Chris Pine would be perfect, Rod! On another note, it would be interesting to see the FF cross over to an Avengers film. The cover of "Fantastic Four" #1 with the creature coming up out of the streets of NY would be cool to see on the big screen, with the inclusion of that villain they clashed with that had hordes of those little green guys that lived underground. And a Hulk/Thing battle would be awesome!

Rockin Rod Strychnine said:

Yeah, I liked the first two movies but never cared for the casting except Michael Chikilis as the Thing.  the other three never struck me as who they were, besides the playfulness of Johnny and Ben that you mention.  Personally I'd like to see Chris Pine (the new Captain Kirk) as Johnny Storm.
 
Joey Fuckup said:

Those choices weren't bad at all, and I could see the possibilities of a darker, edgier film than the previous ones. I must admit, though, I did enjoy the other FF films because they kept that innocent goofiness that you had in the comics (Johnny's spats with Ben Grimm, for example). If I remember right, the second film was to be a springboard for a Silver Surfer project, granted if it was a success at the box office, which it apprently wasn't.

Rockin Rod Strychnine said:

I've been letting this go through my brain the last few weeks:a revamped Fantastic Four cast and I guess others do the same.  Don't know this website too well, but one of their members was on the same wavelength when it came to Mr. Fantastic, Josh Brolin http://www.comicbookmovie.com/news/?a=55202  The guy got critics for his choice but I feel that's how old and mature he's supposed to be.  Picture of Mr. Fantastic is kind of off but if you ever come across a 70s picture of the hero, you'd think it was a good choice.

Yeah, I liked the first two movies but never cared for the casting except Michael Chikilis as the Thing.  the other three never struck me as who they were, besides the playfulness of Johnny and Ben that you mention.  Personally I'd like to see Chris Pine (the new Captain Kirk) as Johnny Storm.
 
Joey Fuckup said:

Those choices weren't bad at all, and I could see the possibilities of a darker, edgier film than the previous ones. I must admit, though, I did enjoy the other FF films because they kept that innocent goofiness that you had in the comics (Johnny's spats with Ben Grimm, for example). If I remember right, the second film was to be a springboard for a Silver Surfer project, granted if it was a success at the box office, which it apprently wasn't.

Rockin Rod Strychnine said:

I've been letting this go through my brain the last few weeks:a revamped Fantastic Four cast and I guess others do the same.  Don't know this website too well, but one of their members was on the same wavelength when it came to Mr. Fantastic, Josh Brolin http://www.comicbookmovie.com/news/?a=55202  The guy got critics for his choice but I feel that's how old and mature he's supposed to be.  Picture of Mr. Fantastic is kind of off but if you ever come across a 70s picture of the hero, you'd think it was a good choice.

Those choices weren't bad at all, and I could see the possibilities of a darker, edgier film than the previous ones. I must admit, though, I did enjoy the other FF films because they kept that innocent goofiness that you had in the comics (Johnny's spats with Ben Grimm, for example). If I remember right, the second film was to be a springboard for a Silver Surfer project, granted if it was a success at the box office, which it apprently wasn't.

Rockin Rod Strychnine said:

I've been letting this go through my brain the last few weeks:a revamped Fantastic Four cast and I guess others do the same.  Don't know this website too well, but one of their members was on the same wavelength when it came to Mr. Fantastic, Josh Brolin http://www.comicbookmovie.com/news/?a=55202  The guy got critics for his choice but I feel that's how old and mature he's supposed to be.  Picture of Mr. Fantastic is kind of off but if you ever come across a 70s picture of the hero, you'd think it was a good choice.

I've been letting this go through my brain the last few weeks:a revamped Fantastic Four cast and I guess others do the same.  Don't know this website too well, but one of their members was on the same wavelength when it came to Mr. Fantastic, Josh Brolin http://www.comicbookmovie.com/news/?a=55202  The guy got critics for his choice but I feel that's how old and mature he's supposed to be.  Picture of Mr. Fantastic is kind of off but if you ever come across a 70s picture of the hero, you'd think it was a good choice.

No, can't say I have, but it sounds intriguing enough!

John Battles said:

Oh , no. It was obviously made in the last 15 years , TOPS . But , I  FOUND IT PRETTY AMUSING. ANYONE SEEN "EL FRENETICO AND GO GIRL" , A PRETTY COOL NO - BUDGET PARODY OF LUCHA LIBRE MOVIES ? .

Oh , no. It was obviously made in the last 15 years , TOPS . But , I  FOUND IT PRETTY AMUSING. ANYONE SEEN "EL FRENETICO AND GO GIRL" , A PRETTY COOL NO - BUDGET PARODY OF LUCHA LIBRE MOVIES ? .

Yeah, without a doubt, it's definately NOT an early '60's production. What I read about this project seems to have a fictional "bio" behind it all, but why, who knows? Just kind of silly to throw around false info...

Rockin Rod Strychnine said:

I didn't look it up but it's more likely 1982 judging by the film "quality" and the woman at the beginning.  The guys make it a little less obvious on what year it might be, but this is Italy we're talking about.
 
Joey Fuckup said:

I always get a chuckle off Italy's "Spiderman" spoof, although I don't think I've ever gotten to the full, true story behind it. I read that this was filmed back in '62, though that doesn't seem likely. I've also read that the actor that played the title character died shortly after filming it. Here is the trailer for this goofy project, and you should be able to view the entire film (in sections) on You Tube:

John Battles said:

I'm partial to the Turkish moviews , taking great liberties with licensed characters (Because Turkey is immune to copyright laws.). The best known is "3 Dev Adam" or "Three Mighty Men", in which Captain America and Santo meet up in Istanbul to fight the evil , brutally sadistic druglord , SPIDERMAN. Some of their superheroes look like ours , in collage form. There's one who looks like a cross between Superman and The Phantom. I have one , it's a serial based on the Italian super-villain , Kriminal/Killing. It's actually well made , lots of action. I don't have a lot of their comic book films , but there were several , as well as a Star Trek , Star Wars , Exorcist and even The Wizard of Oz.....all of which must be seen to be believed. They even did a remake of "Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein".

That's pretty funny. I saw this trailer , once , years ago. The villain on the motorcycle , that's the same mask worn by the famous Mexican Wrestler , Mascara Sagrada , and his much cooler dwarf counterpart , Mascarita Sagrada (Who can be seen in "Nacho Libre".). There's another unauthorized Spiderman film , I think , from Japan.

I didn't look it up but it's more likely 1982 judging by the film "quality" and the woman at the beginning.  The guys make it a little less obvious on what year it might be, but this is Italy we're talking about.
 
Joey Fuckup said:

I always get a chuckle off Italy's "Spiderman" spoof, although I don't think I've ever gotten to the full, true story behind it. I read that this was filmed back in '62, though that doesn't seem likely. I've also read that the actor that played the title character died shortly after filming it. Here is the trailer for this goofy project, and you should be able to view the entire film (in sections) on You Tube:

John Battles said:

I'm partial to the Turkish moviews , taking great liberties with licensed characters (Because Turkey is immune to copyright laws.). The best known is "3 Dev Adam" or "Three Mighty Men", in which Captain America and Santo meet up in Istanbul to fight the evil , brutally sadistic druglord , SPIDERMAN. Some of their superheroes look like ours , in collage form. There's one who looks like a cross between Superman and The Phantom. I have one , it's a serial based on the Italian super-villain , Kriminal/Killing. It's actually well made , lots of action. I don't have a lot of their comic book films , but there were several , as well as a Star Trek , Star Wars , Exorcist and even The Wizard of Oz.....all of which must be seen to be believed. They even did a remake of "Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein".

I always get a chuckle off Italy's "Spiderman" spoof, although I don't think I've ever gotten to the full, true story behind it. I read that this was filmed back in '62, though that doesn't seem likely. I've also read that the actor that played the title character died shortly after filming it. Here is the trailer for this goofy project, and you should be able to view the entire film (in sections) on You Tube:

John Battles said:

I'm partial to the Turkish moviews , taking great liberties with licensed characters (Because Turkey is immune to copyright laws.). The best known is "3 Dev Adam" or "Three Mighty Men", in which Captain America and Santo meet up in Istanbul to fight the evil , brutally sadistic druglord , SPIDERMAN. Some of their superheroes look like ours , in collage form. There's one who looks like a cross between Superman and The Phantom. I have one , it's a serial based on the Italian super-villain , Kriminal/Killing. It's actually well made , lots of action. I don't have a lot of their comic book films , but there were several , as well as a Star Trek , Star Wars , Exorcist and even The Wizard of Oz.....all of which must be seen to be believed. They even did a remake of "Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein".

I'm partial to the Turkish moviews , taking great liberties with licensed characters (Because Turkey is immune to copyright laws.). The best known is "3 Dev Adam" or "Three Mighty Men", in which Captain America and Santo meet up in Istanbul to fight the evil , brutally sadistic druglord , SPIDERMAN. Some of their superheroes look like ours , in collage form. There's one who looks like a cross between Superman and The Phantom. I have one , it's a serial based on the Italian super-villain , Kriminal/Killing. It's actually well made , lots of action. I don't have a lot of their comic book films , but there were several , as well as a Star Trek , Star Wars , Exorcist and even The Wizard of Oz.....all of which must be seen to be believed. They even did a remake of "Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein".

Yes , and I had a chance to buy a VHS copy , and I did'nt. I saw it when my family first got cable , in the early 80's. There was also a one - shot "Archie" pilot in the 70's that did'nt get picked up , as well as a short - lived TV version in the 50's. I do have teh one you're talking about.....It may have worked better if Archie and his friends had some REAL problems , years later.....That did'nt help "Leave it To Beaver's " spinoff shows , though....
 
Joey Fuckup said:

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.

I was'nt aware of that earlier Spirit TV movie , and did'nt bother with the recent movie. I think The Spirit would have been a great Film Noir with a hint of surrealism , but , only if made in the 50's or early 60's. I feel like it's too late to get it right , now. But , it's NOT too late for Lloyd Lewellyn.

Highly recommended is the Donald Glut "I Was a Teenage Movie Maker " 2 DVD set , WHICH COMPILES ALL HIS 50's JD/Horror films and his 60's Superhero FILMS. One , "The Adventures of The Spirit", in serial format ,  features the title hero , aided by Superman , Captain Anmerica , The Green Hornet and others against monsters like The Wolf Man and Frankenstein's Monster , played , for the very last time , by Glenn Strange.
 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.

Not sure on the Venom film, but apparently Marvel likes what has been put on paper. And sadly, yes, anything "pre-Iron Man" is no longer "canon" in the NEW "Marvel FILM Universe". And other characters that continue to get films made (X-Men, Punisher, Ghost Rider) apparently don't fall in with what they're doing with what they want to happen in future films, and that's have crossovers. One character they have hinted at popping up in future projects is the Hulk. Mark Ruffalo has signed a 6-picture deal to somehow place himself in many of these projected ventures, but I don't think it has anything to do with the planned TV series that filmmaker Del Toro (Hellboy films, "Blade 2") has been attached to. According to Stan Lee, ABC has greenlit that series, but it won't have anything to do with the Avengers.

Rockin Rod Strychnine said:

An Avengers tie-in might be a bit trickier than what they think they can do since almost all pre-Iron Man movies are licensed by someone else. Well Spiderman and the X-Men anyway.  Fantastic Four might have gone back to Marvel Productions  since THE RISE OF THE SILVER SURFER didn't too well at the box office.  The second Hulk movie was done by Marvel since the first one had a low box office performance as well.

I wonder how they are going to tell the Venomm story this time about since the Sam Raimi version was told so poorly.

An Avengers tie-in might be a bit trickier than what they think they can do since almost all pre-Iron Man movies are licensed by someone else. Well Spiderman and the X-Men anyway.  Fantastic Four might have gone back to Marvel Productions  since THE RISE OF THE SILVER SURFER didn't too well at the box office.  The second Hulk movie was done by Marvel since the first one had a low box office performance as well.

I wonder how they are going to tell the Venomm story this time about since the Sam Raimi version was told so poorly.

Exactly, Rod, Sony took a gamble while they still had the license on Spiderman. With Sam Raimi (then Toby McGuire) aborting a fourth film, someone at Sony/Columbia figured they could re-boot the character since Marvel was doing that anyway. Their dice-rolling has paid off, though, because Marvel has been very impressed with what they've seen on "The Amazing Spiderman", and like I mentioned earlier, a sequel and a Venom film is already being planned. And Avi Arad hasn't ruled out a possibility of having Spiderman crossing over somehow into the Avengers franchise...

Rockin Rod Strychnine said:

Then there's the "why bother when it hasn't been that long ago" argument such as the newest Spider-Man.  They are changing so much that I get the feeling that it's not the same at all, which is kind of what the creators are going for but why so soon?  Because Sony(?) will lose their license on the character in a few more years and not get to renew if they don't jump on it now.

Then there's the "why bother when it hasn't been that long ago" argument such as the newest Spider-Man.  They are changing so much that I get the feeling that it's not the same at all, which is kind of what the creators are going for but why so soon?  Because Sony(?) will lose their license on the character in a few more years and not get to renew if they don't jump on it now.

As a long time comic book reader and fan, I think most film adaptations of comics miss the mark for me.  The biggest reason is that being a comic book geek, I know too much about characters, the story and the comics universe.  In order for Hollywood to make a film based on a comic book character, lots modifications and compromises have to be made to find the "least common denominator" for Joe Average moviegoer.  This also happens to classic fantasy/scifi characters like Conan, Tarzan and John Carter.

That said, I did enjoy Sam Raimi's Spiderman trilogy and I really thought the Avengers was great.

I think it's more out of curiosity than excitement that I'm anticipating the new Spider-Man movie.  I understand it's an update and the characters are going to be much different and look different (Peter Parker with Ross Geller (character from FRIENDS) hair really bugs me) but it doesn't seem like MY comic book anymore.  I guess that's what I liked about the AVENGERS movie is that it still felt like the 60's/70's comic in a way but still being apart of the 21st century.

I'm really looking forward to the new Batman movie, to be honest.  

joey fuckup said:

I admit, I can't keep track of which elements came from which "Spiderman" comic series, ha! As far as the "Ultimate Spiderman" goes, I think a vast majority of it is the blueprint of this newer franchise. Did you happen to see an in-depth trailer on "The Amazing Spiderman"? One, I want to know who the shadowy guy is that says to Dr. Connors "Did you tell the boy about his father"? Was that Dr. Octavius? I'm almost sure I saw a quick glimpse of several arms crashing down on a floor...And if Oscorp is the backdrop for a lot of the plot, where is Norman? I was thinking in the comics he had sort of gone "missing", and had in fact went mad after injecting himself with performance enhancers.

Rockin Rod Strychnine said:

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.

That bonus scene had me! I kept trying to figure out who this damn smiling being was, so I immediately looked up some info, only to find out that it was Thanos. Truly a pain-in-the-ass, and according to his "history", his first appearance was in the Iron Man comics. So obviously he'll be the main villain in an Avengers sequel, but I'm wondering if he'll factor in the second "Thor" film. After all, this race that Loki was allied with will be seeking revenge on him for everything going awry on Earth. And if they're pals with Thanos, will he go aid them in attacking Asgard? Loki has already been confirmed for "Thor 2", so I can only imagine that the plot will revolve around Thor having to protect him.
Rockin Rod Strychnine said:

I thought it was great too.  And I always stay until the very end.  I think Ferris Bueler taught us to stay in our seats or you might just miss something.

joey fuckup said:

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.

I saw it in 2-D because I had heard that you didn't need to see it in 3-D. I did go see "Thor" in 3-D, and it really didn't add much, neither.
Nero said:

Got to say I have to agree with Mr Fuckup, I thought the Avengers was pretty damn good, and I'm no great fan of superhero movies in general (I just tend to think that comic books make better comic books than they do films). As further evidence of its superiority, I offer that the missus enjoyed it too, and considering the film's extreme running time and that she has no real interest in superheroics, that's a compliment of the highest order, so hats off to Joss Whedon. Guess I had some slight emotional investment in at as the Avengers was the first superhero comic I ever read, way back when, in the seventies in the UK, Marvel was reprinting the American comics in weekly b & w format. Previously, I'd only been aware of Superman and Batman as some shadowy figures appearing occasionally on tv or in a tattered hardback annual in a dentist's waiting room, so to come across this strange new world (with Steve Ditko's Dr Strange as a backup strip, no less) was somewhat mind-blowing, to say the least. And whilst the film doesn't bear much relationship to those sixties Stan Lee/Don Heck Avengers that I first read, I guess it did satisfy some small part of my soul that hankers after those innocent days. Incidently, I did have those feelings rekindled a few years ago when I stumbled across Mike Allred's sixties-inspired superhero-oddness comic 'The Atomics'. Worth a look if you like sixties-inspired superhero oddness. 

On a sidenote, we saw the film in 3D (first time for Honey, my wife, and only second time for me, Alice In Wonderland being the first) and we were both a bit underwhelmed by it. It looked good in fairly static long shots, but any close up shots with frenetic action (of which there are many) had a tendency to tear my head apart and feel confused. Still enjoyed the film, but would just as happily watched it in 2D. 

I admit, I can't keep track of which elements came from which "Spiderman" comic series, ha! As far as the "Ultimate Spiderman" goes, I think a vast majority of it is the blueprint of this newer franchise. Did you happen to see an in-depth trailer on "The Amazing Spiderman"? One, I want to know who the shadowy guy is that says to Dr. Connors "Did you tell the boy about his father"? Was that Dr. Octavius? I'm almost sure I saw a quick glimpse of several arms crashing down on a floor...And if Oscorp is the backdrop for a lot of the plot, where is Norman? I was thinking in the comics he had sort of gone "missing", and had in fact went mad after injecting himself with performance enhancers.

Rockin Rod Strychnine said:

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.

My local theater is an old fashioned one screener and does not have 3-D capabilities so it was shown in 2-D which is fine by me.  I think it was much more enjoyable that way.

Nero said:

Got to say I have to agree with Mr Fuckup, I thought the Avengers was pretty damn good, and I'm no great fan of superhero movies in general (I just tend to think that comic books make better comic books than they do films). As further evidence of its superiority, I offer that the missus enjoyed it too, and considering the film's extreme running time and that she has no real interest in superheroics, that's a compliment of the highest order, so hats off to Joss Whedon. Guess I had some slight emotional investment in at as the Avengers was the first superhero comic I ever read, way back when, in the seventies in the UK, Marvel was reprinting the American comics in weekly b & w format. Previously, I'd only been aware of Superman and Batman as some shadowy figures appearing occasionally on tv or in a tattered hardback annual in a dentist's waiting room, so to come across this strange new world (with Steve Ditko's Dr Strange as a backup strip, no less) was somewhat mind-blowing, to say the least. And whilst the film doesn't bear much relationship to those sixties Stan Lee/Don Heck Avengers that I first read, I guess it did satisfy some small part of my soul that hankers after those innocent days. Incidently, I did have those feelings rekindled a few years ago when I stumbled across Mike Allred's sixties-inspired superhero-oddness comic 'The Atomics'. Worth a look if you like sixties-inspired superhero oddness. 

On a sidenote, we saw the film in 3D (first time for Honey, my wife, and only second time for me, Alice In Wonderland being the first) and we were both a bit underwhelmed by it. It looked good in fairly static long shots, but any close up shots with frenetic action (of which there are many) had a tendency to tear my head apart and feel confused. Still enjoyed the film, but would just as happily watched it in 2D. 

Got to say I have to agree with Mr Fuckup, I thought the Avengers was pretty damn good, and I'm no great fan of superhero movies in general (I just tend to think that comic books make better comic books than they do films). As further evidence of its superiority, I offer that the missus enjoyed it too, and considering the film's extreme running time and that she has no real interest in superheroics, that's a compliment of the highest order, so hats off to Joss Whedon. Guess I had some slight emotional investment in at as the Avengers was the first superhero comic I ever read, way back when, in the seventies in the UK, Marvel was reprinting the American comics in weekly b & w format. Previously, I'd only been aware of Superman and Batman as some shadowy figures appearing occasionally on tv or in a tattered hardback annual in a dentist's waiting room, so to come across this strange new world (with Steve Ditko's Dr Strange as a backup strip, no less) was somewhat mind-blowing, to say the least. And whilst the film doesn't bear much relationship to those sixties Stan Lee/Don Heck Avengers that I first read, I guess it did satisfy some small part of my soul that hankers after those innocent days. Incidently, I did have those feelings rekindled a few years ago when I stumbled across Mike Allred's sixties-inspired superhero-oddness comic 'The Atomics'. Worth a look if you like sixties-inspired superhero oddness. 

On a sidenote, we saw the film in 3D (first time for Honey, my wife, and only second time for me, Alice In Wonderland being the first) and we were both a bit underwhelmed by it. It looked good in fairly static long shots, but any close up shots with frenetic action (of which there are many) had a tendency to tear my head apart and feel confused. Still enjoyed the film, but would just as happily watched it in 2D. 

I thought it was great too.  And I always stay until the very end.  I think Ferris Bueler taught us to stay in our seats or you might just miss something.

joey fuckup said:

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.