Green Lantern 2, The Flash Updates

[Bot-IGN]

Article Comments for [link=http://movies.ign.com/articles/111/1119714p1.html]Green Lantern 2, The Flash Updates[/link]
by Cindy White

Summary: Marc Guggenheim, who co-wrote the upcoming Green Lantern movie, is already moving on with other comic-book projects, including a treatment for The Flash and a Green Lantern sequel. [link=http://movies.ign.com/articles/111/1119714p1.html]Read Full Article[/link]

 

[Antihero951]

Im just glad that DC is taking other characters from the DC Universe and really sticking behind them, i mean Batman can only come out every 3 or 4 years, so we need another superhero movie to watch in the meantime. Still waiting on a new Superman movie though DC.

 

[jakob997]

So Green Lantern isn't even done filming, and this guy is already penning a sequel, a Flash movie, and maybe even Green Lantern 3? This guy better be good, man.

 

[LilFireDK4]

I agree. I'm still waiting for the Superman movie that will blow me away with awesome fight scenes. Also, one that doesnt involve him having babies.

 

[Bleed_Through]

Out of the three upcoming super hero movies (Capt, Thor, and GL) this one is the only one with promise.

 

[k.k.slider25]

Idk why they don't just make a push for an interconnected film universe. I can understand why they might be that vocal about it until they see how GL performs, but they're going to need to if they want to compete with DC especially if Avengers is a success.

 

[militaryveterangamer]

I hope this movie doesn't turn out to be the live action version of the diarrhea that was the last animated movie.

 

[Bleed_Through]

Idk why they don't just make a push for an interconnected film universe. I can understand why they might be that vocal about it until they see how GL performs, but they're going to need to if they want to compete with DC especially if Avengers is a success.

Green Lantern is DC and The Avengers is Marvel. I don't know if you realize this but almost every Marvel movie is garbage. Comic movies never turn out well if they shove in a million characters. That's why no one has done The Justice League yet. No, I'd prefer they keep focused on making quality films instead of catering to prepubescent comic nerd wet dreams. This is coming from a comic nerd; however, I understand what works in comics doesn't necessarily translate well to film.

 

[Kenny_Tha_Killa]

militaryveterangamer said -

---

"I hope this movie doesn't turn out to be the live action version of the diarrhea that was the last animated movie."

---

Oddly enough, I was hoping the title was referring to a sequel to that "diarrhea" that was the last animated movie. I liked it and I hope DC has more animated movies headed in that direction.

 

[MrRobP]

See ive never been big on sequels as every so often theyve tended to suck, but I REALLY cant wait for this movie & I actually enjoyed First Flight (Superman Doomsday was p*ss poor).

 

[jakob997]

@ Bleed_Through

What Marvel movie was so bad? Spider-Man 2? X-men 2? Iron Man or Iron Man 2? The Incredible Hulk? Blade 1 or Blade 2? Unless you think that Daredevil, Elektra, Ghost Rider, Fantastic 4 series, X-Men 3 and X-Men Origins: Wolverine are the only few Marvel movies ever made, your comment has little weight to it. Don't think that DC hasn't made any pieces of crap. Batman Returns, Batman and Robin, Superman 3 and 4, Catwoman, Supergirl, Steel, and Jonah Hex are all ones that come to mind. But you probably think those are the greatest movies ever, don't you?

They've been trying to make a Justice League movie for years. But they've chosen to copy, yeah I said it, COPY off of Marvel and make origin films before. Why would they make a Justice League film when they still have to make this film, Batman 3, Wonder Woman, The Flash, the Superman reboot, and possibly an Aquaman movie?

You sir, have just been pwned.

 

[jakob997]

 

[jac032394]

@ jakob997:

both franchises have done bad, i mean BAD movies... but i disagree with Batman Returns being one of them. You also forgot Howard The Duck, Blade 3, The Punisher (all of them), Hulk, and the most obvious SPIDERMAN 3... I also disagree with DC copying Marvel. because both franchises have their own style of making this movies. Nolan already said NO for his Batman being in the JLA. Marvel still haven't got all of their big guns back (Spiderman, FF etc. )...

so in over all, nobody really gets pawned not until we'll see the real deal. i mean by real deal, i mean ALL OF THEM...

 

[jakob997]

@ jac032394

I really didn't find Spider-Man 3, Hulk, or Punisher: War Zone to be bad. Spider-Man 3 had good action/effects, a satisfying ending (they didn't stupidly leave a cliffhanger for a fourth film), and had the best Stan Lee cameo; Hulk was dark and physcological, and I think it should get points for that, and War Zone was just fun, even if it was campy. However, I will agree that Punisher 2004 was bad.

And me saying DC is copying isn't totally incorrect. They didn't think of the idea until Marvel announced they were doing it, and that's why there have been some rumors about movies "tying in" to one another. Maybe that wasn't the right word, but my overall point was that he said that DC makes super movies and every Marvel movie is crap, and I disagree.

Oh, and I meant Batman Forever, not Returns.

 

[Kenny_Tha_Killa]

Can anybody really count Howard the Duck? I mean, come on.


@ jakob997 -

Can't say I agree with you about The Punisher. I loved the Thomas Jane version. John Travolta made for a great villian and the scene between Castle and the Russian (aka Kevin Nash) goes down as one of the best fight scenes ever. I think Marvel screwed the pooch when they were unable to resign Jane for the sequel because a lot of people that liked the first one would have watched the second one. Instead, they recast Punisher, brought in new writers and gave us a story that destroyed the continuity from the first film and made us not care about Frank Castle or the movie itself. It was a great shoot 'em up, but beyond that it was just "meh". Needless to say, I was totally disappointed with the subpar story and the decision to go ahead without Jane.

As far as the Fantastic 4 series goes, I still think it's a bad move (just like the Spidey franchise) to reboot the series. I liked the first one and I thought part two was even better. Sure, they screwed up with Galactus, but they brought the Silver Surfer to life and that was pretty cool. The rest of the cast was perfect as far as I'm concerned and I can't even see anybody else playing the part of Thing besides Michael "Vic" Chiklis. But it seems to be the trend these days to reboot a franchise that doesn't need it. I guess we'll always have Spidey 1-3 and FF 1&2.

I thought the Hulk was good, but the ending blew. I mean what a strange way to end a movie. I like The Incredible Hulk much better. It had a short origin intro, great story, great villian, decent ending and better special effects than the Hulk.

Kinda strange because we usually agree on these boards, but it seems we're on polar opposites regarding these movies.

 

[Bleed_Through]

I've been pwned? You sir are an idiot with lousy taste in movies. Warzone is a steaming pile of horse manure. Every single movie Marvel has made (besides Iron Man and maybe Spider-Man 2) has been campy cash ins. Sure, DC has made a bunch of crap in the past, but since Begins they've been a hell of a lot more cautious. If they wanted to crank out a few soulless super hero flicks every year like Marvel, they could. Jonah Hex is the only recent true misstep, but the sad fact is Marvel Studios still seems to think this is the 90's. I'm not so sure getting back their rights will help either. So far Iron Man 2 has suffered due to the Avengers initiative. Thor and Capt look to be nothing more than glorified lead ins to the Avengers. I can't judge without seeing how it all turns out, but so far the movies look just as bad as their co-produced flicks. But hey, they'll make truck loads of cash and sell butt loads of toys ...

 

[jakob997]

@ Bleed_Through

No, YOU'RE a steaming pile of horse manure. And you've just proven that you know nothing about making movies, because if you did, you'd know that the reason Marvel releases multiple movies a year is because the film rights to some of their characters are owned by different studios. Really, the only movies Marvel has self-made are Iron Man 1 and 2 and The Incredible Hulk. And even then, they don't always release a few movies a year. X-Men Origins: Wolverine was their only film last year. Jeez man, I would expect for you to get your facts right. You're one to talk about idiots.

 

[jakob997]

@ Kenny_tha_killa

Yeah, it's kinda odd we aren't agreeing for once, but I don't think that's a problem, because it's not like we're fighting. We're just having a grown up conversation.

My reasoning about The Punisher is that it just wasn't bad-@$$ enough. Yes there were bad-@$$ moments, but overall I was disappointed. It's sad, too, because I liked Tom Jane as The Punisher, the beginning had emotion, and I thought that line at the end-- Saint: "You killed my son." (scream and explosion is heard) Castle: "Both of them."-- was great. But besides Jane and Travolta, none of the cast was really good, and it bored me at points. But that's just me.

On the Fantastic 4, I don't hate the movies, but it's not the best Marvel film in comparison to others. Michael Chiklis and Chris Evans were great, but Julian McMahon ruined every scene he was in. The special effects weren't the good, and the films had too much camp and humor. I'm actually looking forward to this reboot, because I think if the film was more serious it could do well. Plus, Thing will be CGI and could be voiced by Bruce Willis, and I love the sound of that.

Huh, I guess we are disagreeing for once. Don't worry though, Kenny, we still cool.

 

[Bleed_Through]

@ Bleed_Through

No, YOU'RE a steaming pile of horse manure. And you've just proven that you know nothing about making movies, because if you did, you'd know that the reason Marvel releases multiple movies a year is because the film rights to some of their characters are owned by different studios. Really, the only movies Marvel has self-made are Iron Man 1 and 2 and The Incredible Hulk. And even then, they don't always release a few movies a year. X-Men Origins: Wolverine was their only film last year. Jeez man, I would expect for you to get your facts right. You're one to talk about idiots.

Wrong. Marvel Studios has co-produced with other studios for all the other films so far besides the Iron Man films and TIH which they did independently. Get your facts straight. So what if they make one or a few every year, they're still cranking them out like the soulless products that they are. If you truly are a fan of these characters then you should expect .... nay, demand more respect for them.

*Also, please read my edit before you posted where I went into greater detail.

 

[jakob997]

@ Bleed_Through

Okay, so two things. One: just because Marvel co-produced doesn't mean they chose how much quality they wanted the films to have. They've proven that they respect the material THEY created, and what to make quality films. When it all comes down to it, Sony and Fox are the ones to blame, because they're the studios behind these movies. And just because Thor and Captain America are tying into The Avengers doesn't mean that's their point. Marvel is establishing a universe in their films, which no matter what way you look at it, is genius, because I can't recall anyone who's done that before.

Secondly, I now know, KNOW, that you are a DC fanboy. There's no other possible explanation. All you've done is makes stupid remarks about Marvel but kiss DC's @$$ every other word. As I fan of both, I can tell when someone is a suck-up, and you are a big one. And don't deny it, because it's as obvious as the sun is yellow. I've figured you out, and because your such a disgrace, everything you say is garbage. Pointless garbage, actually. So just go and suck on your Dark Knight Blu-ray, why don't you?

 

[Bleed_Through]

It means they didn't have full creative control. That certainly doesn't let them off the hook. So far independently Iron Man (even though I enjoyed the sequel) is the only film I'd call a complete success and not just a commercial one. That's not a trend and from what I've seen so far of Thor and Capt, it looks like they had more control over the creative process in the past than I would have liked to believe. Yet I'm not going to fully judge till the finished product is out.

Nice of you to assume I'm a "DC fanboi" when in fact I grew up with the X-Men/the M universe and only read Batman. What you don't get is that I don't have to associate brand names with the quality of the movies themselves. Like I said, DC has made plenty of embarrassing movies in the past. What I'm trying to get through to you is that I have more faith in them recently with the way they're approaching their films. Admittedly GL could turn out to be just as bad as any turd Marvel has plopped out. I'm not so fond of the fact that they went with Ryan Reynolds as Hal either. This whole sequel talk before the film's released has me worried that they might fall into the same trap as Marvel. Then again a sequel is almost always implied and it could be that they truly believe in what they've done like the article claims. Seems to me like your entire motive was to turn this into a fanboy thing, which is completely lame of you.

What I'm wagering is that GL will be considered to have a higher quality than the upcoming Avengers films, however incremental. Feel free to make your wager and we'll see when everything is said and done.

 

[jakob997]

@ Bleed-Through

You know, I would almost believe your point if you didn't flop so badly in the sentence after. For example, you said "I have more faith in the way DC is approaching their films recently." I could almost believe that, but then you go and say "It could be as bad as any turd Marvel has plopped out." That basically ruins the point of your former sentence, because "any turd" means every movie Marvel has made, no matter what way you try to cover it up.

And everything your saying is pointing right to "DC fanboy." You continually insult Marvel and their films, but then talk about how much faith you have in DC and that they've been doing "so much better." If that isn't fanboyism, then I don't know what is. And just because you read X-Men and Batman as a kid doesn't mean you like Batman better, and it doesn't effect how you overall feel about DC one hundred percent.

And again, Marvel has little to do with the films that are owned by other properties. Why? Because those properties have been given full creative control. You seem to be the only person on IGN that doesn't understand that. Sony and Fox are responsible for the disasters THEY create, not Marvel. And why you're comparing Green Lantern and The Avengers. One comes out in 2011, the other 2012, and I'm sure The Avengers will at the very least be commercially successful then GL.

You know what, don't even post again. I'm tired of wasting my life on you. You are obviously incapable of grasping the simplest pieces of information and facts. You came on here saying Marvel was crap and DC was all good, and I called you on it. And you in every way deserved it, because you obviously need to be put in your place, kid. So if you have any ounce of maturity in you, then you won't post again. And when the dust clears, you can bet I'll be there.

 

[Kenny_Tha_Killa]

I, for one, don't have a problem with Ryan Reynolds as Hal Jordan. He's a better actor than most people give him credit for. He's always typecast as the wise-cracking smartass (because he pulls it off so well), but if you watch some of his non-comedic roles like George Lutz from the Amityville Horror remake, it's pretty apparent the guys got a wide range of acting skills.

 

[jakob997]

@ Kenny_tha_killa

I agree. Reynolds has a sizable range of acting, and he could pull it off. Same goes for Chris Evans. Everyone thinks of him as a comedic smart-@$$, but many haven't seen Sunshine. I actually find it interesting that two actors primarily known for their comedic work have been cast as two comic book superheroes, both films being released in the same summer.

Hey, we're agreeing again!

 

[Bleed_Through]

"And again, Marvel has little to do with the films that are owned by other properties. Why? Because those properties have been given full creative control. You seem to be the only person on IGN that doesn't understand that. Sony and Fox are responsible for the disasters THEY create, not Marvel."

Wrong. [link=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marvel_Studios]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marvel_Studios[/link] Look that over and make sure to check over all the credits for the studios. You "kids" want to point the blame entirely on other companies when in fact you're the ones who are uneducated on the matter. Co-produced simple means they both had some say. How much isn't exactly known and may differ, but like I said, things aren't looking much different on the independent side so far.

"That basically ruins the point of your former sentence, because "any turd" means every movie Marvel has made, no matter what way you try to cover it up."

I flat out said that they made a movie that's a complete success in reference to Iron Man. I also pointed out the films that I thought had some merit. Obviously "any" doesn't mean "every" film they release. It means any turd that they released so take your pick because there are plenty to choose from. The fact that I have to explain this shows just how lacking your reading comprehension is.

"You continually insult Marvel and their films, but then talk about how much faith you have in DC and that they've been doing "so much better"

What don't you understand about being able judge them on the merit of their films and not for a brand name? I called almost every Marvel film garbage because that's exactly what they are. Most DC films have also been just as bad although they recently seem to get it with Batman and not rushing Superman. I thought Marvel got it with Iron Man, but now I'm not so sure. I can count the great comic movies on one hand. Right now all we have to go on with these films is the photos and the Thor trailer. Ascetically GL seems to be more stylistic, whereas the others seem generic and lifeless. Of course I may have judged hastily. Like I said, it could turn out the complete opposite, but I doubt it. I definitely think the quality of the films will suffer by trying to hogtie them together. It may be exactly what we dreamed of growing up, but realistically I don't see them turning out to be good films.

I won't keep arguing over brands so if that's what you're interested in doing then yes, we don't have to further this debate. On the other hand if you want to keep discussing the actual films then I'm game, but understand that telling me not to respond is useless.

Edit: I thought Chris was pretty good in Sunshine, although I still wouldn't consider him a great actor by any means.

 

[jakob997]

"You want to blame on other companies when you're the ones who are uneducated on the matter."

I've called many people on their mistakes about movie studios. I can't count how many times someone said that Fox has made every Marvel movie ever. So I'm pretty educated on the matter. And me putting the blame on other studios is ABSOLUTELY JUSTIFIED. Even though Marvel is the co-producer, they didn't have the creative control. And if Wikipedia is your back-up, especially because everyone knows any idiot can edit it... I find that as laughable as the words you write.

"The fact that I have to explain this shows how lacking your reading comprehension is."

Well, I'm pretty sure I'm smarter than you, and it has nothing to do with me comprehending anything. You've said time and time again that pretty much every Marvel film is "a turd", and I called you on it. You're not listening to me, you're trapping yourself in your own little bubble and it's really getting annoying. And "any" means you can choose from "every" option. It's sad you can't figure that out.

"They aren't rushing Superman... Thor, etc. seem lifeless."

Firstly, they ARE rushing Superman. If they don't get it off the ground soon then Warner Brothers will lose the rights. If you knew anything about this reboot, surely you'd know that. And how could you call Thor, Captain America lifeless? There's only been one Thor trailer, and very brief test footage of Cap. The same can be said about Green Lantern. You're just calling things "lifeless" without having virtually any proof. But Green Lantern, like Cap, only had brief footage, but somehow you "know" it will be better. THAT IS FANBOYISM.

Just shut up man. Seriously. I'm tired of fighting with you.

 

[Kenny_Tha_Killa]

---

"I flat out said that they made a movie that's a complete success in reference to Iron Man."

"I thought Marvel got it with Iron Man, but now I'm not so sure."

---

You seem a little confused.

 

[Bleed_Through]

"You want to blame on other companies when you're the ones who are uneducated on the matter."

I've called many people on their mistakes about movie studios. I can't count how many times someone said that Fox has made every Marvel movie ever. So I'm pretty educated on the matter. And me putting the blame on other studios is ABSOLUTELY JUSTIFIED. Even though Marvel is the co-producer, they didn't have the creative control. And if Wikipedia is your back-up, especially because everyone knows any idiot can edit it... I find that as laughable as the words you write.

Wiki is a good place to start as it compiles all the movies. Since you don't seem to have the sense to do your own research I'll start you off. www.imdb.com is a good place check the facts. Here's gift to start you off: [link=http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0032696/][/link] Marvel Entertainments' very own Avi Arad. Even though they're co-producer they didn't have creative control? Are you daft? You obviously don't know what production means.

Everyone who reads "Comics to Film" on this site is aware that Warner has to make a Superman film or the rights will turn over. You're either oblivious or choosing to ignore the fact that they've planned on a sequel for Returns from before it was released. They scrapped it as well as other concepts and pitches because they didn't feel it was right. They're only now planning on going through with a film once Nolan agreed to produce. I have to say they've been pretty darn patient for the right move.

Talk about pwned.

 

[Bleed_Through]

---

"I flat out said that they made a movie that's a complete success in reference to Iron Man."

"I thought Marvel got it with Iron Man, but now I'm not so sure."

---

You seem a little confused.

---

---

Uh, no. Iron Man was a complete success and still is. I thought they (Marvel Studios) got the idea with IM, but I'm not so sure they did from the look of things with the whole Avengers thing (including how it was handled in IM2). This is not taking away from IM, but an assessment of where they've been heading since. Again, one movie is not a "trend." Do you understand?

 

[Kenny_Tha_Killa]

No, I can't agree with that. It's pretty apparent the sole reason for DC pushing out a Supes movie right now is so the rights don't revert back to the family of Shuster & Siegel. Nolan was just an added, unexpected and welcomed bonus.

 

[Kenny_Tha_Killa]

---

"Uh, no. Iron Man was a complete success and still is. I thought they (Marvel Studios) got the idea with IM, but I'm not so sure they did from the look of things with the whole Avengers thing (including how it was handled in IM2). This is not taking away from IM, but an assessment of where they've been heading since. Do you understand?"

---

I think it's a little early in the game to be assuming anything about Avengers, Thor, Cap or Green Lantern since the movies aren't even in theaters yet.

 

[Bleed_Through]

No, I can't agree with that. It's pretty apparent the sole reason for DC pushing out a Supes movie right now is so the rights don't resort back to the family of Shuster & Siegel. Nolan was just an added, unexpected and welcomed bonus.

I'd say if anything it's a bit of both. Under their constraints they're taking their time and making what seem to be the right movies regardless. They really could have rushed out Returns 2. Thankfully they didn't.

No, I can't agree with that. It's pretty apparent the sole reason for DC pushing out a Supes movie right now is so the rights don't resort back to the family of Shuster & Siegel. Nolan was just an added, unexpected and welcomed bonus.

I didn't like how it was handled in IM2, and it's pretty safe to say that Thor is little more than a glorified lead in at this point. They should have kept his first movie entirely in Asgard. As for The Avengers the point of the lead in movies is to get all the back stories as to not make a overly convoluted story. I still don't see how they're going to tell a compelling story in two hours. I'm sure it will be entertaining, but little more than that. They have the odds stacked against them and a lot to prove.

 

[Kenny_Tha_Killa]

"I still don't see how they're going to tell a compelling story in two hours."

I guess that's why they make the big bucks and you don't.

"I'm sure it will be entertaining, but little more than that."

That's about the only reason I go to the movies - to be entertained.

"They have the odds stacked against them and a lot to prove."

Maybe they do, but I'm all about giving them the chance to prove it and not talking smack about movies that we haven't even seen a sneak peek trailer for.

 

[jac032394]

@Kenny_Tha_Killa:

Howard the Duck was like my worst nightmare back in the days. I mean, c,mon. Go to a prom, pay that stupid duck to rape a whore, and i'm 100% sure that its a pleasure for her to be raped but not by a stupid, disturbing animatronic duck.. BTW please don't think about me getting raped cause i'm a guy... lol.

@jakob997:
now that's a fact. DC has suffered a decade long of horrible comic-book-based-movies, Marvel on the other hand is rushing things so i guess the war really had to start now...

 

[Kenny_Tha_Killa]

I.....just don't even know how to respond to that. 

 

[jakob997]

@ Bleed_Through

Face it, you've lost. You should really just bow down and admit defeat. Now people are starting to back me up-- but I don't see anyone backing YOU up. Why? Because you're a lame DC fanboy, and you don't even have enough respect for yourself to admit that. You're an idiot. Just go away and never post again. Ever.

@ Kenny_tha_killa

Thanks for the back-up, bro. Guess we both realized this guy needed to be put in his place.

 

[Bleed_Through]

By ignoring the hard facts you're admitting defeat. All you can do is spout bs to shield your weak ego. The credits say it all my friend. You're an idiot.

 

[jakob997]

I'm not ignoring facts-- I'm GIVING them. All you're doing at this point is ignoring everything I say and trap yourself in your own little corner. At least I have decent sentence structure and are giving facts. You're resorting to stupid names because you can't admit defeat, because you are the one who has lost this argument, not me. No matter how much you try to delude yourself, I haven't lost. YOU have. And this has nothing to do withe ego. Or should I say, this isn't about MY ego.

 

[Bleed_Through]

I've called many people on their mistakes about movie studios. I can't count how many times someone said that Fox has made every Marvel movie ever. So I'm pretty educated on the matter. And me putting the blame on other studios is ABSOLUTELY JUSTIFIED. Even though Marvel is the co-producer, they didn't have the creative control. And if Wikipedia is your back-up, especially because everyone knows any idiot can edit it... I find that as laughable as the words you write.

You're done with. Bye.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/27/movies/film-does-whatever-a-spider-and-a-ceo-can.html?pagewanted=1

"Mr. Arad is, after all, the reigning king of the popcorn blockbuster. His first seven films at Marvel opened at No. 1. The two ''X-Men'' movies combined grossed just over $675 million internationally, while ''Spider-Man'' took in $806.7 million."

"Mr. Arad's great accomplishment -- and it is one, given the difficulties in transferring any kind of printed material to the big screen -- is conveying what makes those heroes tick as characters. In their film incarnations, Superman and Batman rarely questioned the rightness of their actions, and the villains did evil for evil's sake. Without an emotional anchor, both series devolved into camp. Mr. Arad takes his material too seriously for that. He works with the filmmakers to ensure that the heroes are conflicted, the villains motivated, the outcome shaded."

"Often, Mr. Arad says, the hardest part is deciding just how wild that ride should be. We guard our properties religiously, he said, and the comics fans who pack theaters on opening weekends demand that he remain faithful to the printed page"

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0032696/

Avi Arad

President-CEO of Marvel Studios.

Producer:
Ant-Man (2012) (announced) (executive producer)
Doctor Strange (2012) (announced) (executive producer)
Nick Fury (2012) (announced) (producer)
The Hands of Shang-Chi (2011) (announced) (producer)
Luke Cage (2011) (announced) (executive producer)
Deathlok (2011) (announced) (producer)
Untitled Spider-Man Reboot (2012) (pre-production) (producer)
The Avengers (2012) (pre-production) (executive producer)
Robosapien: Rebooted (2010) (post-production) (producer)

The Incredible Hulk (2008) (producer)
Iron Man (2008) (producer)
... aka "Ironman" - International (English title) (alternative spelling), USA (poster title)
"The Spectacular Spider-Man" (executive producer) (1 episode, 2008)
- Survival of the Fittest (2008) TV episode (executive producer)
"Wolverine and the X-Men" (2008) TV series (executive producer) (unknown episodes)
"Iron Man: Armored Adventures" (2008) TV series (executive producer) (unknown episodes, 2007)
Doctor Strange (2007) (V) (producer)
Bratz (2007) (producer)
... aka "Bratz: The Movie" - International (English title) (DVD box title)
4: Rise of the Silver Surfer (2007) (producer)
... aka "Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer" - Germany, USA (promotional title)
... aka "Fantastic Four: Galaxy Crisis" - Japan (English title)
Spider-Man 3 (2007) (producer)
... aka "Spider-Man 3: The IMAX Experience" - USA (IMAX version)
The Killing Floor (2007) (executive producer)
Ghost Rider (2007) (producer)
... aka "Spirited Racer" - Philippines (English title) (review title)
The Invincible Iron Man (2007) (V) (executive producer)
"Blade: The Series" (executive producer) (12 episodes, 2006)
- Conclave (2006) TV episode (executive producer)
- Monsters (2006) TV episode (executive producer)
- Hunters (2006) TV episode (executive producer)
- Angels & Demons (2006) TV episode (executive producer)
- Turn of the Screw (2006) TV episode (executive producer)
(7 more)
"Fantastic Four" (executive producer) (1 episode, 2006)
... aka "Fantastic Four: World's Greatest Heroes" - USA (alternative title)
- Trial by Fire (2006) TV episode (executive producer)
Ultimate Avengers II (2006) (V) (executive producer)
... aka "Ultimate Avengers 2: Rise of the Panther" - USA (DVD box title)
X-Men: The Last Stand (2006) (producer)
... aka "X-Men 3" - Singapore (English title), USA (working title)
... aka "X3" - International (English title) (informal short title), USA (promotional abbreviation)
... aka "X-Men: Final Decision" - Japan (English title)
Ultimate Avengers (2006) (V) (executive producer)
... aka "Ultimate Avengers: The Movie" - USA (DVD box title)
Fantastic Four (2005) (producer)
Man-Thing (2005) (producer)
Elektra (2005) (producer)
Blade: Trinity (2004) (executive producer)
Spider-Man 2 (2004) (producer)
... aka "Spider-Man 2.1" - USA (recut version)
... aka "Spider-Man 2: The IMAX Experience" - USA (IMAX version)
The Punisher (2004) (producer)
"Spider-Man" (2003) TV series (executive producer) (unknown episodes)
... aka "Spider-Man: The New Animated Series" - Canada (English title) (DVD box title), USA (DVD box title)
Hulk (2003) (producer)
X2 (2003) (executive producer)
... aka "X-Men 2" - Singapore (English title), UK, USA (working title)
... aka "X-2" - USA (poster title)
... aka "X-Men 2: X-Men United" - USA (promotional title)
... aka "X2: X-Men United" - USA (promotional title)
Daredevil vs. Spider-Man (2003) (V) (producer)
Daredevil (2003) (producer)
... aka "Daredevil: A Daring New Vision" - USA (director's cut (DVD title))
Spider-Man (2002) (executive producer)
Blade II (2002) (executive producer)
"Mutant X" (2001) TV series (executive producer) (unknown episodes)
"X-Men: Evolution" (2000) TV series (executive producer) (unknown episodes)
X-Men (2000) (executive producer)
... aka "X-Men 1.5" - USA (DVD box title)

"Avengers" (1999) TV series (executive producer) (unknown episodes)
"Spider-Man Unlimited" (1999) TV series (executive producer) (unknown episodes)
Blade (1998) (executive producer)
Nick Fury: Agent of Shield (1998) (TV) (executive producer)
"Silver Surfer" (executive producer) (1 episode, 1998)
- Learning Curve: Part 1 (1998) TV episode (executive producer)
Generation X (1996) (TV) (executive producer)
"The Incredible Hulk" (1996) TV series (executive producer) (unknown episodes)
"Spider-Man" (1994) TV series (executive producer) (unknown episodes)
"Fantastic Four" (executive producer) (1 episode, 1994)
... aka "The Marvel Action Hour: The Fantastic Four" - USA (alternative title)
- Superskrull (1994) TV episode (executive producer)
"Iron Man" (1994) TV series (executive producer) (unknown episodes)
... aka "The Marvel Action Hour: Iron Man" - USA (alternative title)
"The Bots Master" (1993) TV series (executive producer) (unknown episodes, 1993)
"X-Men" (executive producer) (1 episode, 1993)
- 'Til Death Do Us Part: Part 1 (1993) TV episode (executive producer)
"Double Dragon" (1993) TV series (executive producer) (unknown episodes)
"King Arthur and the Knights of Justice" (executive producer) (1 episode, 1992)
- Opening Kick-off (1992) TV episode (executive producer)

 

[jakob997]

As I've said multiple times: own little bubble. So your basically saying that Sony, Fox, and Lionsgate, despite distributing the films, have had absolutely nothing to do with how the films turned out? You're an idiot. And I'm not "done with." Think what you want, but you are in no way the right person. Congratulations for ruining this thread, jerk off.

 

[Bleed_Through]

So your basically saying that Sony, Fox, and Lionsgate, despite distributing the films, have had absolutely nothing to do with how the films turned out?

Again with the lack of reading comprehension ...

It means they didn't have full creative control. That certainly doesn't let them off the hook. So far independently Iron Man (even though I enjoyed the sequel) is the only film I'd call a complete success and not just a commercial one. That's not a trend and from what I've seen so far of Thor and Capt, it looks like they had more control over the creative process in the past than I would have liked to believe.

And again, Marvel has little t do with the films that are owned by other properties. Why? Because those properties have been given full creative control. You seem to be the only person on IGN that doesn't understand that. Sony and Fox are responsible for the disasters THEY create, not Marvel.

You have absolutely no clue what you're talking about. I've shown you concrete evidence that proves Marvel did in fact play a big role in the creative process and still you're too proud to admit your ignorance. I'm sure that deep down you know you're wrong, but you'll never admit it out loud. So keep spouting nonsense with no evidence to back you up. I've got nothing left to say to someone who can't face the facts.

 

[Kenny_Tha_Killa]

@ Bleed_Through -

So after reading this whole argument, I have to side with jacob997 . You really haven't supplied any proof of anything. Anyone can go to IMDB and copy and paste Avi Arad's fact sheet. Nowhere in that list does it specifically say how much creative control Marvel has of it's movies. All it lists are the projects that AA has been attached to. Sure, he may be listed as a producer or executive producer and that article in the NY Times was a nice piece of propaganda, maybe even a wish list of how things should be, but at the end of the day, the studios have the final creative control. That's the exact reason Sam Raimi walked out on Spider-Man 4 - because they screwed with him on SM3 (which he caught a lot of hell about) and they were trying to do it again on SM4. This time he stuck to his guns and told Sony to eff off. That's why the franchise was rebooted.

 

[Bleed_Through]

So New York Times is propaganda? New York Times is a highly respected publication that's read by millions. Anything they print is highly scrutinized so they have little room for error. Not that they have any reason to lie about the matter. Avi is proclaimed as the man behind the success of the movies and is known to have a huge direct involvement with the creative process. At no time have either of you nobodies brought any evidence at all (especially not by a prestigious source) that states Fox's role in the creative process. What do I care if you sided with him? He's been patting you on the back since the beginning of the argument. Now I know not to waste my time with either of you. I don't deal with people who don't deal in facts.

 

[Kenny_Tha_Killa]

Well aren't you just a snarky, self righteous S.O.B.? When I spoke of propaganda, I meant that the NY Times was printing exactly what Arad was telling them. It was Arad's propaganda, not the NY Times. Get it? You want evidence of Sony's control? Here it is...straight from Raimi's mouth.....

http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2010/jan/12/spider-man-loses-sam-raimi

---

"...the film was criticised by some for a storyline which featured too many villains and turned Parker into a moody emo. Raimi had reportedly also been clashing with [hl=yellow]Columbia[/hl] (owned by, you guessed it, Sony Pictures Entertainment) over which baddies to feature in Spider-Man 4, arguments which resulted in the studio publicly admitting that it was unlikely to meet its planned 6 May 2011 release date.

The director, famous for making the seminal Evil Dead comic horror movies before turning his hand to comicbook fare, had hinted previously that he did not have full control of Spider-Man 3. [hl=yellow]"They really gave me a tremendous amount of control on the first two films, actually," he said last year. "But then there were different opinions on the third film and I didn't really have creative control, so to speak."[/hl]

---

So now you can set your delusions aside and accept the fact that Sony Pictures Entertainment is running the show. I had no idea that you were the only one left on this planet that was not privy to this information. This story broke in January - do you live under a rock? And what's this crap about jakob997? If you'd bothered to go back far enough to my post about The Punisher, you would have seen that we don't agree about everything. So don't try to act as if I'm biased or something.

There, I feel a little better now. I was trying to be civil about the whole thing, but after your "nobodies" comment (like you're so much effing better) I decided to tell you what I really think of you, you bitter, spitefull, little man. Have a nice evening!!!

 

[jakob997]

The reason my and Kenny_tha_killa agree on a lot of things is because we're actually CIVIL to each other. That's more that can be said about you. I met Kenny a while ago, and we agree on a lot of things, so why shouldn't he back me up? And how come anyone isn't backing YOU up, Bleed_Through? BECAUSE WE KNOW YOU'RE WRONG. Just because Arad is the producer of movies doesn't mean it's one hundred percent Marvel's fault. YOU'RE THE ONE IGNORING FACTS. And like I said a few times before: all evidence is pointing at you being a DC fanboy. So I guess at this point there's no way we can get through to you. And any diss word you throw out at me is only true about yourself.

 

[UKLivingLegend]

No comic book movie will ever top Blade 2. Fact.

 

[jakob997]

@ UKLivingLegend

Fiction.

 

[Bleed_Through]

So now you can set your delusions aside and accept the fact that Sony Pictures Entertainment is running the show.
There, I feel a little better now. I was trying to be civil about the whole thing, but after your "nobodies" comment (like you're so much effing better) I decided to tell you what I really think of you, you bitter, spitefull, little man. Have a nice evening!!!

Congratulations, you finally posted something evidential so I owe you a response. Sadly however you don't seem to understand that both studios have sway, which is exactly why they were co-produced. Venom was pushed on Raimi because the shareholders knew he's a popular character. That still doesn't prove who has more control and it's not going to be the same in every situation. Besides, that was hardly the same problem that the others had. The point is, Avi is a producer and is still to this very day behind almost every one of the films. There's no coincidence that these films consistently turn out the way they do or why he's regarded time and time again as the man. His job isn't just standing around picking his nose, despite what you'd like to imagine. What I'm saying is that anyone who thinks there's going to be a big (or any real) shift in quality all of the sudden with the independent films, has another thing coming. There's no reason to keep arguing even because come next year you'll most likely see. Just looking at the aesthetics, the writers, directors, and the release dates should give you some indication.

As for the nobodies statement, it was just me pointing out how you act as though you know better than the credits or The NY Times. Claiming that it's Avi's propaganda is no different. Not that anyone or any studio has disputing something that's been read by countless millions besides you that is ... Truth is I have no real animosity toward you. Jak on the other hand wanted to turn this into some silly fanboy thing the entire time and still can't comprehend what was said.

Just because Arad is the producer of movies doesn't mean it's one hundred percent Marvel's fault.

It means they didn't have full creative control. That certainly doesn't let them off the hook.

 

[Kenny_Tha_Killa]

So now you can set your delusions aside and accept the fact that Sony Pictures Entertainment is running the show.
There, I feel a little better now. I was trying to be civil about the whole thing, but after your "nobodies" comment (like you're so much effing better) I decided to tell you what I really think of you, you bitter, spitefull, little man. Have a nice evening!!!

Congratulations, you finally posted something evidential so I owe you a response. Sadly however you don't seem to understand that both studios have sway, which is exactly why they were co-produced. Venom was pushed on Raimi because the shareholders knew he's a popular character. That still doesn't prove who has more control and it's not going to be the same in every situation. Besides, that was hardly the same problem that the others had. The point is, Avi is a producer and is still to this very day behind almost every one of the films. There's no coincidence that these films consistently turn out the way they do or why he's regarded time and time again as the man. His job isn't just standing around picking his nose, despite what you'd like to imagine. What I'm saying is that anyone who thinks there's going to be a big (or any real) shift in quality all of the sudden with the independent films, has another thing coming. There's no reason to keep arguing even because come next year you'll most likely see. Just looking at the aesthetics, the writers, directors, and the release dates should give you some indication.

As for the nobodies statement, it was just me pointing out how you act as though you know better than the credits or The NY Times. Claiming that it's Avi's propaganda is no different. Not that anyone or any studio has disputing something that's been read by countless millions besides you that is ... Truth is I have no real animosity toward you. Jak on the other hand wanted to turn this into some silly fanboy thing the entire time and still can't comprehend what was said.

Just because Arad is the producer of movies doesn't mean it's one hundred percent Marvel's fault.

It means they didn't have full creative control. That certainly doesn't let them off the hook.

I never stated that Avi Arad wasn't responsible. I'm sure that Arad was very influential when it came to making Spider-Man 3. I said that at the end of the day, it was Sony that had the final say - as was referenced by what Raimi said in the article that I provided.

As for Mavel's future endeavors (Thor, Cap, Avengers, Green Lantern, etc.), as I stated before, it would be a little presumptuous of anyone to try and critique movies that we don't even have teaser trailers for yet. I mean, what did we really see in Iron Man 2? Thor's hammer in the sand - not really much to go on.

As for the NY Times thing, I'm going to try and explain this one last time. The Times did an interview with Avi Arad. They wrote an article about that interview. They basically printed what he said. Not a whole lot of investigative work was required. It's not a knock on the Times. They had no reason to check into Arad's story to see if what he was saying was true. Ironicly enough, the article was written before SM3 hit the screens and there was no reason before then to question who had creative control. It wasn't until after SM3 came out that people started asking questions. In the article that I provided, even Raimi himself said that he was given full creative control with SM 1&2. When Arad talks about changing certain aspects of Spider-Man (like having his webs coming out of his wrists) he said "we" decided to change that - when according to Raimi's comments, it was Raimi's decision all along. So what I was saying is that you shouldn't believe the Times article because it was heavily influenced by Arad and what he says isn't always true.

Unfortunately, the moral of the story is, the guys supplying the money and distributing the movie will always be in charge and there's nothing Sam Raimi, Marvel or Avi Arad can do about it - unless Marvel decided to totally fund the movie on their own.

 

[Bleed_Through]

In the article that I provided, even Raimi himself said that he was given full creative control with SM 1&2. When Arad talks about changing certain aspects of Spider-Man (like having his webs coming out of his wrists) he said "we" decided to change that - when according to Raimi's comments, it was Raimi's decision all along. So what I was saying is that you shouldn't believe the Times article because it was heavily influenced by Arad and what he says isn't always true.

Did you actually read the entire article (including hyperlink) you posted? The two quotes you previously posted are taken waaaay out of context. (*Besides, "tremendous" is not the same as "full.")

---

"...the film was criticised by some for a storyline which featured too many villains and turned Parker into a moody emo. Raimi had reportedly also been clashing with Columbia (owned by, you guessed it, Sony Pictures Entertainment) over which baddies to feature in Spider-Man [hl=yellow]4[/hl], arguments which resulted in the studio publicly admitting that it was unlikely to meet its planned 6 May 2011 release date.

The director, famous for making the seminal Evil Dead comic horror movies before turning his hand to comicbook fare, had hinted previously that he did not have full control of Spider-Man 3. [hl=red]"They really gave me a tremendous amount of control on the first two films, actually," he said last year. "But then there were different opinions on the third film and I didn't really have creative control, so to speak."[/hl]

---

---

---

The [hl=red]second[/hl] paragraph is about SM3. Here's where those quotes came from (if you had clicked the hyperlink) that includes this little nifty quote:

More questions were thrown at the director about the issues surrounding Spider-Man 3 and the at-the-time Marvel head honcho [hl=red]Avi Arad’s[/hl] rumored insistence on Venom’s inclusion, but Raimi responded professionally and didn’t name names or play the blame game in his answers.

Raimi being a vet in Hollywood knows the first rule is not to name names or burn bridges, but I think you get the picture.


In regards to The NY Times thing, they proclaim him as the man behind the movies. As for the quotes taken directly from him, well no one has disputed it so there's no reason to believe it's not true. If you read up you'll see Avi's name pop up everywhere, and not just from The New York Times.