Just for the record I googled Dr. Doom MD and I found an ob-gyn in North Carolina. Is there something Marv needs to tell us? I would love everyone call to me Dr. Doom everyday. She might be sick of it.
Personally, and this is nothing against the FF specifically, but I would be more excited for the announcement of an MCU film that I can go into with the expectations of quality and brand loyalty that I have come to expect from Marvel Studios, but also with the question, "What will this be?" rather than the usual question of, "What are they going to do with this old thing I already know about?" You know what I mean?
Like Phil Coulson?
Exactly-- though I think it would be cool, and an exciting risk, to not just have a supporting character who builds up an awareness across a number of films, but to actually have a film that is named after, and the origin of, a character or team we have never met before.
And, like Coulson (or Harley Quinn, to switch to animation and TV for a second), an original superhero or team developed and launched in the world of their films could end up back in the original MU of the comics as well.
Much like with Agents of SHIELD, I'd bow out. I don't really want to see a new cast of characters that's injected into the MCU. That was always my problem with AoS. Sure Hill, Fury, & now some established characters are incorporated, but seeing the general line up of completely new characters didn't interest me.
I thought it would've been a bad decision, but when I heard there was a chance of a spinoff series focusing on Mockingbird, I was intrigued.
I'm all for what you're suggesting though, @David_D. It'll save me time & cash on this direction of movies.
M
In all sincerity, I ask what is behind your disinterest in new characters?
Much like with new TV shows, I'm not interested in getting invested in new characters. I'd rather put time into "new to me" characters.
I just don't understand why, with a plethora of established characters, completely new characters should get TV series or movies.
M
Sorry to still be trying to peel this onion, but it occurred to me--
Didn't you and I agree that Unbreakable was the best superhero movie we'd ever seen?
And isn't it exactly the kind of movie (a completely new character) you are saying you are generally disinterested in? Would Unbreakable somehow have been improved by starting out as an adaptation of an established character?
Personally, and this is nothing against the FF specifically, but I would be more excited for the announcement of an MCU film that I can go into with the expectations of quality and brand loyalty that I have come to expect from Marvel Studios, but also with the question, "What will this be?" rather than the usual question of, "What are they going to do with this old thing I already know about?" You know what I mean?
Like Phil Coulson?
Exactly-- though I think it would be cool, and an exciting risk, to not just have a supporting character who builds up an awareness across a number of films, but to actually have a film that is named after, and the origin of, a character or team we have never met before.
And, like Coulson (or Harley Quinn, to switch to animation and TV for a second), an original superhero or team developed and launched in the world of their films could end up back in the original MU of the comics as well.
Much like with Agents of SHIELD, I'd bow out. I don't really want to see a new cast of characters that's injected into the MCU. That was always my problem with AoS. Sure Hill, Fury, & now some established characters are incorporated, but seeing the general line up of completely new characters didn't interest me.
I thought it would've been a bad decision, but when I heard there was a chance of a spinoff series focusing on Mockingbird, I was intrigued.
I'm all for what you're suggesting though, @David_D. It'll save me time & cash on this direction of movies.
M
In all sincerity, I ask what is behind your disinterest in new characters?
Much like with new TV shows, I'm not interested in getting invested in new characters. I'd rather put time into "new to me" characters.
I just don't understand why, with a plethora of established characters, completely new characters should get TV series or movies.
M
Sorry to still be trying to peel this onion, but it occurred to me--
Didn't you and I agree that Unbreakable was the best superhero movie we'd ever seen?
And isn't it exactly the kind of movie (a completely new character) you are saying you are generally disinterested in? Would Unbreakable somehow have been improved by starting out as an adaptation of an established character?
Was there a chance Dunn was going to consult with Luke Cage or Dr. Hamilton?
Personally, and this is nothing against the FF specifically, but I would be more excited for the announcement of an MCU film that I can go into with the expectations of quality and brand loyalty that I have come to expect from Marvel Studios, but also with the question, "What will this be?" rather than the usual question of, "What are they going to do with this old thing I already know about?" You know what I mean?
Like Phil Coulson?
Exactly-- though I think it would be cool, and an exciting risk, to not just have a supporting character who builds up an awareness across a number of films, but to actually have a film that is named after, and the origin of, a character or team we have never met before.
And, like Coulson (or Harley Quinn, to switch to animation and TV for a second), an original superhero or team developed and launched in the world of their films could end up back in the original MU of the comics as well.
Much like with Agents of SHIELD, I'd bow out. I don't really want to see a new cast of characters that's injected into the MCU. That was always my problem with AoS. Sure Hill, Fury, & now some established characters are incorporated, but seeing the general line up of completely new characters didn't interest me.
I thought it would've been a bad decision, but when I heard there was a chance of a spinoff series focusing on Mockingbird, I was intrigued.
I'm all for what you're suggesting though, @David_D. It'll save me time & cash on this direction of movies.
M
In all sincerity, I ask what is behind your disinterest in new characters?
Much like with new TV shows, I'm not interested in getting invested in new characters. I'd rather put time into "new to me" characters.
I just don't understand why, with a plethora of established characters, completely new characters should get TV series or movies.
M
Sorry to still be trying to peel this onion, but it occurred to me--
Didn't you and I agree that Unbreakable was the best superhero movie we'd ever seen?
And isn't it exactly the kind of movie (a completely new character) you are saying you are generally disinterested in? Would Unbreakable somehow have been improved by starting out as an adaptation of an established character?
Was there a chance Dunn was going to consult with Luke Cage or Dr. Hamilton?
M
I...
What?
Sorry. I loved Unbreakable, but haven't seen it in a long time. So I think I'm not following.
Much like with G-Girl, Hancock, & the Incredibles, David Dunn doesn't exist in the MCU or DCCU. They are completely self-contained.
Now, if Unbreakable was released in 2021 & Dunn bumps into Jessica Jones & Cage at a football game, I would roll my eyes and wonder why this guy is getting his own movie instead of...Darkhawk.
That's my point. Darkhawk is "new to me" & I can pull back issues (or Wikipedia). David Dunn in the MCU has no pedigree.
Much like with G-Girl, Hancock, & the Incredibles, David Dunn doesn't exist in the MCU or DCCU. They are completely self-contained.
Now, if Unbreakable was released in 2021 & Dunn bumps into Jessica Jones & Cage at a football game, I would roll my eyes and wonder why this guy is getting his own movie instead of...Darkhawk.
That's my point. Darkhawk is "new to me" & I can pull back issues (or Wikipedia). David Dunn in the MCU has no pedigree.
M
Right. Dunn was a character with no pedigree or any history you could look up on Wikipedia prior to the movie. He didn't exist before Unbreakable. And the movie about him ended up being your favorite superhero movie.
Is there a reason why a studio that has successfully entertained you many times before could not, similarly, create a completely new character for a film, set in their shared universe, and similarly succeed in entertaining you? I honestly don't see the difference. I don't know why, just because they have access to a catalog of existing characters, they should, as the premiere universe of superhero movie making, be limited only to what has come before.
Much like with G-Girl, Hancock, & the Incredibles, David Dunn doesn't exist in the MCU or DCCU. They are completely self-contained.
Now, if Unbreakable was released in 2021 & Dunn bumps into Jessica Jones & Cage at a football game, I would roll my eyes and wonder why this guy is getting his own movie instead of...Darkhawk.
That's my point. Darkhawk is "new to me" & I can pull back issues (or Wikipedia). David Dunn in the MCU has no pedigree.
M
Right. Dunn was a character with no pedigree or any history you could look up on Wikipedia prior to the movie. He didn't exist before Unbreakable. And the movie about him ended up being your favorite superhero movie.
Is there a reason why a studio that has successfully entertained you many times before could not, similarly, create a completely new character for a film, set in their shared universe, and similarly succeed in entertaining you? I honestly don't see the difference. I don't know why, just because they have access to a catalog of existing characters, they should, as the premiere universe of superhero movie making, be limited only to what has come before.
Quick sidebar: I believe Unbreakable is the best movie in the superhero genre, but it's not my favorite in the genre.
It's the same with Agents of SHIELD (or new titles featuring a newly created character), I'm just not interested in getting invested.
There's a list of hurdles I'd have to go through to have an affair. One of them is I'm just not interested in putting the time in getting to know someone well enough to start a relationship.
Much like with G-Girl, Hancock, & the Incredibles, David Dunn doesn't exist in the MCU or DCCU. They are completely self-contained.
Now, if Unbreakable was released in 2021 & Dunn bumps into Jessica Jones & Cage at a football game, I would roll my eyes and wonder why this guy is getting his own movie instead of...Darkhawk.
That's my point. Darkhawk is "new to me" & I can pull back issues (or Wikipedia). David Dunn in the MCU has no pedigree.
M
Right. Dunn was a character with no pedigree or any history you could look up on Wikipedia prior to the movie. He didn't exist before Unbreakable. And the movie about him ended up being your favorite superhero movie.
Is there a reason why a studio that has successfully entertained you many times before could not, similarly, create a completely new character for a film, set in their shared universe, and similarly succeed in entertaining you? I honestly don't see the difference. I don't know why, just because they have access to a catalog of existing characters, they should, as the premiere universe of superhero movie making, be limited only to what has come before.
Quick sidebar: I believe Unbreakable is the best movie in the superhero genre, but it's not my favorite in the genre.
It's the same with Agents of SHIELD (or new titles featuring a newly created character), I'm just not interested in getting invested.
There's a list of hurdles I'd have to go through to have an affair. One of them is I'm just not interested in putting the time in getting to know someone well enough to start a relationship.
Much like with G-Girl, Hancock, & the Incredibles, David Dunn doesn't exist in the MCU or DCCU. They are completely self-contained.
Now, if Unbreakable was released in 2021 & Dunn bumps into Jessica Jones & Cage at a football game, I would roll my eyes and wonder why this guy is getting his own movie instead of...Darkhawk.
That's my point. Darkhawk is "new to me" & I can pull back issues (or Wikipedia). David Dunn in the MCU has no pedigree.
M
Right. Dunn was a character with no pedigree or any history you could look up on Wikipedia prior to the movie. He didn't exist before Unbreakable. And the movie about him ended up being your favorite superhero movie.
Is there a reason why a studio that has successfully entertained you many times before could not, similarly, create a completely new character for a film, set in their shared universe, and similarly succeed in entertaining you? I honestly don't see the difference. I don't know why, just because they have access to a catalog of existing characters, they should, as the premiere universe of superhero movie making, be limited only to what has come before.
Quick sidebar: I believe Unbreakable is the best movie in the superhero genre, but it's not my favorite in the genre.
It's the same with Agents of SHIELD (or new titles featuring a newly created character), I'm just not interested in getting invested.
There's a list of hurdles I'd have to go through to have an affair. One of them is I'm just not interested in putting the time in getting to know someone well enough to start a relationship.
M
Sorry girls, he's busy.
Crunching the numbers, it's just easier to get hookers.
I thought it could maybe be an entertaining sci--fi movie just not an FF movie I would like. I'll rent it.
The other day I was thinking I might change my mind and go see it at our discount theater for $1.50 and my wife who say it with some friends when she was out of town said "You don't have something better to do with that two hours?" Yeesh. She said Pixels was better. I am still going to see this. Or see the documentary "Trank's Fantastic Four".
Comments
Didn't you and I agree that Unbreakable was the best superhero movie we'd ever seen?
And isn't it exactly the kind of movie (a completely new character) you are saying you are generally disinterested in? Would Unbreakable somehow have been improved by starting out as an adaptation of an established character?
M
What?
Sorry. I loved Unbreakable, but haven't seen it in a long time. So I think I'm not following.
Now, if Unbreakable was released in 2021 & Dunn bumps into Jessica Jones & Cage at a football game, I would roll my eyes and wonder why this guy is getting his own movie instead of...Darkhawk.
That's my point. Darkhawk is "new to me" & I can pull back issues (or Wikipedia). David Dunn in the MCU has no pedigree.
M
Is there a reason why a studio that has successfully entertained you many times before could not, similarly, create a completely new character for a film, set in their shared universe, and similarly succeed in entertaining you? I honestly don't see the difference. I don't know why, just because they have access to a catalog of existing characters, they should, as the premiere universe of superhero movie making, be limited only to what has come before.
It's the same with Agents of SHIELD (or new titles featuring a newly created character), I'm just not interested in getting invested.
There's a list of hurdles I'd have to go through to have an affair. One of them is I'm just not interested in putting the time in getting to know someone well enough to start a relationship.
M
M
We're expecting baby 2 in March, so I'm not looking to risk anything with my marriage through hookers or an affair.
And Megz isn't a forum member...but I tell her about that hooker notion all the time. That, and how I could kill her & get away with it*
M
* probably why she's reading my forensic books & watching Deadly Women on Investigation Discovery!
Evil plan foiled by monologuing.
M
M
M
M