• Follow us on Twitter @buckeyeplanet and @bp_recruiting, like us on Facebook! Enjoy a post or article, recommend it to others! BP is only as strong as its community, and we only promote by word of mouth, so share away!
  • Consider registering! Fewer and higher quality ads, no emails you don't want, access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Even if you just want to lurk, there are a lot of good reasons to register!
Thanks BuckinMichigan. I'm just amazed that so much cash obvioiusly spent on FX and Thing still walks around like a man in a body cast. They could have made it a thinner suit and still sold the idea. Chiklis is a big guy. I'll probably see it anyhow having brothers aged 13, 9, and 3 years old. At least they'll enjoy it.
 
Upvote 0
BIM: "I never liked the book"

No way. The FF was a great read with some awesome villains: Doctor Doom, the Sub-Mariner, Galactus, the Silver Surfer, the Mole Man, the Skrulls, the Molecule Man, etc. Classic, classic stuff.

I highly reccomend the early issues (1-50ish), the early 200's (about 200-225), and the John Byrne stuff in the late 200s (270-300).

Funny tidbits about this comic on TV and the silver screen: when they made the FF cartoon in the 70's, Marvel didn't own the TV rights to the Human Torch (someone else owned it because the Torch was a character created in the 1940s before Marvel <as we know it> even existed). That someone wouldn't sell Marvel the rights to use the Torch in the cartoon because movie studios were trying to make a movie about the Human Torch themselves.

The makers of the cartoon instead created Herbie the Robot to be on the show instead of the Torch. The Torch was later added to the cartoon after a couple of seasons with Herbie when the bids from the movie studios disappeared. Why did they disappear, you ask? Because none of the movie studios could figure out (given the meager special effects of the time) how to put the Torch on the Silver Screen without incinerating the actor.

And if none of you have heard of the early 90's Roger Corman FF movie, I suggest you look it up on DVD on ebay. The Quintessential Cult Classic of Horrible Movies (didn't even make it to video) of the last fifteen years. A hidden gem.

BLC: "I'm just amazed that so much cash obvioiusly spent on FX and Thing still walks around like a man in a body cast."

My biggest disappointment in this regard is Doctor Doom. Here's one of the coolest looking villains of all time. They could've made him look AWESOME, and he looks really cheesy and weak. That's probably the biggest shame of this whole thing (no pun intended).
 
Upvote 0
stxbuck said:
The 1st Batman was classic-Nicholson deserved an Oscar,IMO....all the rest blew
I thought all of the Batman movies were terrible. The first one started out really well - very dark and mysterious. The first hour was extremely well done. But the second hour degenerated into One Flew Over the Joker's Nest. Nothing but Nicholson strutting around chewing the scenery like he was still living in the '60s. In my opinion, Cesar Romero did that part a lot better. Anyway, then the final confrontation was a huge letdown - pretty much ruined the movie for me.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Cornerback6 said:
Can't believe Katie Holmes is dating that nutjob Tom Cruise. A good Ohio girl gone down the wacko Scientology pisser. Here's to hoping she cans him soon and looks great in the movie!!! :)
the reason that the xmen and spiderman movies have done so much better than is the way that they set up the stories. You can see, in the context of the movie, the transformation of the hobbgoblin or in the xmen movies colausus, and the real kicker for xmen fans is going to be the introduction of the pheonix. I have heard that the 3rd installment is going to focus mainly on the dark pheonix

the hulk tried this but failed. they tried to go too indepth and hung the rest of the story out to dry
 
Upvote 0
Personally I never liked the Batman movies...until this one. I just saw it last night and I think it's much better than all of those, than the Spidermans, but not as good as Superman II with Zod. :biggrin:

Nolan did a really good job with the script and cinematography. Bale does a good job, but Michael Caine and Morgan Freeman and Liam Neilson are what make the movie great.
 
Upvote 0
tibor75 said:
Personally I never liked the Batman movies...until this one. I just saw it last night and I think it's much better than all of those, than the Spidermans, but not as good as Superman II with Zod. :biggrin:

Nolan did a really good job with the script and cinematography. Bale does a good job, but Michael Caine and Morgan Freeman and Liam Neilson are what make the movie great.
True on all accounts. I also like the fact that they went with Scarecrow, rather than the old standby with The Joker. It's pretty obvious that the next one will have The Joker in it though. This is a much darker Batman, which actually fits the Batman in the comics. Looking forward to the sequel now.
 
Upvote 0
I also agree that this is the best of the Batman flicks. Bale has a edge to the portrayal, and his toughness makes the action scenes more believable.
 
Upvote 0
I saw it last night...great movie.

The story is tight, plausible, and coherent.

Filling in the gaps between Bruce's parent's getting killed and him becoming Batman was a great move.

My only compliants...a) the batman "voice" while in costume was a little cheesy, b) what happened to the Joker little rhyme about "dancing with the devil" before he kills Bruce Wayne's parents, c) why does Hollywood always have to give away the superhero's identity in the context of the romance.
 
Upvote 0
Saw it today and I have to say I really liked it. Now, I am a Spiderman dork and this movie was better than the two recent Spiderman movies. Better directing, deeper cast and I really like how it was not all about special effects.

I do agree that the Batman voice was a bit cheesy. There were some nice funny lines though.
 
Upvote 0
Back
Top