Viewing Thread:
"Daredevil"

Anyone else seen the released preview footage of the latest of the Marvel-based movies? With this and the upcoming Hulk movie, Spider-Man 2 and X-Men 2, next year is gonna rock, film-wise.

Batman, the Burton 1989 film, was far superior to Spiderman. Sorry, but relying on all that CGI doesn't do it for me. Same with Xmen, but to a much lesser extent as the storyline seemed to be better thought out.

The Ang Lee Hulk film is looking promising though and I have high hopes for Daredevil. Still, one day we will get a Justice League film and it will be based on the great JLI origin story 'A New Beginning' by Giffen, DeMatteis, Maguire, Gordon and Austin. Those were the days.

I did't really enjoy Spider Man, i might not see the next one, all though i proberly will to find out what actuly happens to the guy who is spider man.

Tiltawhirl wrote:
> This film looks crap though there is the possibility that smug boy
> Affleck might get punched repeatedly in the face, so you never know,
> it might be good.

*

You say everything looks crap though! Don't think I haven't noticed... and don't think Bubbly Babe hasn't either!

MoJoJoJo wrote:

> The plot and action were pretty pap too. Batman and Returns had
> violence in them, even swearing and blood! But no, they were under
> pressure to make a child friendly film (to sell action figures) so
> everything had to be toned down. For shame, Warner Bros, for shame

Everything just went commercial crazy in BF. Take the opening credits - after a mean and moody build up where Batman gets suited up and his Batmobile rises from the ground, there's a dumb line where Alfred goes 'Can I persuade you to take a sandwich sir?' to which Batman replies... "I'll get drive thru". WTF?!?

I couldn't believe they had such a retarded beginning. Aftyer approx 1min 4 secs, the film already loses all its credibility. Then a little while later, I saw why on TV - that entire scene was designed specifically for a McDonalds advert.

Damn you Ronald McDonald!

This film looks crap though there is the possibility that smug boy Affleck might get punched repeatedly in the face, so you never know, it might be good.

That should have been for the Two Towers obviously, it's just that I can't read very well like.

Stryke wrote:
> The Return of The King will be better than all of them. Put together.

Saw another trailer for it in the cinema yesterday just before the Bond film.

Cooooooooooooo

And yes it was probably better than the Bond film.

Batman Forever was just too different from the first two. They should have had an ALL new cast, and not mentioned the previous films at all, as if they'd never happened. Instead, we had to just accept the fact that Gotham city went from a 50's style city to a... whatever the HECK it was in Forever, with it's giant red and green buildings.

The plot and action were pretty pap too. Batman and Returns had violence in them, even swearing and blood! But no, they were under pressure to make a child friendly film (to sell action figures) so everything had to be toned down. For shame, Warner Bros, for shame

MoJoJoJo wrote:
> The last two Batman films were a joke.

*

I haven't seen Batman and Robin, but Tommy Lee Jones and Jim Carrey were excellent in Forever.

But anyway, no Batman film can hold a candle to X-Men or Spider-Man! So ner!

Just when I though MoJO ruled, he goes and says that.









Spot on! Batman Forever wasn't that bad, Val Kilmer was ok as Bats, but don't get me started on Batman and Robin, or George Clooney *shudders*.

The first two were bloody brilliant. Tim Burton's direction suited the material, and Keaton ruled.