Hmm, I've read that the movie from 2002 had a bit of the retooled comic.  Like the Spider being geneticly altered as opposed to being radioactive.  And the scene from where the thief gets away after robbing the promoters of the wrestling match, also comes from Ultimate Spider-Man as well. 

joey fuckup said:

The more I've seen on this Spiderman re-boot, the more I'm starting to like it. I think this saga will be darker and more in-depth, and from what I've read about it, it's based on Marvel's re-tooling of the character with an all new comic book series that came out back in 2001 or so. I still think it was just too early to bring this all about, but since Sony/Columbia still had the film rights, they were going ahead with another Spiderman film while they still could. Apparently Marvel is impressed with what they've seen, and already a sequel and a Venom film is being planned.

Rockin Rod Strychnine said:

Maybe because you really can't show 3-D on TV, but the promos for THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN are far from Amazing.

By the way, I saw "The Avengers" this past weekend, and was totally blown away! Every character was utilized in their own way (yes, even Black Widow and Hawkeye), and they all played off each other very well. Definately sit through the first set of credits at the end for a bonus scene that will be setting the stage for either an Avengers sequel and/or a second Thor film. There is a scene at the very end of the movie (after the second set of credits), but honestly it really is just a goofy kind of thing that doesn't have any real purpose as far as the actual film goes. However, if you haven't seen "Captain America" or "Thor", I highly recommend you watching them first since they are the lead-ins to "The Avengers".

Rockin Rod Strychnine said:

Never been a huge Ghost Rider fan but that is messed up.  I remember back in the 70s that a foundation or something was set up to protect creators and to get some back pay (not much but some).  This was done before the first Christopher Reeve Superman movie and DC wasn't about to include Seigle and Shuster in on the celebration.  I think Neal Adams (best known for doing Batman and Green Lantern in the early 70s) was behind this.  Since then, Superman and Batman each have their creators name on the front page (if that is still going on).

I really don't have too much of a problem with the CGI look for the Hulk and Spiderman.  If it helps them move around quickly like they are supposed to, then I don't mind.  Hulk does look a little flat though so you are right that he needs demension and the lighting helps.

As for Black Widow and Hawkeye in the Avengers, I feel they were just thrown in as well.  Black Widow was a Russian agent in the 60s Iron Man comics and had tricked Hawkeye into joining her against him (he thought he was in love with her).  He was in the Avengers as a probation type of thing when Captain America needed to put together a new team after the original went their own ways (the Hulk was only an Avenger for the first 2 issues).  But these movies have changed a lot of their histories and even now they have changed the whole Spider-man story again for his upcoming movie.  Mary Jane has been dropped and they've decided to have Gwen Stacy be his girl friend once again.  Maybe when they redo him again, they'll remember Liz Allan or even Betty Brant.

The more I've seen on this Spiderman re-boot, the more I'm starting to like it. I think this saga will be darker and more in-depth, and from what I've read about it, it's based on Marvel's re-tooling of the character with an all new comic book series that came out back in 2001 or so. I still think it was just too early to bring this all about, but since Sony/Columbia still had the film rights, they were going ahead with another Spiderman film while they still could. Apparently Marvel is impressed with what they've seen, and already a sequel and a Venom film is being planned.

Rockin Rod Strychnine said:

Maybe because you really can't show 3-D on TV, but the promos for THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN are far from Amazing.

Maybe because you really can't show 3-D on TV, but the promos for THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN are far from Amazing.

I have never heard of this, nor seen anything remotely similar. The only "live action" Archie film I've seen was a really bad "reunion" TV movie of the gang, being older, and just being boring. Maybe the filmmakers did get sued, and that's why it's such an obscurity now?

John Battles said:

DID ANYBODY EVER SEE THE UNAUTHORIZED , R-RATED VERSION OF "ARCHIE" ? I'm not kidding. It was called "Hot Times" , and it used to air on cable , sometimes , in The 80's. It was made around '73. It was basically about Archie and the gang in sexual situations. They were all called by the same names as in the comics , except I think Jughead was called "Mughead".

I don't know how the people who did it did'nt get sued out of existense.

DID ANYBODY EVER SEE THE UNAUTHORIZED , R-RATED VERSION OF "ARCHIE" ? I'm not kidding. It was called "Hot Times" , and it used to air on cable , sometimes , in The 80's. It was made around '73. It was basically about Archie and the gang in sexual situations. They were all called by the same names as in the comics , except I think Jughead was called "Mughead".

I don't know how the people who did it did'nt get sued out of existense.

I know , I'm so tired of seeing actors get bumped off by CGI ...All they'd need is a muscle boy in a wig , painted green. Lou Ferrigno was no Olivier , but , he pulled it off...Of course , he seemed more sympathetic because he could'nt hear , and was just learning to talk , in real life....Of course "Captain America" HAD CGI  graphics, but no actors lost their jobs.

I did'nt even know there WAS a "Ghost Rider" sequel , nor that it sold as well as it did....I'm sure Suicide's song STILL was'nt used , either.
 
joey fuckup said:

So has anyone seen the second "Ghost Rider" film yet? I'm almost on the fence about going, now that I know that Marvel is inacting legal action against the comic character's original creator. Years ago he sold off the rights to Marvel, and throughout the years, he's made some measly profit money showing up at comic conventions. Well, they want ALL his profits he's made (I think it's in the neighborhood of $17,000.00), and they want him to keep his mouth shut about being the creator. Sheesh, talk about greed, and this guy will never see a dime from any licensed item nor from the film itself. Hell, I may go see it, at least some of the money will go to Nicholas Cage, since after all he had to file for bankruptcy (Ok, bad joke).

I've seen the latest trailer for "The Avengers", and I must say, I was quite impressed. However, I did have a couple of issues with what I have seen. One is the Hulk's look. I don't think he will ever look totally believable in any film, but I still think he looked the best and most authentic in Ang Lee's adaptation. They used Industrial, Light, & Magic, and I don't know why they were never used again. The Hulk just looked way too CG in the second film, so it's hard for me to try and watch that version (still have never watched it the whole way through). Perhaps the second Hulk film had a lower budget? And now, here in his third big screen appearance, he does look better than the second time, but pales in comparison to his first dash on the silver screen.

I know the Black Widow was a major character in "Iron Man 2", but other than setting her up as being in "The Avengers", I'm not that sure she was really all that necessary. I never really read the Avengers comics, but was she ever one of them? So in the trailer, she's shown a lot, but does she add THAT much (other than being eye candy)? There's also the inclusion of Hawkeye, who we all know was an Avenger, but he just doesn't seem like he belongs, neither (perhaps because he just looks bland). He had a small appearance in "Thor", but he just doesn't seem to add much. I know in the '60's Avengers (#1), the superhero line-up was Captain America, Hulk, Iron Man, and Thor, and I think they should have stuck with that. The movie doesn't come out until May, so I guess I will have to wait and see, and hope the Black Widow and Hawkeye just aren't characters thrown in for the hell of it, getting in the way, and creating too many subplots.

Is that right.  That just sounds lame if Peter was a victim of experimentation like Bruce Banner was in the Hulk's first film.  It made sense there but does that have to be the case everytime now?  Even though the 1960s stories were unbelivable, they were comics and people just survived accidents and it was acceptable.

joey fuckup said:

Yeah, I did notice in the newer "Amazing Spiderman" trailer that they were playing on the connection of Peter's parents being involved with Dr. Connors. I got the impression that maybe Peter already had something done to him when he was a child, and it (whatever it was) lay dormant in his DNA for years until he gets bit by the spider in the lab. Which makes me feel like (if this is what happens in the film) that the writers are sort of ripping off Ang Lee's "Hulk" story treatment. So, if this is the case, I guess the film is way off the mark from his origin in the '60's issues.

Yeah, I did notice in the newer "Amazing Spiderman" trailer that they were playing on the connection of Peter's parents being involved with Dr. Connors. I got the impression that maybe Peter already had something done to him when he was a child, and it (whatever it was) lay dormant in his DNA for years until he gets bit by the spider in the lab. Which makes me feel like (if this is what happens in the film) that the writers are sort of ripping off Ang Lee's "Hulk" story treatment. So, if this is the case, I guess the film is way off the mark from his origin in the '60's issues.

Rockin Rod Strychnine said:

Gwen Stacy was Peter's first girlfriend that lasted more than a year which is why everyone remembers her best but technically, Betty Brant, Jonah's secretary, was Peter's first girlfriend soon he first started selling pictures to the Bugle.  It didn't last long though because he was always making up excuses why he couldn't keep dates and always disappearing and she also couldn't stand the thought that he was risking his life to take pictures of Spider-man.  The final straw was when Dr. Octopus exposed Spider-man (Peter had the flu so was easily beaten) in front of Jonah and Betty and Peter was under the mask.  Of course everyone thought that Peter was just posing in order to save Betty because he didn't trust the "real" Spider-man to show up in time.

Peter didn't meet Gwen until he started college so I think Gwen (like MJ in the previous movie series) is just taking Liz's place for the high school years and then changing into what the comics make them out to be.  The movie is including a backstory for Peter's parents this time but they are being changed.  Stan Lee back in the sixties revealed his parents to be Shield agents that were killed by the Red Skull (stupid story if you ask me) but somehow framed as traitors and Spider-man felt that it was his duty to clear their name.  I don't know what exactly happened as I only know the first part of the plot having never read the story (it's from a rare summer annual not part of the ongoing comic) but the story really reeks of fakeness.  By 1968, I think Stan ran out of ideas and just became too outlandish (Jack Kirby didn't even want to do the Silver Surfer comic that came out that year  because he added to much to his back story that didn't mesh with his intro from two years before).  The new movie makes more sense that his parents are scientists but then they throw in that they work with Curt Conners (EVERYTHING has to have a connection which ruined the Sandman story from the Toby McGuire movie for me).

For me, I'm more interested in the Avengers movie and the final Batman picture (of this run anyway) than I am in Ghost Rider or Spider-man.

joey fuckup said:

If I remember correctly in the Spiderman history, Gwen Stacy was Peter's first "real" girlfriend (not counting his crush on Liz), but died during a violent scenario involving the Green Goblin. This scene was replicated in the first "Spiderman" film, but involved Mary Jane of course. It wasn't until after Gwen died that Peter met Mary Jane, so maybe this new retelling will follow the original '60's storylines more so than what Sam Raimi did.

Thanks for clarifying the back story of Black Widow, because I've only known her as a guest star in other comics. Like I said, I never really followed the Avengers, but I did like the Iron Man comics, although I had stopped reading them by the time Tony Stark became an alcoholic. I was more of a "Defenders" fan, one of the most mix-matched group of superheroes ever (Hulk, Dr. Strange, Howard the Duck, Nighthawk, and other various off-the-wall characters).

Rockin Rod Strychnine said:

Never been a huge Ghost Rider fan but that is messed up.  I remember back in the 70s that a foundation or something was set up to protect creators and to get some back pay (not much but some).  This was done before the first Christopher Reeve Superman movie and DC wasn't about to include Seigle and Shuster in on the celebration.  I think Neal Adams (best known for doing Batman and Green Lantern in the early 70s) was behind this.  Since then, Superman and Batman each have their creators name on the front page (if that is still going on).

I really don't have too much of a problem with the CGI look for the Hulk and Spiderman.  If it helps them move around quickly like they are supposed to, then I don't mind.  Hulk does look a little flat though so you are right that he needs demension and the lighting helps.

As for Black Widow and Hawkeye in the Avengers, I feel they were just thrown in as well.  Black Widow was a Russian agent in the 60s Iron Man comics and had tricked Hawkeye into joining her against him (he thought he was in love with her).  He was in the Avengers as a probation type of thing when Captain America needed to put together a new team after the original went their own ways (the Hulk was only an Avenger for the first 2 issues).  But these movies have changed a lot of their histories and even now they have changed the whole Spider-man story again for his upcoming movie.  Mary Jane has been dropped and they've decided to have Gwen Stacy be his girl friend once again.  Maybe when they redo him again, they'll remember Liz Allan or even Betty Brant.

Gwen Stacy was Peter's first girlfriend that lasted more than a year which is why everyone remembers her best but technically, Betty Brant, Jonah's secretary, was Peter's first girlfriend soon he first started selling pictures to the Bugle.  It didn't last long though because he was always making up excuses why he couldn't keep dates and always disappearing and she also couldn't stand the thought that he was risking his life to take pictures of Spider-man.  The final straw was when Dr. Octopus exposed Spider-man (Peter had the flu so was easily beaten) in front of Jonah and Betty and Peter was under the mask.  Of course everyone thought that Peter was just posing in order to save Betty because he didn't trust the "real" Spider-man to show up in time.

Peter didn't meet Gwen until he started college so I think Gwen (like MJ in the previous movie series) is just taking Liz's place for the high school years and then changing into what the comics make them out to be.  The movie is including a backstory for Peter's parents this time but they are being changed.  Stan Lee back in the sixties revealed his parents to be Shield agents that were killed by the Red Skull (stupid story if you ask me) but somehow framed as traitors and Spider-man felt that it was his duty to clear their name.  I don't know what exactly happened as I only know the first part of the plot having never read the story (it's from a rare summer annual not part of the ongoing comic) but the story really reeks of fakeness.  By 1968, I think Stan ran out of ideas and just became too outlandish (Jack Kirby didn't even want to do the Silver Surfer comic that came out that year  because he added to much to his back story that didn't mesh with his intro from two years before).  The new movie makes more sense that his parents are scientists but then they throw in that they work with Curt Conners (EVERYTHING has to have a connection which ruined the Sandman story from the Toby McGuire movie for me).

For me, I'm more interested in the Avengers movie and the final Batman picture (of this run anyway) than I am in Ghost Rider or Spider-man.

joey fuckup said:

If I remember correctly in the Spiderman history, Gwen Stacy was Peter's first "real" girlfriend (not counting his crush on Liz), but died during a violent scenario involving the Green Goblin. This scene was replicated in the first "Spiderman" film, but involved Mary Jane of course. It wasn't until after Gwen died that Peter met Mary Jane, so maybe this new retelling will follow the original '60's storylines more so than what Sam Raimi did.

Thanks for clarifying the back story of Black Widow, because I've only known her as a guest star in other comics. Like I said, I never really followed the Avengers, but I did like the Iron Man comics, although I had stopped reading them by the time Tony Stark became an alcoholic. I was more of a "Defenders" fan, one of the most mix-matched group of superheroes ever (Hulk, Dr. Strange, Howard the Duck, Nighthawk, and other various off-the-wall characters).

Rockin Rod Strychnine said:

Never been a huge Ghost Rider fan but that is messed up.  I remember back in the 70s that a foundation or something was set up to protect creators and to get some back pay (not much but some).  This was done before the first Christopher Reeve Superman movie and DC wasn't about to include Seigle and Shuster in on the celebration.  I think Neal Adams (best known for doing Batman and Green Lantern in the early 70s) was behind this.  Since then, Superman and Batman each have their creators name on the front page (if that is still going on).

I really don't have too much of a problem with the CGI look for the Hulk and Spiderman.  If it helps them move around quickly like they are supposed to, then I don't mind.  Hulk does look a little flat though so you are right that he needs demension and the lighting helps.

As for Black Widow and Hawkeye in the Avengers, I feel they were just thrown in as well.  Black Widow was a Russian agent in the 60s Iron Man comics and had tricked Hawkeye into joining her against him (he thought he was in love with her).  He was in the Avengers as a probation type of thing when Captain America needed to put together a new team after the original went their own ways (the Hulk was only an Avenger for the first 2 issues).  But these movies have changed a lot of their histories and even now they have changed the whole Spider-man story again for his upcoming movie.  Mary Jane has been dropped and they've decided to have Gwen Stacy be his girl friend once again.  Maybe when they redo him again, they'll remember Liz Allan or even Betty Brant.

If I remember correctly in the Spiderman history, Gwen Stacy was Peter's first "real" girlfriend (not counting his crush on Liz), but died during a violent scenario involving the Green Goblin. This scene was replicated in the first "Spiderman" film, but involved Mary Jane of course. It wasn't until after Gwen died that Peter met Mary Jane, so maybe this new retelling will follow the original '60's storylines more so than what Sam Raimi did.

Thanks for clarifying the back story of Black Widow, because I've only known her as a guest star in other comics. Like I said, I never really followed the Avengers, but I did like the Iron Man comics, although I had stopped reading them by the time Tony Stark became an alcoholic. I was more of a "Defenders" fan, one of the most mix-matched group of superheroes ever (Hulk, Dr. Strange, Howard the Duck, Nighthawk, and other various off-the-wall characters).

Rockin Rod Strychnine said:

Never been a huge Ghost Rider fan but that is messed up.  I remember back in the 70s that a foundation or something was set up to protect creators and to get some back pay (not much but some).  This was done before the first Christopher Reeve Superman movie and DC wasn't about to include Seigle and Shuster in on the celebration.  I think Neal Adams (best known for doing Batman and Green Lantern in the early 70s) was behind this.  Since then, Superman and Batman each have their creators name on the front page (if that is still going on).

I really don't have too much of a problem with the CGI look for the Hulk and Spiderman.  If it helps them move around quickly like they are supposed to, then I don't mind.  Hulk does look a little flat though so you are right that he needs demension and the lighting helps.

As for Black Widow and Hawkeye in the Avengers, I feel they were just thrown in as well.  Black Widow was a Russian agent in the 60s Iron Man comics and had tricked Hawkeye into joining her against him (he thought he was in love with her).  He was in the Avengers as a probation type of thing when Captain America needed to put together a new team after the original went their own ways (the Hulk was only an Avenger for the first 2 issues).  But these movies have changed a lot of their histories and even now they have changed the whole Spider-man story again for his upcoming movie.  Mary Jane has been dropped and they've decided to have Gwen Stacy be his girl friend once again.  Maybe when they redo him again, they'll remember Liz Allan or even Betty Brant.

Never been a huge Ghost Rider fan but that is messed up.  I remember back in the 70s that a foundation or something was set up to protect creators and to get some back pay (not much but some).  This was done before the first Christopher Reeve Superman movie and DC wasn't about to include Seigle and Shuster in on the celebration.  I think Neal Adams (best known for doing Batman and Green Lantern in the early 70s) was behind this.  Since then, Superman and Batman each have their creators name on the front page (if that is still going on).

I really don't have too much of a problem with the CGI look for the Hulk and Spiderman.  If it helps them move around quickly like they are supposed to, then I don't mind.  Hulk does look a little flat though so you are right that he needs demension and the lighting helps.

As for Black Widow and Hawkeye in the Avengers, I feel they were just thrown in as well.  Black Widow was a Russian agent in the 60s Iron Man comics and had tricked Hawkeye into joining her against him (he thought he was in love with her).  He was in the Avengers as a probation type of thing when Captain America needed to put together a new team after the original went their own ways (the Hulk was only an Avenger for the first 2 issues).  But these movies have changed a lot of their histories and even now they have changed the whole Spider-man story again for his upcoming movie.  Mary Jane has been dropped and they've decided to have Gwen Stacy be his girl friend once again.  Maybe when they redo him again, they'll remember Liz Allan or even Betty Brant.

So has anyone seen the second "Ghost Rider" film yet? I'm almost on the fence about going, now that I know that Marvel is inacting legal action against the comic character's original creator. Years ago he sold off the rights to Marvel, and throughout the years, he's made some measly profit money showing up at comic conventions. Well, they want ALL his profits he's made (I think it's in the neighborhood of $17,000.00), and they want him to keep his mouth shut about being the creator. Sheesh, talk about greed, and this guy will never see a dime from any licensed item nor from the film itself. Hell, I may go see it, at least some of the money will go to Nicholas Cage, since after all he had to file for bankruptcy (Ok, bad joke).

I've seen the latest trailer for "The Avengers", and I must say, I was quite impressed. However, I did have a couple of issues with what I have seen. One is the Hulk's look. I don't think he will ever look totally believable in any film, but I still think he looked the best and most authentic in Ang Lee's adaptation. They used Industrial, Light, & Magic, and I don't know why they were never used again. The Hulk just looked way too CG in the second film, so it's hard for me to try and watch that version (still have never watched it the whole way through). Perhaps the second Hulk film had a lower budget? And now, here in his third big screen appearance, he does look better than the second time, but pales in comparison to his first dash on the silver screen.

I know the Black Widow was a major character in "Iron Man 2", but other than setting her up as being in "The Avengers", I'm not that sure she was really all that necessary. I never really read the Avengers comics, but was she ever one of them? So in the trailer, she's shown a lot, but does she add THAT much (other than being eye candy)? There's also the inclusion of Hawkeye, who we all know was an Avenger, but he just doesn't seem like he belongs, neither (perhaps because he just looks bland). He had a small appearance in "Thor", but he just doesn't seem to add much. I know in the '60's Avengers (#1), the superhero line-up was Captain America, Hulk, Iron Man, and Thor, and I think they should have stuck with that. The movie doesn't come out until May, so I guess I will have to wait and see, and hope the Black Widow and Hawkeye just aren't characters thrown in for the hell of it, getting in the way, and creating too many subplots.

Gotcha...yeah, I'm thinking it did well over $160 million domestically and even more overseas, plus I'm sure the high dvd sales helped out as well. I've been tempted to pick up the extended "Director's Cut" before the sequel comes out to get a little refresher.

Rockin Rod Strychnine said:

I meant Ghost Rider the character, not the first movie.  Sorry if it sounded like I inplyed that.  I just didn't think it had done well enough to warrent a sequel but I'm pretty out of the loop since I don't read comic gossip mags and blogs anymore.

joey fuckup said:

I know the sequel comes out in Feb., but it's being shown with the first one? I really liked the first one, but I really don't need to sit through it again just so I can see #2. I'm sure it's just special showings, of course. Yes, the first one did do quite a bit of box office dollars, and even though I enjoyed it, I'm surprised it did well. I know it was questionable if Nicholas Cage would return, since he claims he doesn't do sequels, but I'm kind of assuming his financial troubles eased him into that decision. Even though he never would have been my pick for the role, I'm glad he is returning and there being the issue of having it re-cast like what was done with "The Punisher: War Zone" (which I've still never seen). Like I've said before on this thread, if future "Ghost Rider" films are going to be made and Cage opts to not participate, the scripts should involve the '90's Danny Ketch storylines (which I never got into).

Rockin Rod Strychnine said:

Ghost Rider must have done well somwhere (DVD rentals?) because it's now back on the big screen with a sequel.

I meant Ghost Rider the character, not the first movie.  Sorry if it sounded like I inplyed that.  I just didn't think it had done well enough to warrent a sequel but I'm pretty out of the loop since I don't read comic gossip mags and blogs anymore.

joey fuckup said:

I know the sequel comes out in Feb., but it's being shown with the first one? I really liked the first one, but I really don't need to sit through it again just so I can see #2. I'm sure it's just special showings, of course. Yes, the first one did do quite a bit of box office dollars, and even though I enjoyed it, I'm surprised it did well. I know it was questionable if Nicholas Cage would return, since he claims he doesn't do sequels, but I'm kind of assuming his financial troubles eased him into that decision. Even though he never would have been my pick for the role, I'm glad he is returning and there being the issue of having it re-cast like what was done with "The Punisher: War Zone" (which I've still never seen). Like I've said before on this thread, if future "Ghost Rider" films are going to be made and Cage opts to not participate, the scripts should involve the '90's Danny Ketch storylines (which I never got into).

Rockin Rod Strychnine said:

Ghost Rider must have done well somwhere (DVD rentals?) because it's now back on the big screen with a sequel.

I know the sequel comes out in Feb., but it's being shown with the first one? I really liked the first one, but I really don't need to sit through it again just so I can see #2. I'm sure it's just special showings, of course. Yes, the first one did do quite a bit of box office dollars, and even though I enjoyed it, I'm surprised it did well. I know it was questionable if Nicholas Cage would return, since he claims he doesn't do sequels, but I'm kind of assuming his financial troubles eased him into that decision. Even though he never would have been my pick for the role, I'm glad he is returning and there being the issue of having it re-cast like what was done with "The Punisher: War Zone" (which I've still never seen). Like I've said before on this thread, if future "Ghost Rider" films are going to be made and Cage opts to not participate, the scripts should involve the '90's Danny Ketch storylines (which I never got into).

Rockin Rod Strychnine said:

Ghost Rider must have done well somwhere (DVD rentals?) because it's now back on the big screen with a sequel.

Ghost Rider must have done well somwhere (DVD rentals?) because it's now back on the big screen with a sequel.

I remember there was an "Archie" TV movie back in the late '80's (I think), and it was a "reunion" of sorts of the Archie gang, and it was live action (well, not really any action), and I think there was politics involved in the storyline, the characters were adults, and Betty and Veronica were competing for Archie. Oh, and Reggie was a dirty bastard out to undermine Archie at all costs. I remember trying to watch it (I did enjoy those Archie digests when I was a kid), but it full out sucked.

John Battles said:

ALSO....You may not believe this , but , in the early 70's , there was an R- RATED ,mild sex comedy called "Hot Times" . It was an unauthorized take on "Archie" , yes , in sexual situations. They even used their names , tho' I remember Jughead being called "Mughead".

I saw a used VHS copy , several years ago , but the old lady behind the counter , I knew her ,and she was a sweetheart. I felt like a Perv. I went back for it , later, GONE.

They're supposed to be making a new Archie movie (There was one , several years ago , with very mild sexual situations - Like Ronnie in a hot black teddy. PG rated stuff...I think it was only available on video.) The new one should be lame on every level , but , who knows ?

Therewas also a TV pilot in the 70's and a short - lived TV show in the 50's. I've only seen pictures of the latter.

As my Editor , Jake Austen , at Roctober , said , Archie does'nt translate well in three dimensions.

ALSO....You may not believe this , but , in the early 70's , there was an R- RATED ,mild sex comedy called "Hot Times" . It was an unauthorized take on "Archie" , yes , in sexual situations. They even used their names , tho' I remember Jughead being called "Mughead".

I saw a used VHS copy , several years ago , but the old lady behind the counter , I knew her ,and she was a sweetheart. I felt like a Perv. I went back for it , later, GONE.

They're supposed to be making a new Archie movie (There was one , several years ago , with very mild sexual situations - Like Ronnie in a hot black teddy. PG rated stuff...I think it was only available on video.) The new one should be lame on every level , but , who knows ?

Therewas also a TV pilot in the 70's and a short - lived TV show in the 50's. I've only seen pictures of the latter.

As my Editor , Jake Austen , at Roctober , said , Archie does'nt translate well in three dimensions.

Can't touch Will EISNER , THO' SOME MEANT WELL....However , while I said someone LIKE DAN CLOWES COULD GET CLOSE TO IT , HE EVEN TOLD ME THE REASON LLOYD LLEWELLYN WAS (ARTISTICALLY) A SUCCESS , WAS BECAUSE HE WAS REALLY JUST A REGULAR GUY , PUT IN FANTASTIC SITUATIONS...HE SAID , AS GOOD AS THE SPIRIT WAS , THERE WERE A LOT OF THINGS THE SPIRIT COULD'NT DO , OR , SURELY , THATEISNER DID'NT FEEL HE HAD TO DO TO HAVE LONG TERM APPEAL......SIMILARLY , CLOWES' FRIEND AND CONTEMPORARY , RICK ALTERGOTT, COMES SO CLOSE TO WALLY WOOD'S STYLE AND LOOK , IT'S SCARY , BUT , INSTEAD OF DOING HORROR STORIES , THO' HE COULD , HIS BEST KNOWN CREATION , "DOOFUS" , WELL , PICK UP ON IT. YOU'LL THANK ME OR CALL ME AND ALTERGOTT A SICK FUCK.
 
Rockin Rod Strychnine said:

Being on a budget during the 80s, I didn't buy Watchmen comics so I didn't see that movie.  I also skipped out on the Spirit as it looked too much like Frank Miller wanted it to be the same visual style he had for Sin City.  I preferred Will Eisner's comic.  There was a very corny 90's TV movie for the Spirit and watched that.  Kind of fun but still not as funny as Will Eisner's comic.

Ah ha.  The Father/son outing puts it on another level altogether.  While my local theater is a few dollars cheaper than most, it's still a hard decision on what to go see.  The theater almost makes the decision for us as it is a single screen theater.  They almost didn't show Captain America because of the low turn out for Thor but once it started getting rave reviews.  Probably almost the same reason that you missed it.  Low turn out on a super hero flick so the theater dumps it.  They didn't have the Green Lantern movie where I live at all so I finally just saw it.  I get headaches when I see things in 3-D but I'm sure it was awesome. I have to watch things in 2-D or it's aspirine time.

joey fuckup said:

Well, just as a side note, my son wanted to see it in 3-D, so it was just a father/son outing...But, I'll agree with you on what you're saying. I more than likely would NOT have paid the admission for that one in particular. And, even though I did enjoy "Green Lantern", I could have waited for it on dvd. Now, one I really did want to see was "Captain America", but it left the theaters before I could catch it. That's a shame, too, because anybody that I knew that went to see it raved about it. I heard it had a very "Indiana Jones" feel to it, with lots of Marvel origin history in it.

Rockin Rod Strychnine said:

Yeah, but like John said, is it worth the price of admission into a theater (plus driving) to see a movie like that?  I say yes on the Marvel related movies and the newest Batmans but for the most part, when you pay a DVD rental price, it's actually worth the price because it's actually equal to the value of the movie (maybe still a little pricey but I really didn't want to wait another 4 years to watch it).

joey fuckup said:

I did enjoy "The Green Hornet" just as an enjoyable time-waster. I know that Kevin Smith was originally going to direct it, but just didn't feel up to it. His personal issue was that he could write comic book stories, but he couldn't direct comic book films. In other words, he didn't think he could do it justice. It is understandable on why it was a flop. Reinventing a character like that with a back history that just wasn't mainstream from the '70's on would be a hard sell as a comedy, and maybe would have done better with a much more darker and serious retelling. I sort of equivilate it to the "Starsky and Hutch" film-a fun, dumb popcorn movie, and not meant to really be a "thinker's" movie.

Rockin Rod Strychnine said:

Yeah, I waited until THE GREEN HORNET was on On-Demand Cable before I watched it.  Not as bad as I thought it was going to be but still not up there with the TV show or radio series. I've never seen the serials but as fun as movie serals are, they never seem tobe as good as the radio dramas from the same era.

John Battles said:

I think you'd have to have somebody like Dan Clowes involved , to get "The Spirit" right....And as much as I love the TV show , I could not be driven to see the "Green Hornet" movie. Gimme the 40's serial with the cop from The Abbott and Costello Show playing Britt Reid.
 
Rockin Rod Strychnine said:

Being on a budget during the 80s, I didn't buy Watchmen comics so I didn't see that movie.  I also skipped out on the Spirit as it looked too much like Frank Miller wanted it to be the same visual style he had for Sin City.  I preferred Will Eisner's comic.  There was a very corny 90's TV movie for the Spirit and watched that.  Kind of fun but still not as funny as Will Eisner's comic.

Well, just as a side note, my son wanted to see it in 3-D, so it was just a father/son outing...But, I'll agree with you on what you're saying. I more than likely would NOT have paid the admission for that one in particular. And, even though I did enjoy "Green Lantern", I could have waited for it on dvd. Now, one I really did want to see was "Captain America", but it left the theaters before I could catch it. That's a shame, too, because anybody that I knew that went to see it raved about it. I heard it had a very "Indiana Jones" feel to it, with lots of Marvel origin history in it.

Rockin Rod Strychnine said:

Yeah, but like John said, is it worth the price of admission into a theater (plus driving) to see a movie like that?  I say yes on the Marvel related movies and the newest Batmans but for the most part, when you pay a DVD rental price, it's actually worth the price because it's actually equal to the value of the movie (maybe still a little pricey but I really didn't want to wait another 4 years to watch it).

joey fuckup said:

I did enjoy "The Green Hornet" just as an enjoyable time-waster. I know that Kevin Smith was originally going to direct it, but just didn't feel up to it. His personal issue was that he could write comic book stories, but he couldn't direct comic book films. In other words, he didn't think he could do it justice. It is understandable on why it was a flop. Reinventing a character like that with a back history that just wasn't mainstream from the '70's on would be a hard sell as a comedy, and maybe would have done better with a much more darker and serious retelling. I sort of equivilate it to the "Starsky and Hutch" film-a fun, dumb popcorn movie, and not meant to really be a "thinker's" movie.

Rockin Rod Strychnine said:

Yeah, I waited until THE GREEN HORNET was on On-Demand Cable before I watched it.  Not as bad as I thought it was going to be but still not up there with the TV show or radio series. I've never seen the serials but as fun as movie serals are, they never seem tobe as good as the radio dramas from the same era.

John Battles said:

I think you'd have to have somebody like Dan Clowes involved , to get "The Spirit" right....And as much as I love the TV show , I could not be driven to see the "Green Hornet" movie. Gimme the 40's serial with the cop from The Abbott and Costello Show playing Britt Reid.
 
Rockin Rod Strychnine said:

Being on a budget during the 80s, I didn't buy Watchmen comics so I didn't see that movie.  I also skipped out on the Spirit as it looked too much like Frank Miller wanted it to be the same visual style he had for Sin City.  I preferred Will Eisner's comic.  There was a very corny 90's TV movie for the Spirit and watched that.  Kind of fun but still not as funny as Will Eisner's comic.

Yeah, but like John said, is it worth the price of admission into a theater (plus driving) to see a movie like that?  I say yes on the Marvel related movies and the newest Batmans but for the most part, when you pay a DVD rental price, it's actually worth the price because it's actually equal to the value of the movie (maybe still a little pricey but I really didn't want to wait another 4 years to watch it).

joey fuckup said:

I did enjoy "The Green Hornet" just as an enjoyable time-waster. I know that Kevin Smith was originally going to direct it, but just didn't feel up to it. His personal issue was that he could write comic book stories, but he couldn't direct comic book films. In other words, he didn't think he could do it justice. It is understandable on why it was a flop. Reinventing a character like that with a back history that just wasn't mainstream from the '70's on would be a hard sell as a comedy, and maybe would have done better with a much more darker and serious retelling. I sort of equivilate it to the "Starsky and Hutch" film-a fun, dumb popcorn movie, and not meant to really be a "thinker's" movie.

Rockin Rod Strychnine said:

Yeah, I waited until THE GREEN HORNET was on On-Demand Cable before I watched it.  Not as bad as I thought it was going to be but still not up there with the TV show or radio series. I've never seen the serials but as fun as movie serals are, they never seem tobe as good as the radio dramas from the same era.

John Battles said:

I think you'd have to have somebody like Dan Clowes involved , to get "The Spirit" right....And as much as I love the TV show , I could not be driven to see the "Green Hornet" movie. Gimme the 40's serial with the cop from The Abbott and Costello Show playing Britt Reid.
 
Rockin Rod Strychnine said:

Being on a budget during the 80s, I didn't buy Watchmen comics so I didn't see that movie.  I also skipped out on the Spirit as it looked too much like Frank Miller wanted it to be the same visual style he had for Sin City.  I preferred Will Eisner's comic.  There was a very corny 90's TV movie for the Spirit and watched that.  Kind of fun but still not as funny as Will Eisner's comic.

I did enjoy "The Green Hornet" just as an enjoyable time-waster. I know that Kevin Smith was originally going to direct it, but just didn't feel up to it. His personal issue was that he could write comic book stories, but he couldn't direct comic book films. In other words, he didn't think he could do it justice. It is understandable on why it was a flop. Reinventing a character like that with a back history that just wasn't mainstream from the '70's on would be a hard sell as a comedy, and maybe would have done better with a much more darker and serious retelling. I sort of equivilate it to the "Starsky and Hutch" film-a fun, dumb popcorn movie, and not meant to really be a "thinker's" movie.

Rockin Rod Strychnine said:

Yeah, I waited until THE GREEN HORNET was on On-Demand Cable before I watched it.  Not as bad as I thought it was going to be but still not up there with the TV show or radio series. I've never seen the serials but as fun as movie serals are, they never seem tobe as good as the radio dramas from the same era.

John Battles said:

I think you'd have to have somebody like Dan Clowes involved , to get "The Spirit" right....And as much as I love the TV show , I could not be driven to see the "Green Hornet" movie. Gimme the 40's serial with the cop from The Abbott and Costello Show playing Britt Reid.
 
Rockin Rod Strychnine said:

Being on a budget during the 80s, I didn't buy Watchmen comics so I didn't see that movie.  I also skipped out on the Spirit as it looked too much like Frank Miller wanted it to be the same visual style he had for Sin City.  I preferred Will Eisner's comic.  There was a very corny 90's TV movie for the Spirit and watched that.  Kind of fun but still not as funny as Will Eisner's comic.

Yeah, I waited until THE GREEN HORNET was on On-Demand Cable before I watched it.  Not as bad as I thought it was going to be but still not up there with the TV show or radio series. I've never seen the serials but as fun as movie serals are, they never seem tobe as good as the radio dramas from the same era.

John Battles said:

I think you'd have to have somebody like Dan Clowes involved , to get "The Spirit" right....And as much as I love the TV show , I could not be driven to see the "Green Hornet" movie. Gimme the 40's serial with the cop from The Abbott and Costello Show playing Britt Reid.
 
Rockin Rod Strychnine said:

Being on a budget during the 80s, I didn't buy Watchmen comics so I didn't see that movie.  I also skipped out on the Spirit as it looked too much like Frank Miller wanted it to be the same visual style he had for Sin City.  I preferred Will Eisner's comic.  There was a very corny 90's TV movie for the Spirit and watched that.  Kind of fun but still not as funny as Will Eisner's comic.