

On 6 Sep 2005 17:11:26 -0700, "M.O.R" <predator@esatclear.ie> wrote:

>There were alot of adult jokes in Shrek, so I wouldn't exactly call it
>family friendly.

It was very family friendly.  The whole point of family friendly
movies is that it entertains on several different levels.  It tells
jokes that the parents understand but the kids don't and jokes that
the kids get and maybe the parents don't.  It entertains EVERYONE
without being too stupid for anyone.

Brian, the only reason Sam Raimi had success with his Spider-Man movies
is cause it's Spider-Man! It doesn't matter what director it was, a
spider-man movie would still have some success.

oh and by the way, Sam Raimi hasn't made the "most financially
successful films in the history of cinema". that honor goes to an actual
better and more talented director; Peter Jackson of his "lord of the
rings" movies.

anakin

Brian Henderson wrote:
> On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 14:18:58 -0400, Anakin <noemail@please.com> wrote:
>
>
>>This is great news! Marvel producing their own films. This could finally
>>allow talented writers like JMS (or J. Michael Straczynski) to write
>>their own films instead of letting a hack director like Sam Raimi step
>>over the job of the script writer and write his own thing stories.
>
>
> The same Sam Raimi who is making the most financially successful films
> in the history of cinema?  That Sam Raimi?

"Anakin" <noemail@please.com> wrote in message
news:J0LTe.17929$vN.589193@news20.bellglobal.com...
> Brian, the only reason Sam Raimi had success with his Spider-Man movies is
> cause it's Spider-Man! It doesn't matter what director it was, a
> spider-man movie would still have some success.
>
> oh and by the way, Sam Raimi hasn't made the "most financially successful
> films in the history of cinema". that honor goes to an actual better and
> more talented director; Peter Jackson of his "lord of the rings" movies.
>
> anakin
>
> Brian Henderson wrote:
>> On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 14:18:58 -0400, Anakin <noemail@please.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>This is great news! Marvel producing their own films. This could finally
>>>allow talented writers like JMS (or J. Michael Straczynski) to write
>>>their own films instead of letting a hack director like Sam Raimi step
>>>over the job of the script writer and write his own thing stories.
>>
>>
>> The same Sam Raimi who is making the most financially successful films
>> in the history of cinema?  That Sam Raimi?

All three of you are insane.
--
--- "Damn dirty fleas..."
--- "Ever notice that at the start of a cartoon, Casper has no friends, and
by the end, he has some. Yet, in the next cartoon, he's friendless again?
Therefore, I think Casper is a soul-sucking-vampire-ghost."
--- Proud loser of TWO 2004 RSPW Poster Awards
--- 3rd Highest Vote-Getter in KORSPW 2005
--- Space (Animal) Hero #1 of the 1950's and 60's

On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 00:27:06 GMT, rgorman@block.net (David Johnston)
wrote:

>On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 19:49:57 -0400, Anakin <noemail@please.com> wrote:
>
>>Brian, the only reason Sam Raimi had success with his Spider-Man movies
>>is cause it's Spider-Man! It doesn't matter what director it was, a
>>spider-man movie would still have some success.
>>
>
>I'm imagining just how well Spiderman would have done with the
>director of Catwoman doing it instead.

Ditto!

Smart Ape - bring back War Games wrote:
>> The ten Marvel characters in the arrangement are Captain America, The
>> Avengers, Nick Fury, Black Panther, Ant-Man, Cloak & Dagger, Dr.
>> Strange, Hawkeye, Power Pack, and Shang-Chi. Each film is expected to
>> have a budget of up to $165 million dollars and a rating no more
>> restrictive than PG-13.
>
>
> Has the world REALLY been waiting for Ant-Man, Power Pack, Shang-Chi amd
> Cloack & Dagger movies???

It all depends on who is making them. In the right hands, any
of the characters listed could be subject of a good movie.


Richard

On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 19:49:57 -0400, Anakin <noemail@please.com> wrote:

>Brian, the only reason Sam Raimi had success with his Spider-Man movies
>is cause it's Spider-Man! It doesn't matter what director it was, a
>spider-man movie would still have some success.

Yea. Just like the very first SM movie was soooo good! ROPE????

>
>oh and by the way, Sam Raimi hasn't made the "most financially
>successful films in the history of cinema". that honor goes to an actual
>better and more talented director; Peter Jackson of his "lord of the
>rings" movies.

Not fair. Wait for SM 3 before you say that.

>
>anakin
>
>Brian Henderson wrote:
>> On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 14:18:58 -0400, Anakin <noemail@please.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>This is great news! Marvel producing their own films. This could finally
>>>allow talented writers like JMS (or J. Michael Straczynski) to write
>>>their own films instead of letting a hack director like Sam Raimi step
>>>over the job of the script writer and write his own thing stories.
>>
>>
>> The same Sam Raimi who is making the most financially successful films
>> in the history of cinema?  That Sam Raimi?

Smart Ape - bring back War Games wrote:
> > The ten Marvel characters in the arrangement are Captain America, The
> > Avengers, Nick Fury, Black Panther, Ant-Man, Cloak & Dagger, Dr. Strange,
> > Hawkeye, Power Pack, and Shang-Chi. Each film is expected to have a budget
> > of up to $165 million dollars and a rating no more restrictive than PG-13.
>
> Has the world REALLY been waiting for Ant-Man, Power Pack, Shang-Chi amd
> Cloack & Dagger movies???



The ones I would look forward to are
Captain America
Avengers
Dr. Strange (ONLY if it could be done RIGHT, in the original '60's
psychadelic style.  And it MUST have Dormammu)
Shang-Chi
Nick Fury (MAYBE)
Black Panther (MAYBE)


Ones I couldn't care less about:
Ant-Man
Cloak & Dagger
Power Pack
Hawkeye



NOTES TO THE ABOVE:

Shang-Chi I think has the most potential.  It's not really a
'super-hero' film, and the public would see it as another martial arts
movie.

Nick Fury would be kind of in the 'James Bond' genre.  Could be
successful on that basis.

Dr. Strange has the potential to be REALLY good if done right, or the
Major Disaster Gigli of super-hero films if NOT.

Captain America & the Black Panther are both good characters that if
done right could be good flicks (though Panther is seen as something of
a 'second string' hero).

The Avengers has a similar super-hero group appeal like the X-Men.  AND
the 2 have a HISTORY together so some 'X-Men' guest appearences could
help the film.


Cloak & Dagger & Power Pack?  Nothing against the characters, but I've
just never found them interesting, so I can't get excited about a
potential flick for them.

Hawkeye is a cool Avengers character, but can he carry a whole film by
himself?  No offense to the character, but essentially when it comes
down to it it's a film about an archer.

I find Ant-Man the LEAST interesting.  Once again, no offense to the
character but I've always seen him as Marvel's Aquaman: "So he talks to
ants.  Big deal.  That's IT?"

Just my 2 cents, for what it's worth.




-------------------------------------------------


Batman, hearing gunshots across town: "I think we're going to be a
little late for that lecture to the Crime Prevention League, Robin."

http://members.tripod.com/~AdamWest/b-invest.htm

David Johnston wrote:

> On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 20:15:00 -0700, Richard <richard@nospam.edu>
> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>Smart Ape - bring back War Games wrote:
>>
>>>>The ten Marvel characters in the arrangement are Captain America, The
>>>>Avengers, Nick Fury, Black Panther, Ant-Man, Cloak & Dagger, Dr.
>>>>Strange, Hawkeye, Power Pack, and Shang-Chi. Each film is expected to
>>>>have a budget of up to $165 million dollars and a rating no more
>>>>restrictive than PG-13.
>>>
>>>
>>>Has the world REALLY been waiting for Ant-Man, Power Pack, Shang-Chi amd
>>>Cloack & Dagger movies???
>>
>>It all depends on who is making them. In the right hands, any
>>of the characters listed could be subject of a good movie.
>
>
> I find it difficult to imagine the hands that can make a good movie
> out of Ant-Man.

I don't. There is a classic 1950's sci-fi movie called
"the Incredible Shrinking Man" which I suspect probably had
some role in inspiring the character in the first place.
Something along those lines with updated special effects
would be well worth seeing.

Richard

vega wrote:
>
> Not fair. Wait for SM 3 before you say that.

not fair? We now have 2 spider-man movies to judge Sam Raimi's shot at
another third one. I'd say that's fair enough. We now have a pretty good
idea what kind of spider-man movie to expect from him. And i seriously
doubt he's gonna change his ways.

anakin

On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 19:49:57 -0400, Anakin <noemail@please.com> wrote:

>Brian, the only reason Sam Raimi had success with his Spider-Man movies
>is cause it's Spider-Man! It doesn't matter what director it was, a
>spider-man movie would still have some success.
>

I'm imagining just how well Spiderman would have done with the
director of Catwoman doing it instead.

On 07 Sep 2005 13:06:09 GMT, david@no.spam.here.uk(David Meadows)
wrote:

>David Johnston wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 20:16:35 +0100, Christian Smith
>> <christian@jasdigital.com> wrote:
>
>
>> >>>Power Pack - YES! If they follow the original concept and storylines, it
>> >>>could be a great "family friendly" movie.
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >>There is no such thing as a great "family friendly" movie.
>> >
>> >Star Wars: A New Hope
>> >
>
>> In a family friendly movie nobody cuts people's limbs off.  And Han
>> doesn't shoot first.
>
>I saw Star Wars when I was 11, along with two other generations of my
>family. We all came out inspired and happy.

What does that have to do with whether a movie is "family friendly"?

On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 20:15:00 -0700, Richard <richard@nospam.edu>
wrote:

>
>
>Smart Ape - bring back War Games wrote:
>>> The ten Marvel characters in the arrangement are Captain America, The
>>> Avengers, Nick Fury, Black Panther, Ant-Man, Cloak & Dagger, Dr.
>>> Strange, Hawkeye, Power Pack, and Shang-Chi. Each film is expected to
>>> have a budget of up to $165 million dollars and a rating no more
>>> restrictive than PG-13.
>>
>>
>> Has the world REALLY been waiting for Ant-Man, Power Pack, Shang-Chi amd
>> Cloack & Dagger movies???
>
>It all depends on who is making them. In the right hands, any
>of the characters listed could be subject of a good movie.

I find it difficult to imagine the hands that can make a good movie
out of Ant-Man.

> Richard replied when:
> > David Johnston responded when:
> > > Richard originally commented:
> > >
> > > It all depends on who is making them. In the
> > > right hands, any of the characters listed could
> > > be the subject of a good movie.
> >
> > I find it difficult to imagine the hands that can
> > make a good movie out of Ant-Man.

Ant-Man is THE most demanded hardbound reprint book
on the Marvel Masterworks boards.

> I don't. There is a classic 1950's sci-fi movie
> called "The Incredible Shrinking Man" which I
> suspect probably had some role in inspiring the
> character in the first place.

"The Incredible Shrinking Man" was directed by Jack
Arnold and released in 1957.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0050539/

>From "Citizen Kane" onward, all types of films
influenced the comic book industry, both conceptually
and artistically.

> Something along those lines with updated special
> effects would be well worth seeing.

Especially if assigned to an extraordinary director
like Quentin Tarantino, David Lynch, or Oliver Stone.

I'd also like to see a Doctor Strange film made by
any of the above.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
TODD TAMANEND CLARK
Poet/Composer/Multi-Instrumentalist/Cultural Historian

Owls In Obsidian (CD: Instrumental, 2000)
http://www.cdbaby.com/cd/ttc
Staff, Mask, Rattle (2-CD: Instrumental, 2002)
http://www.cdbaby.com/cd/ttc2
Monongahela Riverrun (CD: Instrumental, 2004)
http://www.cdbaby.com/cd/ttc3
Nova Psychedelia (2-CD: Vocal, 2005)
http://www.cdbaby.com/cd/ttc4

Franklin Bratcher wrote:
> On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 03:39:31 GMT, rgorman@block.net (David Johnston)
> wrote:
>
> >I find it difficult to imagine the hands that can make a good movie
> >out of Ant-Man.
> >
>
> http://www.superherohype.com/news.php?id462
>
> YMMV HTH

And these will not be those hands...

"IGN FilmForce has learned that British filmmaker Edgar Wright is
poised to direct Ant-Man. Wright apparently plans on making Ant-Man a
comedy."

Ick!

JD

On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 03:39:31 GMT, rgorman@block.net (David Johnston)
wrote:

>I find it difficult to imagine the hands that can make a good movie
>out of Ant-Man.
>

http://www.superherohype.com/news.php?id462

YMMV HTH

On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 23:02:42 -0400, Anakin <noemail@please.com> wrote:

>vega wrote:
>>
>> Not fair. Wait for SM 3 before you say that.
>
>not fair? We now have 2 spider-man movies to judge Sam Raimi's shot at
>another third one. I'd say that's fair enough. We now have a pretty good
>idea what kind of spider-man movie to expect from him. And i seriously
>doubt he's gonna change his ways.
>
>anakin

Guess I'm in the minority in that I thought both SM movies were
fantastic!

I couldn't even sit through the 1st 20 min. of the 1st LOTR's movie.

Guess it boils down to what your interested in. Also, any movies that
can make the kinda cash these all have must have something good in it
for an entire shit load of people.

M.O.R wrote:
 Shang
> Chi, to me, could not work now, especially since he would need better
> skills, or cooler powers, if you will, than "Being a Master of Kung
> Fu", and there lies the problem, compared to Batman, who has studied
> all forms of Martial Arts, and is rich, and has cool gadgets, and is
> interesting, Shang Chi, who probably would not last 10 minutes in a
> fight with Batman, seems boring.

Have you seen his latest book? At least he's not wearing that Kung Fu
outfit anymore...Probably any movie version would have about as much
similarity to the comic as the Blade movie did...<sigh>Either way, I'm
sure Corey Yuen will be involved...>_<

>  Plus there is the problem of his back
> story featuring Fu Manchu, who I believe is not in the Public domain,
> and would pose a problem, tho a character resembling Fu Manchu, with
> similar personality, goals, and characteristics could be used instead.

I think Hollywood would be too afraid of a retro-"Yellow Menace" style
villain. Tho Marvel did bring back the Yellow Claw recently, didn't
they?

Dex

On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 21:30:45 GMT, Brian Henderson
<BrianL.Henderson@NOSPAM.verizon.net> wrote:

>On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 19:49:57 -0400, Anakin <noemail@please.com> wrote:
>
>>Brian, the only reason Sam Raimi had success with his Spider-Man movies
>>is cause it's Spider-Man! It doesn't matter what director it was, a
>>spider-man movie would still have some success.
>
>That's like saying that any movie with Superman would be successful.
>Look at Superman 4.  Try again.
>
>The reason Spider-Man is so successful is that the films are
>well-written, well-produced and well-directed, so much so that they
>were the biggest box office draw in cinema history at the time they
>were out.
>
>You may not like that fact, you may want to pretend otherwise, but it
>doesn't change reality any.

It does if he has a cosmic cube.
Just kidding! :)))

On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 02:36:12 GMT, rgorman@block.net (David Johnston)
wrote:
>On 07 Sep 2005 13:06:09 GMT, david@no.spam.here.uk(David Meadows)
>wrote:
>>
>>I saw Star Wars when I was 11, along with two other generations of my
>>family. We all came out inspired and happy.
>
>What does that have to do with whether a movie is "family friendly"?

If people of varying different ages enjoy the same movie, then it is
family friendly.

-Ralf Haring
"The mind must be the harder, the heart the keener,
 the spirit the greater, as our strength grows less."
                   -Byrhtwold, The Battle of Maldon

On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 23:03:22 GMT, rgorman@block.net (David Johnston)
wrote:
>
>No, if a movie is so innocuous that nobody can object to children
>seeing it, but it isn't totally intolerable for an adult then it is
>"family friendly".  I watched and enjoyed Alfred Hitchcock's Psycho
>when I was eleven.  That didn't make it "family friendly".

If you're definition of "family friendly movie" is "shitty movie",
then your original assertion that there can be no good family friendly
movies is definitely true. I don't think that's a particularly useful
definition.

-Ralf Haring
"The mind must be the harder, the heart the keener,
 the spirit the greater, as our strength grows less."
                   -Byrhtwold, The Battle of Maldon

On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 19:49:57 -0400, Anakin <noemail@please.com> wrote:

>Brian, the only reason Sam Raimi had success with his Spider-Man movies
>is cause it's Spider-Man! It doesn't matter what director it was, a
>spider-man movie would still have some success.

That's like saying that any movie with Superman would be successful.
Look at Superman 4.  Try again.

The reason Spider-Man is so successful is that the films are
well-written, well-produced and well-directed, so much so that they
were the biggest box office draw in cinema history at the time they
were out.

You may not like that fact, you may want to pretend otherwise, but it
doesn't change reality any.

On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 00:27:06 GMT, rgorman@block.net (David Johnston)
wrote:

>I'm imagining just how well Spiderman would have done with the
>director of Catwoman doing it instead.

And we all know how wonderfully Hulk did, right?

On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 18:51:36 -0400, Ralf Haring
<haring@SPAMBLOCK.preypacer.com> wrote:

>On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 02:36:12 GMT, rgorman@block.net (David Johnston)
>wrote:
>>On 07 Sep 2005 13:06:09 GMT, david@no.spam.here.uk(David Meadows)
>>wrote:
>>>
>>>I saw Star Wars when I was 11, along with two other generations of my
>>>family. We all came out inspired and happy.
>>
>>What does that have to do with whether a movie is "family friendly"?
>
>If people of varying different ages enjoy the same movie, then it is
>family friendly.
>

No, if a movie is so innocuous that nobody can object to children
seeing it, but it isn't totally intolerable for an adult then it is
"family friendly".  I watched and enjoyed Alfred Hitchcock's Psycho
when I was eleven.  That didn't make it "family friendly".

On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 19:19:01 -0400, Ralf Haring
<haring@SPAMBLOCK.preypacer.com> wrote:

>On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 23:03:22 GMT, rgorman@block.net (David Johnston)
>wrote:
>>
>>No, if a movie is so innocuous that nobody can object to children
>>seeing it, but it isn't totally intolerable for an adult then it is
>>"family friendly".  I watched and enjoyed Alfred Hitchcock's Psycho
>>when I was eleven.  That didn't make it "family friendly".
>
>If you're definition of "family friendly movie" is "shitty movie",

Actually my definition of "family friendly movie" is "movie that that
the American Family Association wouldn't object to"

"John Desmarais" <jddesmarais@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1126190190.081322.3100@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Franklin Bratcher wrote:
> > On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 03:39:31 GMT, rgorman@block.net (David Johnston)
> > wrote:
> >
> > >I find it difficult to imagine the hands that can make a good movie
> > >out of Ant-Man.
> > >
> >
> > http://www.superherohype.com/news.php?id462
> >
> > YMMV HTH
>
> And these will not be those hands...
>
> "IGN FilmForce has learned that British filmmaker Edgar Wright is
> poised to direct Ant-Man. Wright apparently plans on making Ant-Man a
> comedy."
>
> Ick!

Why ick?  He's pretty much taking the only route that can turn this into a
viable concept.

--
- Nathan P. Mahney -

THE MAHNEY PIT -- http://free.hostdepartment.com/n/npmahney
NERDBLOG -- http://www.livejournal.com/users/nathanpmahney