Tag Archive | "DC Comics Characters"

Tags: , , , , , ,

GREEN LANTERN 2 Will Be “Darker And Edgier”

Posted on 02 August 2011 by William Gatevackes

Warner Bros. film group President Jeff Robinov really loves dark things. Back in 2008, while discussing how Warner’s renewed approach to the comic book film will be handled, he said that the films to come would be “darker.” Today, when speaking to the L.A. Times’ Hero Complex blog, the studio head said that Green Lantern 2 will be better because it will be “darker” and “edgier.”

Yes, you read that right. Not only is Green Lantern, a film that has grossed $154, 462,444 worldwide against an estimated production budget of $200 million with little or no chance of making up the difference at this point, getting a sequel, but also the best idea they have to make the next one better is to make it more like The Dark Knight.

Here is the exact quote with the reasoning why the sequel might do better than the original:

“We had a decent opening so we learned there is an audience,” said Warner Bros. film group President Jeff Robinov, pointing to the film’s box office debut of $53 million. “To go forward we need to make it a little edgier and darker with more emphasis on action…. And we have to find a way to balance the time the movie spends in space versus on Earth.”

This, of course, is a prime example of why DC Comics is lagging so far behind Marvel when it comes to getting its comics up on screen in a successful fashion. It believes that concepts that don’t lend themselves to being dark and edgy, like, say, Green Lantern, should be dark and edgy, and concepts that are dark and edgy, like, say, Jonah Hex, they make campy and cartoonish.

Not every DC Comics character is like Batman. The Dark Knight was so successful for a variety of reasons, not just because it was dark. But if the dark and edgy tone had anything to do with that film’s success it is because the character lent itself to being dark and edgy. More action in a Green Lantern film? Yeah, that would make it better? Having Hal be all scowly and angst-ridden? That would be a violation of the character.

In hopes of nipping the dark and edgy movement in the bud, here are my five ideas to make Green Lantern 2 better than Green Lantern that doesn’t involve making him darker or edgier. No need to pay me, but if you feel the need, giving me a DVD of every superhero movie Warners made would be not be refused:

  1. Hire a new director: It looks like this will happen, and that’s a good thing. Martin Campbell approached directing the film with the same fervor most people dedicate to flossing. It was a rote, by the numbers offering that had little or no emotion impact.
  2. Instill a sense of wonder: A human being who was transported to an alien planet should show some signs of amazement and curiousity. Hal in this movie treated it like he was visiting a new Banana Republic Outlet that just opened at his local mall. The movie would have been so much better if they played up the wonders of Oa through the eyes of someone who had never imagined anything like it before (which, technically, is how they should have approached it). Look at how James Cameron presented Pandora in Avatar. He sold the beauty and the magic of the place, therefore it resonated more with the audiences.
  3. Don’t make Sinestro the villain just yet: I winced when I saw Sinestro put on the yellow ring during the credits of Green Lantern. The character had gone from giving begrudging respect of Hal to becoming his enemy. There’s a pretty good story there, especially considering that Sinestro isn’t portrayed as being a good, if somewhat arrogant, man in the first film. There several good stories there, depending on what they would choose. A good man turning evil, and friend betraying friend is the reason why X-Men: First Class was ever made and why people were so hyped up for the Star Wars prequels. If anything, GL 2 should portray Sinestro’s path to the side of evil, not have it start with him there already. They’re losing a great amount of drama if they do it that way.
  4. More ring constructs: One of the best things about Green Lantern’s ring is that it could make anything Hal’s imagination could come up with. There’s no reason why it should create anything the writer’s or special effects designers come up with. The few times they appeared in the first film, you could see they were on the right track.
  5. Show don’t tell: Having Carol tell us that she’s known Hal since they were in the second grade is nowhere near as good as showing us their relationship as kids. But that’s what this film did. There was a part in the original script that showed Hal, Carol, and Hector as kids. It was part of the sequence where Hal’s father dies, so likely it was shot. But the powers that be decided to go the exposition route, which far more boring. It’s not as egregious as them telling us the story of Oa and the Green Lanterns–twice–instead of allowing us to learn all about it through Hal’s eyes. Most audiences aren’t stupid. Comic book film audiences are especially smart.  Show them when ever you can and only tell them if you absolutely have to.


Comments (0)

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Dissecting What Went Wrong With GREEN LANTERN

Posted on 29 June 2011 by FilmBuffOnline Staff

Superheroes are taking a beating this summer, and not just at the hands of their arch nemesis’s. In terms of tickets sales, Thor, X-Men: First Class and Green Lantern have all not quite measured up to the bar set by the likes of the Iron Man, Batman and Spider-Man films. But the one that has proved to be the greatest and perhaps most unexpected disappointment at the box office has been Warner Brothers’ Green Lantern, starring Ryan Reynolds. In the ten days of its release it has barely cleared $120.5 million domestically and internationally as of June 27 (as per Box Office Mojo), not a good number when compared to its estimated production budget of $200 million.

FilmBuffOnline publisher Rich Drees and comic book film editor William Gatevackes got into a discussion as to what went wrong with the film. The conversation started with Gatevackes admitting that he had gone back to the theater to see the film for a second time.

Rich Drees – What brought you back for a second viewing?

William Gatevackes – My wife. She hadn’t seen it. I wanted to get her opinion on it. She liked it a bit better that I did, but admitted it could have been better.

RD – So did you see it in 2D or 3D? I saw it in 2D and was glad I did. The opening scene where the alien astronauts accidentally free Parallax was so dark and murky I’m afraid it would have looked terrible in 3D.

WG – I saw it in 2D as well. The shame of it is that the scene was pretty much designed for 3D. Filmmakers just haven’t got it that keeping scenes dark for CGI purposes and shooting scenes in 3D don’t go together.

RD – Well, Michael Bay has been making a big push to get Transformers: Dark Of The Moon shown properly in 3D, but that’s another topic. Putting aside the 3D, it seems that a lot of the reviews have bagged on the film for the amount of CGI used, but isn’t that the point of CG? To show things you couldn’t do any other way? And for the scope of a Green Lantern story, you are really going to need CG.

WG – For me, if anything there was too LITTLE CGI. The green light constructs were born for CGI. They don’t need that fine of definition, which CGI lacks, so they would look awesome in computer generated art. They should have included more. And when it comes to aliens in the Green Lantern mythos, it wouldn’t be cost-effective to create make-up effects for an alien that is only onscreen for ten minutes. Just the amount of time it would take wouldn’t make it worthwhile.

RD – So would say that the scope of the story was a problem? That it was just too big a story?

WG – My main problem, storywise, was with the lack of definition on several plot points. I would have liked the relationships between the characters developed more, especially between Hector Hammond and the other characters.

RD – I agree with you there. The film could have used about ten more minutes or so of character work. Also, I think I would have started the story on Earth and then gone to the scene where Parallax was freed. I think the way it is structured now it is too much of an infodump on non-comic fans. It’s a big, sprawling story and I think it needed to start small to allow the audience to connect.

WG – Another bad thing about the infodump at the beginning is the fact that much of the info is repeated later on in the movie. One of the best ways to lose an audience is to show them something after you told them something. And they have a perfect way to introduce that info – a new person from a new race joining the Corps. Hal could have been the audience’s representative, we would learn as he did.

RD – But at least all that info is out of the way if Warners definitely goes ahead with a sequel.

WG – Yeah, but in a way that killed the film critically and via word of mouth, which puts any sequel in jeopardy.

RD – Well, Warners is still considering it. If they do move forward, what advice would you give them?

WG – Wow. Where do I start? Show, don’t tell. Create an emotional bond between your characters and your audience. Hammond was a good villain, but would he have been better if we saw a reason why he’d give up on the human race? Why did Hal become a test pilot after watching his father die in an accident as a test pilot? That was something that would have strengthened the character. That’s the thing they need to fix for the sequel.

RD – Part of me wants them to pull back and do an Earth-bound story, but that would mean possibly ignoring the cliffhanger involving Sinestro.

WG – One of the things that bothered me about the comic was that most of the stories took place on Earth. That’s like being a beat cop who only patrols the street he lives on. If his beat is the Milky Way, logic dictated that most of his time should be spent off-planet. But that could be addressed in a number of ways. However, I still want to know why Sinestro put on the ring in the first place.

RD – I thought they covered that a bit when he argued with the Guardians for the need to forge a yellow ring? Still, I would have liked to see more of his “fall from grace” as it were.

WG – The argument was that they need to fight to fear with fear (which I didn’t think would work – Parallax “ate” fear to make himself stronger). Parallax ended up being cooked in the sun, so there was no need for Sinestro to put on the ring. Who was he going to fight with it?

RD – Good question. I’ll grant that it did seem like a fan service moment. Surprising, as there wasn’t too much of what I would call fan service in the film. I’m thinking of the scene in the early draft of the screenplay that had the ring bypass Clark Kent and Guy Gardner when Abin Sur sent it out to find a replacement.

WG – Yeah, and I was waiting for that too! But think of it, if Parallax was attacking an Earth that Superman was on, he’d be the one to take care of it. No cameos either, but that kind of made sense. John Broome and Gil Kane, the creators of this version of the character, are dead. Geoff Johns would be self-serving.

RD – I think that the only bit of fan service was Carol’s callsign of “Sapphire,” a nod to the character becoming the villain Star Sapphire later in the comics. Getting back to the script problems, I was surprised that we didn’t see Hal’s family again after that one scene.

WG – They served their purpose. They told the audience that Hal was trying too hard to be his dad (and set up the Hot Wheels track for use as a construct). After that, they weren’t needed. However, that bit of info would have been better if they had a longer scene with Hal and his dad that showed us that.

RD – But I think that showing the family in the third act would have given Hal a greater personal stake in his final conflict with Parallax. Besides, I think it’s bad scripting to introduce something like his family in the first act and not have them be part of a payoff in the third.

WG – Definitely. On a quasi-related minor note, that shot of the school bus full of kids at the climax in the line of Parallax’s attack is a sign of an ugly trend in films like this. Maybe this is just my being a parent talking but it seems whenever they want to sell the villain as a threat, they put kids in the line of fire. It’s cheap, manipulative and bad story telling.

RD – I’ll agree, but that can be traced back to Superman saving the bus load of kids on the Golden Gate Bridge in Superman: The Movie. (Side note – DC Entertainment’s Geoff Johns, who oversaw this film started off as a personal assistant to Superman: The Movie’s director Richard Donner.)

WG – But it’s been done more often in more blatant ways. There was no need for the bus to be there other than to put the kids in peril. Because, unlike Superman, Green Lantern wasn’t able to save everybody.

RD – I actually thought that how they showed Parallax “eat fear”/kill his victims was a bit on the strong side for a PG rated movie.

WG – That’s more on the MPAA than anyone else. You know how arbitrary they can be. Maybe they thought that because most of the victims were aliens it wouldn’t be that bad.

RD – Are you saying that the ratings board is racist towards non-human intelligence life forms?

WG – Hah! Yes. That’s exactly what I’m saying. Now a question for you – Do you think the filmmakers went into this trying to make a great film or just not to screw things up?

RD – I don’t think anyone spending close to $200 million on a movie starts out with any other intention than to make a great movie. However, I think that in everybody’s mind was the specter of the Catwoman movie and more recently the fan reaction to the briefly mooted Green Lantern film that would have starred Jack Black and have been written y Robert Smiegel. Combine that with the studio’s need to launch a franchise to replace the Harry Potter income streams and it very quickly can become a case of “Don’t screw this up.”

But I’m wondering two things – 1) Did they pick too ambitious a hero to start a DC Comics film franchise with and 2) Are they trying to follow the Marvel Studio model too closely and will that prove a detriment? OK, that was three things.

WG – Don’t forget that Jonah Hex, a film with studio involvement that ruined it, was even fresher. This goes to answer #2, since the heavy hand of the studio changing the film to what they think audiences wasn’t didn’t work, following Marvel’s lead was a smart way to go. And answering #1, I belive that Green Lantern was an ideal choice to make a movie – if they made it correctly. A big part of the concept that was missing was the awe and grandeur aspect. This might be where following Marvel’s lead was bad. Marvel’s films lend themselves to be more grounded. DC’s comics are more about being mythic and bigger than life in nature. When you lead character is so blasé about meeting different alien races and travelling to alien planets, it ruins the awe aspect.

RD – true, there was no real feeling of awe. Hal seemed pretty nonchalant with the whole going to a different planet thing. But I was thinking of Marvel’s Kevin Feige and his philosophy of only asking the audience to accept one fantastic concept per film, i.e., a man can build a flying suit of armor. As much as I like the character of Green Lantern and its mythos, I’m wondering if perhaps they should have started with someone not quite so complicated, perhaps the Flash or Green Arrow, both of whom are currently being developed for their own films.

WG – Well, if not being complicated was the idea, Thor would not have been made. Asgardian gods, frost giants, evil half-brothers, hammers that control the weather is not all the much less complicated than space cops, evil forces, corrupted humans and wish granting rings. So I don’t think that Green Lantern being too complicated played a role.

RD – But with Thor, audiences had three movies to acclimate themselves to Marvel’s cinematic world. Green Lantern is a bit of a plunge into the deep end.

WG – Not really. Outside of SHIELD, there was nothing to really set up anything in Thor. It’s a big leap to go from altered humans and technological geniuses to a thunder god. Thor was different enough from what came before that it was still a struggle to overcome.

RD – Well, I think we’ll have to agree to disagree on this point.

WG – Yes, you ignorant slut.

RD – Hah! So any final thoughts?

WG – I know that I probably came out sounding like I absolutely HATED Green Lantern. I thought there was a lot of good there too. But the film should have been a slam dunk. And it wasn’t because of some bad choices. That’s frustrating.

RD – Well, all I’m hoping is that if Warners goes ahead with a sequel (and since I have trouble seeing them hit $150 million, let alone $200 million I doubt that they eventually will), I hope that they concentrate more on the story and remember the human element in the grand scheme of things.

WG – Ditto!

Comments (0)

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

New Releases: June 17

Posted on 16 June 2011 by William Gatevackes

1. Green Lantern (Warner Brothers, 3,816 Theaters, 105 Minutes, Rated PG-13): Once upon a time, DC Comics held a monopoly on the comic book movie. Between the Superman and Batman franchises, DC was being well represented on the silver screen. Marvel was relegated to the B-move and direct-to-video market.

But those franchises became cases of diminishing returns as the filmmakers strayed away from what made the originals a success and move towards Richard Pryor as co-stars and nipples on Bat-suits. Marvel took a more active role in the production of their films, and we get resounding successes such as X-Men, Spider-Man and Iron Man. DC was forced to play catch up.

They took a step in the right direction when rebooting the Bat franchise with Batman Begins. It followed the same pattern as the Marvel films–stay true to the comic book roots while molding it into an exciting film. Things looked positive.

Then Jonah Hex came out, and it showed the same kind of studio think that caused the Superman and Batman franchises to fail. The filmmakers had no idea what made the comic book character so good, and they fiddled with it until the film was just horrible.

This brings us to Green Lantern. I always thought that this would be a comic character that, if done right, could establish DC as a powerhouse in the comic movie genre. The concept is equal parts Star Wars, Indiana Jones and Top Gun. It would be hard to screw up.

I reviewed the script and found it had the potential to be a quality film. Then I saw the jokey first round of ads for the film and felt a knot in my stomach. Jokes were added that weren’t in the script, and when the studio ads humor to a DC movie, it kills it.

The next round of ads seemed to be more on track with what I originally expected, so I started feeling good about it. Then I saw that the film is rated 22% fresh at Rotten Tomatoes and I felt discouraged again.

I don’t know what to expect. But I know DC is pinning their hopes on this film to jump start a Marvel-like dominance of the movie theaters (a sequel is already in the works). But if they drop the ball, it could doom any DC film not being overseen by Christopher Nolan from ever getting made. And if they screw this film up, that would be for the best.

2. Mr. Popper’s Penguins (Fox, 3,338 Theaters, 95 Minutes, Rated PG): Having any attempt at doing dramatic work met with lukewarm response, Jim Carrey is in an interesting stage of his career as a film comedian. He has grown out of being the “Village Idiot” type of roles he played in Ace Ventura and Dumb and Dumber. He has grown out of the immature man-child roles he played in Liar Liar and Bruce Almighty. Now he is consigned to the role of the neglectful father who only realizes the value of family after being reminded of it as his life undergoes an unorthodox upheaval.

That unorthodox upheaval comes in the form of six penguins sent to him by his father. They force him to not pay so much attention to work, which allows his family to enter into his life.

Formulaic family entertainment to be sure, but, depending on what your tolerance for Carrey’s earlier work is, it might come as an improvement.

Comments (0)

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

New Releases: June 18

Posted on 17 June 2010 by William Gatevackes

1. Toy Story 3 (Disney/Pixar, 4,028 Theaters, 103 Minutes, Rated G): The franchise that started the Pixar empire is back, and, really, how can you not be excited.

Of course, it has been 11 years between installments, so the kids who saw Toy Story 2 are now surly teenagers. But through the magic of home video, new generations of viewers can catch the previous installments and its fan base can constantly replenish itself.

The plot now revolves around the toys being given to a local day care center when their owner, Andy, goes to college. Life at the day care center is not all its cracked up to be, so Woody and Buzz lead the rest of the toys in a jailbreak.

I don’t know if this will be the last installment (although I can’t see how far they can keep going in the story progression), but it will be one you have to go see.

2. Jonah Hex (Warner Brothers, 2,825 Theaters, 80 Minutes, Rated PG-13): This film brings back a old-school brand of filmmaking. It’s where Hollywood takes a property from another medium, thinks it could present it better than how it appeared originally, makes unnecessary changes to try to “improve” it, takes away pretty much all that was good about the original concept and ends up destroying the idea in the minds of millions.

The Jonah Hex of the comic books was a badass. A horrible scarred badass, but a badass nonetheless. A lot of movies have been made about badasses. Heck, Clint Eastwood practically made a career out of them, many of which were westerns. So, you really don’t need bells and whistles to sell the character.

But this film gives us bells and whistles out the wazoo. Hex now has “talking to the dead” powers. His horse has two Gatling Guns on either side of it. His origin, one of the more interesting ones in comics, has been changed to one of petty revenge and a good man punished for doing the right thing. And there is  an anachronistic super weapon to provide the threat.

Now, I straddle the line between comic book fan and film buff enough to know that you do have to make some changes to bring a comic book to the screen. But you have to know what makes the property appealing in the first place. The Spider-Man films know this. Most of the X-Men films knew this. Christopher Nolan’s Batman films know this. The producers of this film doesn’t.

This film will be annihilated by Toy Story 3, so the quality of the film really doesn’t matter. But this explains what DC has such problems adapting its characters to the screen. I hope the new regime at DC Entertainment makes it their priority to correct this kind of thing.

Comments (0)

Tags: , , , , ,

JONAH HEX Trailer Hits Web

Posted on 30 April 2010 by William Gatevackes

One of the most anticipated comic book movies to be released this year, after Iron Man 2 and maybe Scott Pilgrim Saves The World has to be Jonah Hex. The trailer has just recently hit the web, and here it is for your viewing pleasure.

My verdict? A great 30 seconds makes way for needless and tacked on superpowers, pisspoor southern accents, and completely anachronistic guns. So, this film has gone from my “look forward” list to my “very worried about” list.

Comments (1)

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Christopher Nolan To Reboot SUPERMAN?

Posted on 10 February 2010 by William Gatevackes

I guess they figure that he did such a good job revamping the Batman franchise, why not give him a shot at doing the same for Superman?

Deadline Hollywood is reporting that Warner Brothers has tapped Christopher Nolan to oversee the oft-talked about reboot of the Superman franchise. It is believed that he would be more of a creative overseer and not sit in the director’s chair of any of the films.

The article also states that Nolan has come up with the story for his third film in his Batman saga, and the story has been given to The Dark Knightscribes Jonathan Nolan and David Goyer to fashion a script from it.

It should be pointed out that Deadline Hollywood is essentially a gossip site (the above story was credited to “insiders” at Warner Brothers), but they have a fairly good track record of things panning out.

When will Nolan’s take on the Man of Steel go into production? Soon, if Deadline Hollywood is to be believed:

Attorney Marc Toberoff, who keeps suing Warner Bros on behalf of creative rightsholders, warns that, in 2013, the Jerome Siegel heirs along with the estate of co-creator Joe Shuster will own the entire original copyright to Superman — “and neither DC Comics nor Warner Bros will be able to exploit any new Superman works without a license from the Siegels and Shusters”. He’s also pointed out that, if Warner Bros does not start production on a new Supermansequel or reboot by 2011, the Siegels could sue to recover their damages on the grounds that the deal should have contained a clause in which the rights returned to the owners after a given time if no film was in development. The heirs of Siegel have already been awarded half the copyright for Superman. And in 2013 the heirs of co-creator Joe Shuster get the remaining half. After that, neither DC Comics nor Warner Bros will be able to use Superman without a financial agreement with the heirs. There are also stipulations on what parts of the origins story can be used in future Superman movies and which require re-negotiations with the creators’ heirs or estates. 

Of course, to many chicken little’s, this means the end of Superman in any media–comics, television of film. What this probably means in reality is that Warner Brothers and their subsidiary DC Comics will have to throw some money at the Siegel and Shuster families to keep the rights to the character. If the Nolan supervised Superman is a The Dark Knight level success, then that would give Warners/DC more money and more reason to write those checks.

In another extrapolation of the rumor, if that is in fact allowed, let me present this train of thought. Nolan has a partnership with David Goyer. Goyer co-wrote the JSA comic book with Geoff Johns. Johns is one of the current writers on the Superman comic book franchise and has recently wrote some episodes of Smallville for Warner Brothers’ television arm. Could this mean Johns might have a shot of being creatively involved in the Superman reboot?  Just throwing that out there.

Comments (1)

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Blake Lively Joins GREEN LANTERN Cast

Posted on 09 January 2010 by William Gatevackes

The announcement that the Green Lantern movie was officially green lit (no pun intended) reassured fans of the character that a film version would soon be on its way. However, a recent casting announcement might have them worried just a bit.

The Hollywood Reporter’s Heat Vision blog is reporting Blake Lively, known for her work in The Sisterhood of the Travelling Pants and the TV show Gossip Girl, has joined the cast as Carol Ferris. Ferris is the woman who runs Ferris Aircraft, the company where the Green Lantern’s alter ego Hal Jordan works, and is a love interest for Jordan, who will be played by Ryan Reynolds.

The anal comic fan will be quick to point out that the comic character is a brunette and Lively, as you can see here, is a blond. A package of Clairol could fix that right up. But another issue that has been raised is about her age.

Lively is only 23, almost a full 10 years younger than Reynolds.  But the female lead being younger than the male lead is a Hollywood standard. But how many 23-year olds do you know running a military aircraft design and construction company?

It is unknown if Lively has signed on for any sequels, because her character in the comic books would later become the Green Lantern villain known as Star Sapphire, which would be a natural for inclusion if the franchise continues.

The casting department will now be turning their eyes to filling the roles of Hector Hammond, the film’s villain, and Sinestro, Hal’s trainer in this film, but as comic fans know, eventually becomes his greatest enemy.

Green Lantern is scheduled to be released on June 17, 2011. You can read a review of the original script here, although the Hollywood Reporter informs us that it is currently undergoing a series of rewrites.

Comments (0)

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Marvel Hires Writing Team To Adapt Properties To The Screen

Posted on 27 March 2009 by William Gatevackes

marvel20comic20logoWith only three movies out under their own shingle, Marvel Studios have become a force in Hollywood. Now, the company has taken steps to expand their film portfolio by bringing some of their other comic book heroes to the big screen.

Variety reports that Marvel Entertainment is hiring a team of writers with the purpose of writing scripts for properties it wants to bring to the screen.

The group will consist of up to five writers who will sign on for one year of service. They will work developing pitches Marvel gives them, which might include long in development options or completely new characters.

Characters listed in the article include long in the works characters such as Black Panther, Doctor Strange and Iron Fist, and fresh ones such as Nighthawk, Vision and Cable.

Nighthawk is an interesting one because the character is a Marvel doppelganger for DC Comics’ Batman. It should be interesting to see if that character gets to the filming stage, how much it resembles Christopher Nolan’s Batman Begins and The Dark Knight.

The focus overall appears to be one bring Marvel’s lesser known characters to the spotlight. Some may forget that Marvel first made its splash into cineplexes with one of its lesser known characters–Blade. The character was a B-level one in the comic books when it was optioned, yet the film was a worldwide success and spawned two sequels.

Comments (2)

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Jonah Hex, Fathom Get A Lot More “Fox-y”

Posted on 04 March 2009 by William Gatevackes

megan-fox-red-11Megan Fox really doesn’t need to work on her “geek” cred. Just her being one of the most attractive up-and-coming young starlets in Hollywood would be enough to warm the cockles of most genre fan’s hearts.

But her starring in the two Transformers movies pretty much enshrines her in the hall of fame of many Comic-Con goers. And her starring as a demonically possessed cheerleader in Diablo Cody’s next film, Jennifer’s Body guarantees her plaque will get a primo location in that hallowed hall.

But recent news out of Hollywood could give some the idea that Megan Fox is one of us. Could she be a comic book geek too? Signs point to yes.

The Hollywood Reporter tells us that Fox has signed on to not one, but two upcoming comic book adaptations.

First is the upcoming Jonah Hex. I’ll let THR describer her role:

…Fox will play Leila, a gun-wielding beauty and love interest of Hex (Brolin), a scarred bounty hunter tracking a voodoo practitioner (Malkovich) who wants to raise an army of undead to liberate the South.

I don’t know about you, but that plot description alone makes me want to see that movie. The fact that the cast consists of Josh Brolin, John Malkovich and Megan Fox makes me want to see the film NOW!

fathom_aspen_posterThe other comic book film Fox has sign on for is the lead in the film adaptation of Aspen Comics flagship title, Fathom. Created by the late Michael Turner in 1998, the comic deals with a woman named Aspen Matthews whose ordinary, everyday life is changed forever when she finds out she is a member of an underwater race with the power to control water.

As you can see to the right, Fox bears an uncanny resemblance to the character.

According to THR, Fox will also be taking a role in the developing and shaping the property because, get this, she was a fan of the series since its 1998 debut. See, she is one of us (or at least she was).

Jonah Hex is set to hit theaters August of next year, while Fathom is still in the development stage.

Comments (0)

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Marvel, Warner Brothers Make 2010 A Good Year For Super Hero Adaptations

Posted on 03 March 2009 by William Gatevackes

greenlantern2If you are a fan of comic book movies, and find 2009’s slate to be a little underwhelming, be patient. Because 2010 is shaping up to be a great year for comic book movie fans.

Warner Brothers announced released dates for some of their upcoming releases to Exhibitor Relations (as reported by Comingsoon.net) and it seems that they were serious about amping up their comic book inspired output. Both Josh Bolin’s starring turn as Jonah Hex and the long -awaited Green Lantern film (the script for which was reviewed by us here) will be hitting screens in 2010.

They join Marvel’s previously announced Thor and Iron Man 2 films (recently re-confirmed by Marvel’s fourth quarter 2008 earnings report) and the no-stranger to comics The Green Hornet to make 2010 a jam-packed year.

Here is your scheduled line-up, so you can clear your social schedules accordingly:

Iron Man 2–May 7,2010

The Green Hornet–June 25, 2010

Thor–July 16, 2010

Jonah Hex–August 6, 2010

Green Lantern–December 17, 2010

spidermanposter200aAnd for those of you who can’t wait five months to get your comics-adapted-into-different-media fix, start planning a trip to New York City in February. The long in production Spider-Man, Turn Off The Dark is set to open at Broadway’s  Hilton Theater on February 18, 2010, with previews begining on January 16.

The musical, at least partially inspired by the Spider-Man film franchise, is directed by Julie Taymor and features songs from U2’s Bono and Edge. My advice to you would try to reserve those tickets early, because there’s no guarantee how long this one’s going to last.  

 Tip of the hat to The Beat for inspiring this article.

Comments (0)