Marvel Gets Cash to do 10 Films

jmozena writes "Marvel has raised $525 million to independently finance 10 movies based on its comics over seven years. The titles named are Captain America, The Avengers, Nick Fury, Black Panther, Ant-Man, Cloak & Dagger, Dr. Strange, Hawkeye, Power Pack and Shang-Chi. The company's also changing its name from Marvel Enterprises to Marvel Entertainment."

Comments

Good Investment

[fembots]

Based on the statistics, comic-turn-movies are bringing in around $350 millions each after cost.

It's a pretty safe investment, they just need two good ones to break even, and another 8 crappy ones @ $20m each to have 30% return.

Re:Good Investment

[Koiu Lpoi]

I dunno man... Ant Man? Just not seeing the returns on that one.

Re:Good Investment

[fembots]

Still, shouldn't have problem getting $20m. There are people who watch everything-comic, or just couldn't buy seats for their intended movies.

Ant Man - Like Spiderman, but with 6 legs.

Re:Good Investment

[ciroknight]

Based on SlashStatistics (a general look through the comments), these movies will fail, miserabily.

The novelty of a comic book movie or a video game movie wears off very quickly, and are often greatly critisized by the true fans of the comic/video game. Yet they keep making these movies because they don't need to put a lot of thought into them; their designers already put their hearts into it and spent their life drawing these characters out in the comic books.

I will admit, there is an occasional breakout hit: The Matrix, Sin City were amazing, Spiderman was not as bad as it could have been. But it hardly makes up for the disasters they wage in the process (Daredevil, Elektra, The Incredible Hulk, come on).

It really is evident in the hollywood scheme of things that they have ran out of movie ideas because the corporation is stifling the idealists. People are too busy crunching the numbers on the films instead of spending the money, making it, and learning something from it. Some say Hollywood has matured in this way, but just look at the box offices: Hollywood hasn't matured at all. They're just remaking the same movies over and over, with different names for the characters, different actors, and in different cities.

I think that's all I can say before I get into a rant..

Re:Good Investment

[ihtagik]

Based on past movies based on ants/ant-like creatures/and men with links to said creatures:

Antz - 170million
Spider Man - 400million +
Spider Man II - 250million in 2 weeks

what's not to see, the better question is how many sequels can we expect!

Re:Good Investment

[Jeff DeMaagd]

You left out A Bug's Life.

Antz and Bug's Live didn't try forcing an unknown comic book hero to the screen. Spider-Man is incredibly well-known and actually was made into a couple decent movies. I just don't see Ant-Man as being very marketable.

Re:Good Investment

[Jeff DeMaagd]

They're just remaking the same movies over and over, with different names for the characters, different actors, and in different cities.

Worse in some cases. Sleepless in Seattle and You've Got Mail were basically the same movie but they forgot to replace the same actors! One comment I've heard was "It wasn't as if the Empire State Building collapsed that they needed to make a new one!"

Re:Good Investment

[Jeff DeMaagd]

Still, shouldn't have problem getting $20m. There are people who watch everything-comic, or just couldn't buy seats for their intended movies.

If that $525M gets split evenly into 10 movies, that means $52.5M goes to Ant Man's production. A $20M take means a $32.5M loss for a movie that probably shouldn't have been made. I'm thinking this will be an Electra but won't have the pull of Jennifer Garner, which, for many, was the only reason to see it.

I understand your reasoning though, but I don't think it should be treated as a batch-gamble, where they seem to throw piles of money, small ideas and big names at a vat-o-projects and hope a few get a blockbuster.

Re:Good Investment

[ErikZ]

It's aimed for kids.

And if you know kids, there's no such thing as "Too many times"

Re:Good Investment

[zakezuke]

Worse in some cases. Sleepless in Seattle and You've Got Mail were basically the same movie but they forgot to replace the same actors! One comment I've heard was "It wasn't as if the Empire State Building collapsed that they needed to make a new one!"

Could be worse. A mild mannered Microsoft employee working 100hr weeks gets fed up with all the software piracy. His only resolve is to put on an Ant constume to fight commercial piracy and spams moral messages to all the kids in....

"You've Got Mail from Sleepless Antman in Seattle"

Don't copy that floppy!

Re:Good Investment

[the-build-chicken]

here here! Daredevil was a fantastic movie, Elektra was great too. I hope they make Daredevil 2

Re:Good Investment

[magarity]

Antz and Bug's Live didn't try forcing an unknown comic book hero to the screen
 
Is there really any practical difference between a character who is unknown versus one that is completely new?

Re:Good Investment

[flyingsquid]

I dunno man... Ant Man? Just not seeing the returns on that one.

Shit, I can come up characters just as good as "Ant Man"! Like Slug Boy, Earwig Lad, Captain Fruit Fly, Dung Beetle Man, Pillbug Woman, and the Amazing Aphid.

Anyone care to give me $50 million apiece to develop these properties for the big screen?

Re:Good Investment

[nunchux]

I will admit, there is an occasional breakout hit: The Matrix, Sin City were amazing, Spiderman was not as bad as it could have been. But it hardly makes up for the disasters they wage in the process (Daredevil, Elektra, The Incredible Hulk, come on).

Superhero movies are a pretty safe bet because they do make their money back, eventually. Even the "failures" you mentioned (Daredevil actually did quite well, BTW) make the cash back in foreign markets and on DVD. And the ones that do well do spectacularly well-- as in, people will see it in the theater, buy the DVD and still watch it on cable.

And yes the die-hard fans will complain about liberties being taken... But the die-hards are never happy. The superhero genre relies more on the casual fan, those who used to read the books when they were kids, or those who just like superhero movies... And there are a lot more of these people than the die-hards.

Yet they keep making these movies because they don't need to put a lot of thought into them; their designers already put their hearts into it and spent their life drawing these characters out in the comic books.

Well, maybe in Sin City's case, or Ghost World, or V is For Vendetta... But come on, there's no heart and soul in Marvel's assembly line. A Marvel comic might have a talented artist or writer pass through every now and again, but that's all they're doing-- passing through. Most of the time it's done by hacks for hire. I don't consider The Fantastic Four to be too sacred for a B-movie adaption.

It really is evident in the hollywood scheme of things that they have ran out of movie ideas because the corporation is stifling the idealists.

You think this is something new? There have always been shitty movies. And shitty movie sequels. Superhero movies certainly aren't a new trend, and cheesy sci-fi serials have been made since the thirties. Movies have always been made for the lowest common demoninator, with a few bold talents managing to squeak through (and the same goes for comic books, doubly so.) We tend to forget the crap, so it's easy to say Hollywood is going to hell... But the good-to-crap ratio has been pretty steady for eighty-plus years.

BTW there are a lot of good movies being made right now, you just have to know where to look. With the advent of cheap DV editing suites, for example, documentaries have never been better.

Re:Good Investment

[circusboy]

the things is, unlike daredevil and elektra which were passed off to secondrate scripters and directors, the Hulk was a brilliant and underappreciated film. of all the comic book movies, it is the one that most closely captured the graphical elements of comic book design since will eisner and walt simonson. the way ang lee manipulated the multiple layers of imagery and time was really brilliant.

one thing that really makes the hulk a great adaptation of a comic book though is that the writers and director were smart enough to cut rick jones. if there was *ever!* a comic book character that needed to burn in hell, it was rick jones. who managed to be the dippy sidekick to not only the hulk, but captain america and captain marvel too (and the whole bloody avengers team!) oy what a waste of ink!

I am not a great fan of the Hulk comic book, I was aways in the x-men corner, and while I think the x-men moves are well made and a lot of fun, (more joss whedon dialogue please) and the spider-man movies are very good, the hulk is, I think, a much better piece of art. (of course I prefer batman begins to any of the other batman movies to date too, despite the plot holes.)

the things that always made the great comics characters, was the real depth of character, and what really made the comics books great, was creators who really believed in and felt for those characters.

see what kind of rant 3 glasses of wine can start? kids, don't drink and post!

  more (hic) wine!

Re:Good Investment

[DannyO152]

So. 52.5 million per title. Three years to develop, script, film, post-produce and distribute the first movie. Does it get put in the summer slot? Guess so. Do they all? Maybe if it's a 2/2/3/3 release cycle. Those last 6 may get shutdown (or straight to DVDed) if the first two don't make back their negative costs.

Still it's 10 films released in four years from 2008-2012, or a title every five months if it was spread out.

Today a special effected film seems to cost, what, 110 million. In six years, that will be up to 130 million (maybe more as demand increases for special effects houses). Where does the other 60-80 million come from? The domestic distributor? Overseas pre-sales? Do they hire above-the-line talent or economize and rely on character and story.

If a title doesn't get produced, does some money go back to the investors? And how do the backers get paid? Out of the net? Okay back from laughing. Got a hankering to walk over to Book Soup, stare at the, formerly, Caroloco building and mumble something about the stuff of dreams.

Re:Good Investment

[strider44]

The problem is that they've already done the good and popular comic books. I've only heard of Captain America out of those, and I doubt that that's even going to make it to the cinemas here in Australia. (Sorry mates but America's reputation quite right at the moment to have a superhero named after it)

Re:Good Investment

[Minwee]

Oh, he's marketable. You just have to give the audience all magnifying glasses.

Re:Good Investment

[slashdotnickname]

Yet they keep making these movies because they don't need to put a lot of thought into them; their designers already put their hearts into it and spent their life drawing these characters out in the comic books.

Huh? There's no need to get complicated in analyzing things.

Hollywood keeps making these movies because they make money. When you count the world-wide ticket sales and dvd/merchandise revenues, even the "bad" ones pay for themselves and then some. It's as simple as that.

It's true, though, that movie studios aren't always able to translate the "good stuff" from a comic book on to the screen. But, to be fair, it's not usually because of incompotence or lazyness.

As with any reading material, the writer/artist can only go so far to convey a story given the limited paper medium, so the readers must fill in the rest with their imaginations. Forcing the audience to use their imagination produces a more powerful story because, by virtue of them imagining, the audience immerses itself into the story... enhancing its realism. That doesn't mean the storyline can be weak,

A movie, with its real-time sound and imagery, leaves fewer blanks that need to be filled in by its viewers. This means that a movie has to work harder to immerse its audience into its story...

(need to stop this thought, pizza's here!)

Re:Good Investment

[Anonymous Coward]

Sleepless in Seattle was pretty lame, but You've Got Mail (aside from being a blatant AOL commercial) had a pretty good story about power games.

They may both be about finding love via chance, and may have the same actors, but the two movies are so far apart in regards to the actual content that it would be foolish to say that they are basically the same movie with different sets.

It's like saying Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure was the same movie as Bill & Ted's Bogus Journey. The first was a frolic, but the second one had tackled some serious philosophical ideas successfully.

See You've Got Mail. It's definitely worth seeing. Skip Sleepless in Seattle. It's pretty bad.

Re:Good Investment

[cgenman]

And yes the die-hard fans will complain about liberties being taken... But the die-hards are never happy. The superhero genre relies more on the casual fan, those who used to read the books when they were kids, or those who just like superhero movies... And there are a lot more of these people than the die-hards.

The die-hard fans who are complaining have already seen the movie and given their 10 bucks. I'm not dissing the casual market, but I'm guessing all of the Daredevil fans out there that considered the movie "sacrelige" did so after boosting the opening weekend gross quite nicely.

But come on, there's no heart and soul in Marvel's assembly line. A Marvel comic might have a talented artist or writer pass through every now and again, but that's all they're doing-- passing through.

The listed titles are: Captain America, The Avengers, Nick Fury, Black Panther, Ant-Man, Cloak & Dagger, Dr. Strange, Hawkeye, Power Pack and Shang-Chi. There is a lot of entertaining backstory there to pilfer, certainly enough in each one to make a movie (maybe not Hawkeye). None of what is listed is Sin City, but then again a lot of what is listed is on par with Batman or Spider Man. Which is, to say, a great director can never be undervalued. Unless he goes and directs The Adventures of Sharkboy and Lavagirl in 3-D.

The thing I'm worried about with this is that Marvel is flooding their own market. Sure, there is demand for some superhero movies. Sure, great superhero movies will always make money. But the public's tastes are fickle. Make a super hero movie every few years, and you can really spark the public's imagination. Pump out bad superhero movie after bad superhero movie and suddenly everyone is interested in the slasher revival, or really great pulp action movies, or (gasp) well written dialog with deep characters. After 10 movies, won't people want to see something... else?

Re:Good Investment

[carlos_benj]

Dude! With a lineup like that we could ressurect The Tick!

Re:Good Investment

[Zebidiah]

You are the only other person I know, apart from myself who enjoyed The Hulk. When I came out from the cinema after the film I was on a high. I was picking up my son and bounding him through the air. I must have looked like a right prat.

Now The Fantastic Four, that was awful.

Re:Good Investment

[The Wooden Badger]

I'll be there opening night for the Tick! That was a great show. I only got the chance to see one of the live action shows and I thought it was good stuff. I think the biggest problem with the show was the time slot. It was doomed from the beggining.

Re:Good Investment

[unitron]

" And it sucked."

"When I said "He was played by David Hasselhoff.", I thought I had pretty much covered that angle.

Re:Good Investment

[Dr. Zed]

Still, shouldn't have problem getting $20m.

If that $525M gets split evenly into 10 movies, that means $52.5M goes to Ant Man's production. A $20M take means a $32.5M loss...

Your conclusion is based on an arbitrary assumption. I doubt that they would divide the money evenly. It is more likely that the titles which have more earning potential will receive more for production, advertising, etc.

Also, given Ant Man's ability (shrinking, IIRC), they shouldn't need the same special effects budget as some of the more special effects.

Re:Good Investment

[pmancini]

Arthur: Are we dead yet?

Tick: Far from it, Arthur! We have them on the run!

(The Tick runs towards the Idea Men as ropes fall into view and each of them grab on to them)

Tick: Onward!

(They are then pulled up into a blimp with a large blinking light bulb on the side)

Tick: Hey cool! They've got a blimp!

(Screen shows blimp flying)

Sally: That was the scene today at the Rive Droite Bank as the mysterious gang known as the "Idea Men" struck again continuing their terrible crime wave. It was the sixth time in as many days that the baffling criminals have descended from the sky to literally lift The City's most valuable assets. But today their nefarious plot was foiled by a heroic blue stranger.

Tick (on TV): Hey cool! They've got a blimp!

Sally: Our modest blue benefactor exited the scene without comment. The Idea Men's menace is far from over. Says Mayor Blank:

Mayor Blank: ...In fact we believe these criminals have just practicing for a more larger caper.

Sally: We'll have more on the story as it develops. In the meanwhile, On a lighter note... clowns

(screen shows....clowns)

Not Too Much Left

[Nimrangul]

Anyone else notice how those are all the second grade comics of Marvel being done? I mean, seriously, who would want to watch a film about Ant-Man?

Re:Not Too Much Left

[npietraniec]

Just because they weren't the most popular characters ever doesn't mean they wouldn't make good movies... I mean, look at it from the opposite direction. The Daredevil and Hulk movies sucked... So did Catwoman for that matter. Punisher wasn't that great either... Hm...

Re:Not Too Much Left

[gardyloo]

I mean, seriously, who would want to watch a film about Ant-Man?

    The studio is obviously hoping that swarms will want to watch.

Re:Not Too Much Left

[maxbang]

I'd want to watch it. The founder of the Avengers and creater of Ultron? Who wouldn't want to watch that? Plus, I always thought the Wasp was hot.

Re:Not Too Much Left

[NitsujTPU]

Everyone on The Hill said that they'd go.

Re:Not Too Much Left

[aztektum]

Those movies you listed may have used characters that are well known, but the characters themselves are some of the weakest.

DareDevil's biggest claim to fame in the Frank Miller run. They've been doing nothing but trying to recapture that ever since. Kevin Smith's run was "eh" at best.

Hulk has been a long time icon of The Avengers, but the essence of the character has been so dilluted by now that no one is really sure who the Hulk is. That's not to say making an interesting comic about a green brute who can't talk and has a prediliction toward purple pants is easy.

Punisher is Punisher. Death Wish with a skull on his chest.

The problem is these characters don't really have much character to them to begin with. They are constantly being reimagined and reinvented in the comic books.

When someone says X-Men or Superman, you immediately have this basic feeling of what they are talking about. Almost an essence, which is all you need to capture to make a good movie. The studios are looking to make some fast scratch, but like any movie, making a *good* comic book movie that will bring in the casual audience and the fans requires just as much attention to the character as the special effects. It isn't enough to have them smashing shit up and talking like idiots, people will get sick of that. But if you inject the essence of the character, that part of them that people instantly recognize throughout your 1.5-2 hours, that's when you have a successful movie.

Beating it to death...

[nebaz]

This has happened before. Right after the initial success of Batman
the movie studios thought that super-hero movies were the way to go. The resulting movies were not made well.
They made Captain America once before. As much as I loved the X-Men and Spiderman movies, Fantastic Four was only so-so,
and bringing back Captain America, they should be careful. Hollywood tends to beat genres to death, wait a while and do it
all over again.

Greh

[Madsci]

Those movies sound terrible. And Hollywood wonders why it's in a slump? You can't make ten of something and have each be interesting/worth $10 in its own right.

Re:Greh

[BewireNomali]

Well, hollywood uses an interesting model. They pay the bills and produce movies with borrowed money. This includes paying exorbitant salaries of the talent as well as the execs. so there's financial incentive to produce big budget movies... especially for producers, who typically get a percentage of the production budget plus gross participation.

For example: Miramax last year got an operating budget of $700 million from parent Disney. This pays for Harvey and Bob's salaries and expensive lifestyles, and a lot of the decadence that has evolved from the indie scene. Out of that cash, they make a few films, and acquire a few others. If a profit ensues... good shit. If not, there's always next year. Except, they had like three red years in a row, and Disney axed Bob and Harvey. So Bob and HArvey promptly went to investors and asked for a billion dollars to start the Weinstein Company. Because they got fucked on their exit deal with Miramax - they left with nothing - no library to speak of (anybody in film knows that its a LIBRARY that makes you money - assets that appreciate over time - especially for oscar films, of which miramax had a few) They were laughed out of the room. Now they're begging for 300 million at smaller banks and still getting snickers.

As far as a producer and film company is concerned - you assume your film will take a loss. the producer and film company makes its revenue in the short term from its advances from parent companies and investors all looking for a spider man or titanic. It's a tenuous system built up in part because the high barriers of entry prevent serious competition.

Re:Greh

[blonde rser]

Those movies sound terrible.

How do you figure you have enough information to make a judgement one way or the other on how these movies will be. If you know who these characters are then all you know is a nugget of the premise. You don't know when in the characters story the movie will take place. You don't know the structure, the pacing or even the director. There are so many things that can make or break a movie that just knowing the pitch isn't anything more than statistical noise.

There have been a lot of terrible comic book movies; there have been a lot of great comic book movies. Why would Punisher fail when Batman succeeds? Maybe because Burton is a better director than Hensleigh. I'm sure a good film maker could make a great film that has a basic premise of Punisher. And there have been several poor films (by poor film makers) based on the premise of Batman.

before there was monotheism

[circletimessquare]

there was demigods and hero worship

the roman gods and greek gods or the gods of hinduism, for example

i think there is some sort of psychological sweet spot that superheroes touch in our heads and hearts

it's a meme that monotheism just can't kill

sort of ideal representations of who we think we should be or who we wish we were, and the relationships we have with other elements of society, and the struggle with evil... a social and psychological context that some nameless faceless uberentity that is a monotheistic god just can't satisfy in us

we'll be with superheroes and marvel/dc for a long, long time

Re:before there was monotheism

[suitepotato]

Uh, before you start feeling warm in the glow of yet another shallow and not very well concealed slap at Christianity, remember that the tales of Christians and before them Jews are replete with legendary men and women of note. It isn't about monotheism versus pantheism. It's basic to all humans; a species that is on the whole psychologically messed up and viewing itself as powerless.

Oddly, only the monotheism you take a whack at has truly embraced free will and self-determination. If anything about it rankles, it is that it also embraced the concept that it comes at the price of conscience and responsibility. How dare anyone tell anyone that there's good and evil, that some actions are right and others wrong? Only as long as everything is beyond our will and absolving us of responsibility or assuring us of our righteousness over anyone telling us different or both are we alright with it.

Obsession with heroes is if anything a tacit admission of our own surrender. Only someone else can be that good, noble, and selfless. And how wrong that idea is. Heroes aren't fictional people. They're the people who don't abdicate the power and responsibility both that are free will, make the choice to be better, and follow through even if it means giving up everything they've most desired and cherished in their whole lives.

Capes and spandex optional.

Re:before there was monotheism

[king-manic]

Obsession with heroes is if anything a tacit admission of our own surrender. Only someone else can be that good, noble, and selfless. And how wrong that idea is. Heroes aren't fictional people. They're the people who don't abdicate the power and responsibility both that are free will, make the choice to be better, and follow through even if it means giving up everything they've most desired and cherished in their whole lives.


You sound like you have some snake oil to sell. A hero is someone who happens to be in the right place (next to a burning building) who does somethign right but foolish (runs in to save kids he hears screaming) and is fortunate to survive. It's not the lack of people willing to do this (at least not in canada) it's a lack of situations where this is needed is the reason we lack heroes. Plus, about half the time they die making a tragic hero.

Re:before there was monotheism

[Minwee]

Hey, you don't mess with Jesus Christ, Vampire Hunter.

Re:before there was monotheism

[tarunthegreat2]

A word about Hinduism. Hindus also believe there is only one God - well the correct translation is Supreme Being. It's just they believe that there are different forms of the same Being. Different forms for different purposes and eras. So yes, by the strict definitions of other religions, this is polytheism, but in essence, Hinduism is monotheistic as well. Linky The Smarta perspective dominates the view of Hinduism in the West. Smarta monists, seeing in multiple manifestations the one God or source of being, are often confused by non-Hindus as being polytheists. It is seen as one unity, with the personal gods being different aspects of only one Supreme Being, like a single beam of light separated into colours by a prism, and are valid to worship

Re:before there was monotheism

[CFTM]

The irony to the entire thing is that the monotheastic religions of today are a result of the same process as that of the comic book super heroes. What I find fascinating about comic book characters is they are one of the last bastions of mythic creativity occuring within modern culture. Mythic creativity has been a meme within human cultures for a very long time and unfortantely the mainstream monothesastic religions no longer allow for any mythic creativity thus it spilled over in to comic books.

If anyone is interested in an academic approach to this subject matter I suggest checking out some of Joseph Campbell's work. The Power of Myth is a great place to start; it does not deal specifically with comic books but it deals with the sociophenomona of myth creation. Great stuff!

Re:before there was monotheism

[Dread_ed]

For more research and detail on this phenomena than you ever thought was available please see this book by Joseph Campbell: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0691 017840/102-8735635-8866503?v=glance

Don't get me wrong, but what?

[ReformedExCon]

Just my impressions of the list:

Captain America
Didn't they do this one and it sucked?

The Avengers
A facless hero clan. I can't even name a single hero in this group.

Nick Fury
I guess because the Punisher movie worked so well...

Black Panther
Ah, a hero named after a hyper-racist group. I don't see anything wrong with that.

Ant-Man
Honey, I shrunk the superhero!

Cloak & Dagger
Not that Cloak was a completely contrived character, or that Dagger wore far too little clothing, but how could this movie possibly be interesting?

Dr. Strange
Who?

Hawkeye
Ah, Daredevil without charisma, but empowered with a ridiculous costume.

Power Pack
Never heard of them.

Shang-Chi
Is this like the token Asian guy?

I think they probably need to stick with their franchise heros and stay away from these B and C-list zeroes.

Re:Don't get me wrong, but what?

[Geoffreyerffoeg]

Dr. Strange
Who?

Well, if they said they'd make a superhero movie about Dr. Who, I'd probably say, "Dr. Who? Strange."

Re:Don't get me wrong, but what?

[qw(name)]

Actually, of all the movies listed, Dr. Strange is the only one that has the possibility of being a CG boom. I always read Dr. Strange. His story is the deepest of most of the comic heroes Marvel ever produced.

Re:Don't get me wrong, but what?

[NiceGeek]

"The Avengers
A facless hero clan. I can't even name a single hero in this group."

You just did - Captain America, Ant-Man, Hawkeye and Black Panther have all been members at one time or another (along with fair chunk of the Marvel Universe)

Re:Don't get me wrong, but what?

[jayhawk88]

Captain America
Didn't they do this one and it sucked?

They also did Spiderman and FF movies that by all accounts were horrible before the "big" releases. It's not like anyone is not going to go see a summer blockbuster movie because that one time some independant film company in the 70's lucked into a license and the movie sucked.

The Avengers
A facless hero clan. I can't even name a single hero in this group.

Captain America, Thor, Ironman, Hawkeye, Giant Man, The Wasp...Hell if they go really old school Hulk will make an appearance. Yes the Avengers don't have the kind of name recognition the X-Men, FF, or Justice League has, but that's what pre-movie hype is for.

Nick Fury
I guess because the Punisher movie worked so well...

If they go for a Marvel Ultimates Universe style with this movie (which is pretty much what they did with FF), Nick Fury is a black, eye-patch-wearing James Bond ass-kicking character with a suit that allows him to fly and turn invisible. I guarentee you Sam Jackson's publicist is already pimping him for this role.

Black Panther
Ah, a hero named after a hyper-racist group. I don't see anything wrong with that.

Are you posting this from the 1950's? Did someone invent timetravel:// and not tell me? Please, that argument isn't even worth responding to.

Ant-Man
Honey, I shrunk the superhero!

Yeah, and? Those movies did pretty well if I recall; there is a huge movie market aimed at kids these days. I'll admit Ant-Man as serious comic-book movie doesn't sound too appealing, but Marvel has and obviously would love to continue to hit the 8-14 demographic or whatever, perhaps this is part of that?

Cloak & Dagger
Not that Cloak was a completely contrived character, or that Dagger wore far too little clothing, but how could this movie possibly be interesting?

Hmmm...dark, brooding character who is in constant pain, running around fighting crime with an ultra-hottie. Nope, can't think of any demographic that would appeal to!

Again, this probably isn't the type of movie that you take that seriously, but there is obviously a male teenage demographic to hit with this flick.

Dr. Strange
Who?

Think of Gandalf battling the Balrog in Fellowship, except the Balrog is Dormammu, Lord of all Hell, and Gandalf is Dr. Strange, who can fly around and cast all kinds of CGI-friendly magic spells. And then take it times 10. Strange is all about magic in the MU, and this perhaps has the chance to be the best of the titles if done properly.

Hawkeye
Ah, Daredevil without charisma, but empowered with a ridiculous costume.

Again, if they go the Ultimate Universe route, Hawkey basically looks like Brad Pitt; a super soldier who can use a bow like guys in John Woo movies use pistols. Hardcore action flick potential.

Power Pack
Never heard of them.

Probably another kiddie flick, they were basically a bunch of kid superheros back in the 80's. Honestly this does seem like a strange choice to me, I would guess Marvel is seeing a Spy Kids type thing.

Shang-Chi
Is this like the token Asian guy?

Yeah, because martial arts pictures aren't popular or anything.

Look, I know most of these movies will probably turn out to be on the level of Elektra or Punisher, but the point is that there is material to work with here. These characters/teams are not as well known to the general public as a Spiderman, Hulk, X-Men or FF, but they do have interesting characters and stories to tell.

Re:Don't get me wrong, but what?

[zaren]

Just my impressions of the list:

And my impressions of your impressions :)

Captain America
Didn't they do this one and it sucked?

Yeah, back in 91. A lot of movies sucked back then. As did that one.

The Avengers
A facless hero clan. I can't even name a single hero in this group.

Do you mean the West Coast Avengers? Or the East Coast Avengers? Or the Great Lakes Avengers?

Now, I'm not surprised that you can't name any of the Avengers, because there have been so many (and even I don't know who's in the teams now). But seriously, their lineup has included:

Captain America
Thor
The Hulk
The Sub-Mariner
Iron Man

And let's not forget Ant-Man, Hawkeye, and the entire Fantastic Four!

Nick Fury
I guess because the Punisher movie worked so well...

Come on, in this day and age, you think a movie about a super-tough anti-terrorist government agent with tons of nifty guns and gadgets (and a floating fortress) isn't going to play?

Black Panther
Ah, a hero named after a hyper-racist group. I don't see anything wrong with that.

Hey, he was a big deal back in the day, leader of his own country as well as a powerful hero.

Ant-Man
Honey, I shrunk the superhero!

Okay, I've gotta go with you on that one. I see little potential to that movie.

Cloak & Dagger
Not that Cloak was a completely contrived character, or that Dagger wore far too little clothing, but how could this movie possibly be interesting?

A bit more modern spin - she the naive and innocent girl from the good side of the tracks, and he the rough and tough gangsta from the mean streets. Mix in some exotic street drugs, some righteous vengeance, and you've got a winner.

Dr. Strange
Who?

Dr. Stephen Strange, the Master Mystic, the Sorcerer Supreme! All sorts of juicy ghost-busting special-effecty opportunities there.

Hawkeye
Ah, Daredevil without charisma, but empowered with a ridiculous costume.

And don't forget the fancy bow and arrow!

Power Pack
Never heard of them.

Nobody did, and more's the shame. Some decent writing effort went into making and managing the characters in that series. It could be a really good kiddie movie.

Shang-Chi
Is this like the token Asian guy?

Could be. And yet, it could be their excuse for a lovely martial arts wire fest.

Re:Don't get me wrong, but what?

[jayhawk88]

Marvel has what the call the Ultimate Universe, which is essentially relaunches of their flagship titles in a universe totally seperate from the traditional Marvel "616" universe that has been in existance for the past 30-odd years. The Ultimate Universe takes place as if these characters are being born/created/mutated in modern times, without the 30 years of backstory.

The stories are essentially the same, Spiderman still loses his Uncle Ben and learns the whole "Great Power/Responsibility" thing, the Fantastic Four still get their powers and battle Doom, the X-Men are still hated and feared by humankind and battle Magneto, but there are some differences. Nick Fury being black is one, and in fact is drawn to very much resemble Samuel Jackson; I think the character actually jokes about SJ playing him in a movie at one point in the book. Ultimate Nick also is a much younger man than 616 Nick, and I don't believe he has any WW2 exploits. He's still the head of SHIELD, but takes a much more active role, and seems to have a lot more cooler gadgets to play with.

You can't top the original Nick Fury

[6502_C64]

In my mind, Nick Fury will always be David Hasselhof

Maybe Marvel Should...

[MattW]

Focus more on making sure the stuff that comes out based on its IP doesn't suck, and spend less time filing frivolous lawsuits.

Dagger

[GuyWhoPosts]

If Dagger isn't some serious eye candy, I'm not watching!

Nick Fury??? Oh Noooooooooo!!!

[$RANDOMLUSER]

If you haven't seen David Hasselhoff as Nick Fury, Agent of S.H.I.E.L.D. you haven't lived. This turkey leaves "Plan 9 From Outer Space" in the dust as the "worst film ever made". Next time SciFi Channel runs it, make a point of it. You'll have more fun having a do-it-yourself MST3000 than words can describe.

Re:Nick Fury??? Oh Noooooooooo!!!

[Gojira Shipi-Taro]

Yea I've managed to avoid that so far. My first hint that it was crap was having David Hasslehoff anywhere near the film.

Thankfully, Marvel is dealing with production personell who have actually made hit movies in the past now, rather than doing direct to DVD crap. Still, I can't figure out how they think Power Pack or Shang-Chi are going to be hits... Iron Fist maybe...

As a non-american...

[Frogbert]

I never really "got" Captain America, I mean I know people can be patriotic and all but a superhero like him seems so lame to me.

Its like a Politician draping themselves in their countries flag. I mean if someone did something like that in my country, and I'm sure a few have, most people would think they were a tool.

Really I'm not flaming I just want to know why he is so popular? Did parents find buying a comic for their kids a lot easier when they knew he was fighting for American ideals?

Re:As a non-american...

[$RANDOMLUSER]

Captain America only works in the context of World War II in Europe. His only "real" enemy was the Red Skull, who was Nazism personified. You have to think of "Cap" as a historical artifact.

Capital Man

[MyLongNickName]

There's No Need To Fear! CAPITAL LETTER Man is Here!

Screw that

[DoctaWatson]

I want to see Spiderman 3: Enter the Stilt-Man!

Why jump the shark when you can step over it with hydraulic lifts?

The Avengers

[SuperBanana]

The Avengers A facless hero clan. I can't even name a single hero in this group.

Uh, I take it we're not talking about John Steed and Emma Peel?

There were four good things about that movie. a)the line "How now, Brown Cow?" b)Emma in her catsuit c)her E-type Jaguar, and d)Emma in her catsuit.

NOOOO!!

[DoctaWatson]

"Now, I wish someone would make a movie based on the Vertigo version of Lucifer..."

Last time Hollywood got their grubby little hands on a Vertigo franchise, we got Constantine.

Re:New compnay name

[ScrewMaster]

Huh. Looking at this next batch of superhero flicks I'd say that "Marveloss" would be a more apropos choice.

On lesser-known heroes

[Red Flayer]

Gotta love the B-list heroes -- it allows for more creative license in plot and character development. Marvel doesn't have as large of a fan base for these characters -- less people to get PO'd when they change the backstory.

That's the plus side -- maybe we'll get one or two excellent screenplays in there that will be produced and directed well.

OTOH, we've got an average budget of 52.5 million for each film. Assuming that a couple of these guys get the lion's share, that leaves us with...

B-movies!!! B-movies that don't have some silly giant snake in the jungle, or intelligent sharks (hopefully), that are marketed to your average (sub)urban potsmoker.

I, for one, welcome the return of our nerd-targeted B-Movie overlords... speaking of which, I have a plot to pitch to Marvel Entertainment...

On a more serious note, what most of the comics have in common is a clear dichotomy between right (the hero) and wrong (often protrayed as a group). Complex heroes? Unnecessary. Maybe Marvel wants to try to tap into today's youth, who are much more exposed to the boogeyman ideal of the bad guy. Or maybe I'm tired and need to go to bed, not sure.

Re:On lesser-known heroes

[$RANDOMLUSER]

> I, for one, welcome the return of our nerd-targeted B-Movie overlords...

Seriously, what ever happened to the Ed Wood/Roger Corman school of directing? The last really really great, lovingly trashy film I saw was Paul Verhoeven's "Starship Troopers", and that was far too long ago.

We want schlock!
We want schlock!
We want schlock!

Re:On lesser-known heroes

[meta-monkey]

On a more serious note, what most of the comics have in common is a clear dichotomy between right (the hero) and wrong (often protrayed as a group). Complex heroes? Unnecessary. Maybe Marvel wants to try to tap into today's youth, who are much more exposed to the boogeyman ideal of the bad guy. Or maybe I'm tired and need to go to bed, not sure.

How complex can you get in an hour forty-five, and still leave time for the action scenes the mass market demands? No good attempt goes unpunished by the slashdot intelligencia anyway. Look at Constantine. Keanu Reeves aside (although I thought he did a decent job), here you've got a comic book hero with a very interesting problem. He's doomed to go to hell for his own suicide, but he's been battling demons on earth, fighting for heaven in the spiritual cold war. No matter, though, because what has he done truly for others in the name of good, and what for himself, trying to "buy" his way into heaven? That's a complex issue. What that we do that is "good" is really selfless, and what are we doing for the rewards that come with goodness? Good plot, interesting characters (Gabriel too), good special effects, decent acting even from Keanu, and the nerds still bash it. Can't win...everybody's gotta be too cool for school.

My comic book heroes..

[Resident Netizen]

...are Reid Flemming and Milk and Cheese.

So I could really give a rat's @zz 'bout Captain 'Merka and his superfriends.

Hey, what happened to...

[shmlco]

Iron Man.

And why not the Silver Surfer?

Re:Hey, what happened to...

[Rakarra]

And why not the Silver Surfer?

The most obvious answer to those who haven't read comic books is the one that hasn't been mentioned here yet. Something that rarely occurs to us because we so like the character and plot that we've overlooked what's been staring us in the face:

The Silver SURFER? A guy who flies around on his intergalactic surfboard? How amazingly lame is that? Forget Galactus, the Fantastic Four, any other cool things that were involved. We're talking about a pacifist surfer dude here. What works in comic form often looks silly on the big screen. Hugh Jackman in a yellow and blue spandex Wolverine outfit? It's a good thing they went with black leather instead.

Not to mention that the look of the character would need an overhaul. It would have to be done with some sort of body paint. A full-body suit or CG would look too unconvincing, and you need to see his eyes..

What the hell is an ant-man? I only see antman II

[zakezuke]

http://www.marveldirectory.com/individuals/a/antma nii.htm

Let me paraphrase the marvel directory.

Scott Lang was an expert in electronics but for some reason couldn't make a buck. So he became a burglar but wasn't very good at it... he got caught and put in jail and got a job with some Marvel invented company that one would know if one ever bothered to read comic books. But he daughter was diagnosed with a terminal illness, probally something to do with all those green screen terminals Scott Lang was forced to used as he coudln't afford a real computer. The only doctor who can help was being helded by some other big evil company the name likely known by anyone who has bothered to read any marvel comics. So he decided to steal AntMan's outfit and magic shrinking gas. Fortunatly the real AntMan had a spair YellowJacket outfit and follows AntMan II and watches him confront the arch villin who's in the business of kidnaping doctors needed by wackos who like to dress up in costume, a common theme in the Marvel world. AntMan II rescues the good doctor who cures his daughter and just when he's about to step up and return the stupid AntMan outfit to AntMan... AntMan says he can keep it so long as he's a good boy.

Sells electronics by day, dresses up as an Ant by night... it's AntMan II!

So, from this I can establish the first AntMan was some guy with magic shrinking gas who liked to put on an ant costume get small and fight crime. And I wondered why I never really bought comic books.

Captain France?

[toupsie]

I never really "got" Captain America, I mean I know people can be patriotic and all but a superhero like him seems so lame to me.

Well, I can completely understand from your perspective. Who would really be interested in Captain France? A guy that dresses up like a croissant, runs away from German bad guys and blames all his problems on Captain America. Would make for a short, annoying movie...

Re:which sucks less?

[GeorgeMcBay]

so i'm guessing out of 10 movies maybe 2 won't suck

There you have it, folks... the most optimistic man in the world.

Re:Bad Films to be followed by Bankruptcy

[MavEtJu]

I see lots of film flops coming our way in the next seven years.

It's all caused by piracy! Piracy I tell you!

Cloak & Dagger

[wlovins]

I don't see the need to remake Cloak & Dagger. It is one of Dabney Coleman's greatest roles aside from Hot To Trot. Ok. Bad Joke, but I'm not apologizing, and yes, I do know the comic book http://www.toonopedia.com/cloakdag.htm.

Re:All old characters...

[GaryPatterson]

(somewhere in Hollywood...)

Exec A:
"I'm thinking "The Sandman" from those cool comics, only in the movie he's not some skinny guy, but a musclebound hero!"

Exec B:
"I'm listening..."

Exec A:
"He's got the power of making people sleep, or hallucinate during the day. He fights crime and recharges his magic bag of sleeping dust every night. And his arch-enemy is his own sister, Desire!"

Exec B:
"Good twist. What about the love interest?"

Exec A:
"Well, his girlfriend is a rock-grrl from New York, street-hip and so marketable. We've got sketches of a clothing line"

Exec B:
"I like it. We need to drop some of that touchy-feely crap from the stories. I want action, and long fight sequences. Is that Woo guy available? I'm thinking of a huge fight scene, where the Sandman fights that sister, starting with fists and then getting swords from a wall or something. It'll end with him cutting off her head just when she's about to skewer him. We'll need some special effects though. Do these guys fly?"

Exec A:
"They do now!"

Exec B:
"Shit we're going to make so much money from this. Maybe there's a sequel, and she's not dead but comes back for revenge. It doesn't matter though."

The PROBLEM with American comics is...

[crazyphilman]

Ever since McCarthyism, they've been focused on ridiculous Superhero/Men In Tights nonsense while the rest of the world has moved on to much more interesting subject matter.

On top of that, while Japanese Manga have been giving people 150 - 200 pages of black and white comics on cheap paper for ten bucks, DC and Marvel think they can make their comics into "collectibles" and sell 15 readable pages (if you take out the ads) for over four bucks.

Hmm... Let me see... Top-notch science fiction, 200 pages for ten bucks, with NO ADS, or crappy kiddie "superman" stories at fifteen pages for four bucks... Let me think...

DC and Marvel just don't get it. They think they're competing with each other, but REALLY, they're competing with Japanese and European companies. And somebody's gonna eat their lunch. Like Masamune Shirow, Mamaru Ooshi, Enki Bilal, Giraud, or Frezzato. People who write INTERESTING, ADULT-LEVEL STORIES that don't involve thinly-disguised magical thinking and wish-fulfillment.

The American comics industry currently appeals only to little kids and adults who obsess over the current value of (I don't know) Batman #6. The collectibles market is SMALL. The entertainment market, on the other hand, is HUGE.

Just look at how much bigger Border's manga section is than their superhero section. That'll open your eyes...

Re:The PROBLEM with American comics is...

[TomHandy]

You do realize that the American comic industry is larger than just Marvel and DC, right? Certainly they are the lion's share, but there are a ton of independents doing all sorts of interesting things. And frankly, you can find some pretty interesting and different things even from DC and Marvel, or imprints like Vertigo and Wildstorm.

I wish DC get money and have more control

[nounderscores]

Because unlike marvel, DC has one property that will make an awesome movie: Uncle Sam.

There's no way to do that without doing it with idealism and integrity, and it would be a hell of a lot less annoying than mike moore.

Re:I wish DC get money and have more control

[meta-monkey]

Others would argue:
Capitalism = Individuals acting in their own self-interest serve the needs of the community at large in the most effecient manner, and the greatest contributors to society reap the greatest rewards.
Socialism = Corrupt individuals use the police power of the state to take goods from the hard-working to bribe those who keep them in power

You're not wrong...the truth lies in-between the extremes you and I have each presented. However, my point was that movies condemning capitalism and far out-number those extolling it.

Re:I wish DC get money and have more control

[1u3hr]

Just for novelty's sake I'd love to see a movie or a comic about the triumph of free-market capitalism and individual liberty over group identity and power-hungry socialists.
So would I, but as long as Hollywood is controlled by liberals it's not going to happen.

WTF? Hollywood is controlled by giant corporations. What flaky actors do in their spare time has no impact on what movies get made. Any films about the "triumph of ___ism", whatever the ___ism, is going to be a preachy bore. But if it turns you on, Ayn Rand's The Fountainhead was filmed in 1949, and Atlas Shrugged is supposedly in pre-production. More abstractly, what do you think The Terminator and sequels was about (aside from the eye-candy, that is)?

Re:I wish DC get money and have more control

[drsquare]

I can't speak for America, but in Britain at least:

Socialism = Hard working people get taxed to the hilt so that scroungers with 6 kids by the time they're 20 years old who haven't worked a day in their life but have a government-supplied house can live off benefits and handouts.

Seriously though, that is NOT an extreme exagerration, it's actually true. Makes you sympathetic for people who exploit every loophole they can find to get out of being taxed.

Talk about a poor selection of titles...

[Regnard]

Most of the selected titles can be considered 3rd-tier heroes. Only the Captain America and Doctor Strange movies have a chance of making a good box-office run. While taking relatively unknown heroes does not have the big risk of alienating hard-core fans, I seriously doubt whether Nick Fury or Ant-man can even make a ripple on the casual moviegoers' minds.

I work for the company that brokered the deal...

[flicman]

...and I pretty much agree that the slate sucks the way it's laid out. But consider this: Marvel has never before made their own films and had controlling interest in them. They've never had creative control to hire/fire screenwriters or directors, and they've only ever gotten a cut of the profits of the movies they make.

This deal is important because it brings a new angle to the way movies get made in Hollywood - we created a mini studio out of a defunct has-been of a comic company, and we're going to do it again. All I'm saying is that you can bash the films all you want, but this is a good precedent because it's putting creative control for the first time in the hands of the creators. I know that in this case, there's no one left who helped create Captain America, but from a company standpoint, we're at the source. Who do you think is working on a deal with Image? Those cats aren't so old - there's a very real chance that they'll get to executive produce (at the very least) their own movies like no comic book geek has ever done before.

Lastly, remember that the slate can (and will) change. I'm hoping that '300' can invigorate the hobbled historical epic genre because the script is good and the concept excellent. Sorry I'm late to the party.

Finding the right director is key

[rinkjustice]

I'm hoping Mr.Stan Lee will take a few moments and read this recent article at Salon entitled:
How to make a superhero movie that doesn't suck

I particularly agree with rule #1: Find the right director. When I heard Sam Raimi was doing Spider-Man, I knew he was the right guy for the job. He should also get the Dr. Strange film if he's not too busy with S-M#3. However, Raimi would not be right for, say, Captain America. I would give that project to Wes Craven since it seems he's stretching out into action/suspense territory.

Ah... I could go on for days on this one. Any suggestions anyone?

Ant-Man: Script treatment

[sootman]

from SNL, The Early Years: Superman's Party

The Flash ... Dan Aykroyd
The Hulk ... John Belushi
Antman ... Garrett Morris

[Doorbell rings, the Flash moves to answer it.]

The Flash: I'll get it, Lois. [opens door, grunts and crouches as if putting his arm around someone] Sue Storm, the Invisible Girl! [laughs] Come on right in! [Spider-Man, looking rather thin, enters and shakes hands with Flash] Hey, Spider-Man! All right... [Antman, wearing a helmet with antennae, enters and shakes hands, but the Flash doesn't recognize him] Ah... Excuse me, I'm not sure if I remember your name. I'm really bad with names, you know.

Antman: [high-pitched voice] You don't remember me? We met several times. I is Antman. A-N-T-M-A-N.

The Flash: Oh, right, right.

Antman: Yeah.

The Flash: Uh, Antman.

Antman: Yeah.

The Flash: What are your super powers again? You - you - you talk to the ants, is that it?

Antman: Well, partly. But, mainly, I shrink myself down to the size of an ant while retaining my full human strength.

The Flash: Really?

Antman: Yeah.

The Flash: [sarcastic] Oooh, that's really impressive. Size of an ant with human strength. You must be able to clean house on those other ants, huh? [chuckles] Hey! Hey, Hulk! Hey, check this guy out.

[The Hulk joins them. He and the Flash can barely keep from laughing at poor Antman and can't help chortling in-between their heavily sarcastic remarks:]

The Hulk: Ooooh!

The Flash: He's got the strength of a human!

This is awesome!

[Sinner]

And by "awesome", I mean that Marvel is going to make 10 superhero movies that will all suck. That's a 100% suckage ratio! That's awesome!

Can we please go back to making sci-fi movies that suck please? Or how about another Beastmaster?

Re:yes, my words were a thinly veiled slap

[GreyWolf3000]

You've been totally outposted.

Besides, watch any of these super hero movies for the emotional parts. It's all about generosity, courage, good versus evil, and, most importantly, self sacrifice.

Gee, could that have come from the Judeo-Christian roots of our society?

Well, it's almost approaching Odin's Day. I must be getting to bed...

Re:I think you have it backwards

[cpt kangarooski]

Trom? Do you mean Rom: Spaceknight? I don't remember a comic or character named Trom, though.

Re:Captain France!

[zakezuke]

Who would really be interested in Captain France? A guy that dresses up like a croissant, runs away from German bad guys and blames all his problems on Captain America.

I don't know what's more troubling, the fact that I laughed at your joke or the fact that someone took it upon them selfs to make a "Captain France".

http://www.chambrook.org/captainfrance/index.php?s trip_id=1

Re:Captain America x2.

[techno-vampire]

They brought captain america twice already to the screen, same as Punisher.

Actually, three times. Don't forget the 1944 Republic serial Captain America.

The American Response

[lheal]

Cap is less a superhero than a super hero, if you'll pardon the wordplay. His strongest "power" is leadership. His only weapon is a defensive one. He acquired his combat skills fighting in a land war that makes Iraq look like a couple of kids on a playground. His work ethic is unmatched.

Captain America symbolizes what any one of us could become, if we persevere.

I was looking at my 42-year-old body the other day, and recalled a Captain America snippet from a 1970's Avengers comic. It showed Cap working out, tirelessly preparing himself for whatever lay ahead. That thought motivates me to work on self-improvement, since you never know what's coming at you next.

Captain America is more than propaganda

[DoctaWatson]

All the replies to this post rightly point out that Captain America was a childish piece of WWII propaganda. When the war ended, so did his popularity.

In the 60's Marvel brought the character back, and the most popular theme in his storylines is his rejection of being used as a tool for the government. He's supposed to stand for all of the American Dreams of the people- and not a piece of propaganda for the politicians.

Check out the wiki for Captain America, they explain it way better than I can.

Re:yes, my words were a thinly veiled slap

[scowling]

Gee, could that have come from the Judeo-Christian roots of our society?

The ideal of self-sacrifice for a worthy cause predates the Judeo-Christian tradition. So: no.

Please do the Silver Surfer!

[CMBologna]

I really like the Silver Surfer story (even though it's a bit pacifist for these ages but that's good right?) Anyhow this news from 2003 gives that the movie in production after the Fantastic Four should be the Silver Surfer. http://www.comicbookmovie.com/news/articles/932.as p

Re:All old characters...

[alnya]

I was in a Q&A with Neil Gaiman once, who was talking about the film adaptations of Sandman, and how they'd gone through 7 scripts or something (this was in 2000):

"I opened the last one that was sent to me and read the first page, which began:

Camera opens on a dark alleyway, two CRIMINALS are going through a purse. A long dark shadow casts itself over their faces. They draw guns and fire!

                                SANDMAN
Hah, you fools. Your weapons cannot harm me, for I am sandman..."

NEIL GAIMAN mimes dropping script into dustbin.
"

Actual conversation about the Hulk movie overheard

[soft_guy]

I was in line to see something else overhearing the conversation of two teen girls in line. The Hulk was playing at the theater.

White Teen Girl: What about "The Hulk"?
Asian Teen Girl: I heard that the movie had a lot of jumping in it.
White Teen Girl: Jumping?
Asian Teen Girl: Yeah, like the hulk jumps a lot.
White Teen Girl: OK.
Asian Teen Girl: I don't like movies with jumping.