f13.net

Saw the trailer on Friday night before Ocean's Twelve (rent it....quite 'meh'). I was only half paying attention during the first part, but it started to look intriguing. Then I realized what I was seeing and got pretty fired up. GOD I hope they don't fuck this one up.

Trailer (http://batmanbegins.warnerbros.com/) available as of today on the official site.

Warning: Movies may appear cooler than they are in reality.

Not this one. Batman Begins will be the best one since Batman Returns. That's not saying much unless you've seen a lot of German film, in which case it's saying alot.

It better be dark as hell - and looks to be. So all is well. But I can one up the Batman trailer with this:

Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (http://mp3content02.bcst.yahoo.com/bmfroot04/BMFShare04/yahoomovies/14/10140074.mov) (Right-click, save-as). Looks to be delightfully evil.

WTF, was that Yngwie Malmsteen busting his guitar?

I remain skeptical of Charlie & the Chocolate Factory after seeing the trailer.  Seriously, Willy Wonka was eccentric in the books, and he may have been dressed oddly, but I don't recall him being an effeminate poof.

I see your clip and raise you:
Steven Spielberg's War of the Worlds (http://www.apple.com/trailers/paramount/waroftheworlds/)
The Phantom of the Opera (http://phantomthemovie.warnerbros.com/)
The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (http://movies.yahoo.com/movies/feature/thehitchhikersguidetothegalaxy.html)

Bruce

He was an effiminate murdering poof. Read the book again. Besides, he looks less poofy and more Ziggy Stardusty.

It's funny Bruce should bring that up.  When I first saw the trailer, I thought Willy Wonka was being played by a manly looking woman, like Wendy Malick.  I sat there thinking, "It said 'he', in reference to Wonka, so why is the role being played by a chick???"

Then a few shots later, I realized it was Depp.

I thought the new Batman movie was going to be based on Batman: Year One. Doesn't really look much like it. (The tone is completely wrong, however close the plot may be)

The cheesy montage of Bruce training was, well, cheesy. It likes like a typical Van Damme "guy goes off and trains then comes back for vengeance" sort of deal.

Batman:Year One could have made a really good movie but I guess it isn't super-heroey enough.

Depp's Wonka reminded me of someone, but I can't pinpoint it. I know I've seen that person before. Maybe I'm wrong, but he's been known to mix acting with impression before, usually of someone well known...Sometimes several at once (ie. Jack Sparrow was Keith Richards/Pepe Le Pu, Ed Wood was Ronald Reagan/Casey Kasum, etc.). Maybe he'll say when it comes out.

(http://www.timburtoncollective.com/catcfcaps/catcf_009.jpg)
For those who can't see the above image, click here. (http://www.timburtoncollective.com/catcfcaps/catcf_008.jpg)
(http://www.urban.ne.jp/home/ubik/cinema/tokeizika.jpg)

Bruce

I wasn't able to see all the Batman trailer yesterday, it kept fucking up on me. I'm going to watch the Wonka trailer now, but let's face it, the character of Wonka was a bit of a fancy.

Now that I've seen the trailer, I want to stab Tim Burton. IN THE FACE.

You mean you didn't want to before ?

Well yes, he's been marked for death since at least "Planet of the Apes."

But no one should be able to trounce on the memory of Gene Wilder like that.

It has been on my to do list for at least a decade now.

Unless it's Johnny Depp. I mean christ, they didn't get Vin Diesel to play Wonka. They picked, in all probability, the best character actor we have alive today.

Sorry -- the Charlie and the Chocolate Factory trailer does nothing for me.

Yes, I have strong memories of the Gene Wilder version. Yes, I admire Depp a great deal. Yes, Tim Burton can do the fantastical well.

Yet nothing in this trailer makes me think anything other than: where are the oompa-loompa's when you need them to roll away the bloated thing that just showed up...?

Yes, I will agree with you there about Depp. However, based on what I saw, and my own feelings about the whole thing, no one, and I do mean NO ONE needed to do it. The movie version we already have, while decidedly reminiscent of its time period, was quite good enough to stand the test of time. Meanwhile, like Burton's Planet of the Apes, this will be here and gone again in a flash. It'll be the cinematic equivalent of a burp; a nice lingering taste of what I had for dinner, but forgotten as soon as the gas dissipates.

Tim Burton needs to go back to making his own movies instead of freak-ifying someone else's good story. Of course, if he does that, we have more Sleepy Hollow shite, so maybe he should just go away.

You do realize that Sleepy Hollow was someone else's story right?

It still sucked. HARD.

Great.  They applied the America McGee treatment to Willy Wonka.

Ambiguous homosexuality and "gothifying" something doesn't make it delightfully evil.  It makes it doubly gay.

Seek therapy.

The book was already delightfully evil inbetween the lines, you insane bunch of asstards. You all are obviously replacing the book with the movie in your brain. Go back and read the goddamn thing again.

Charlie and the Chocolate Factory was a typical Dahl work :   A fairly easy on the brain childrens story that contained a fuck of a lot of nasty, evil subtext.

Wonka was ALWAYS clearly insane.  He was also quite clearly gayer than a treeful of monkeys.  He was a particularly nasty little sociopath and those here who seem to be delighted by him because 'he makes chocolate!!!!' SHOULD take Schild's advice and read the two books again.

HE WANTED TO STEAL SOMEONE ELSE'S CHILD.  YOU DON'T GET MORE FUCKED UP THAN THAT.

For all the claims here about the 'old' film, I always disliked Gene Wilders portrait of Wonka.  I think it lacked darkness.  Some darkness.  The only bit that I thought was well done was his big-gay  boiled sweet boat ride scene.  

*Disclaimer - haven't checked out the new trailer.  Don't care to either.

I've read the book, and seen the movie. For all the dark subtext that exists in the book, I still think Wilder's version will be superior. It doesn't dispense with the darkness but it doesn't dwell on it, which I believe from the trailer (and past history with Burton) this new movie WILL dwell on it. And revel in it, until any good vibes will be drowned out by overdone weirdness for weirdness' sake.

Which is pretty much Burton's whole schtick. And that was interesting for a while, but like Marilyn Manson, it only works the first couple of times. THEN I WANT SOMETHING NEW.

In other words, get a brand new bag, Burton.

You're playing WoW, am i rite?

It's the new EQ. :)

This tread is horribly mistitled

Whether or not Wonka was evil -- although for your D&Ders, Chaotic Neutral or Chaotic Good might be more appropriate -- isn't the issue.  I think that sinister element was in the Wilder version and I'm quite sure it's in the Depp version.

The question is whether or not Wonka was an eccentric who dressed funny but was otherwise masculine, or if Wonka's fashion sense and manner bordered on the poffish gayness.  While I admit Wonka was a bachelor who took litlte interest in women and preferred the company of children (I know, pedophilia isn't really related, but I throw that out there for the misguided among you), I think he's far closer to being the former than the latter.

Bruce

Willy Wonka was a pedophile like Captain Kangaroo was a pedophile. Wanting to make children happy != Hi, my name is Michael Jackson. I don't recall Willy Wonka asking Charlie to sleep in the same bed.

Though I'm quite sure Tim Burton will try to suggest such a thing if you give him a chance.

Just wait until Burton translates Augustus Gloop "falling in the chocolate river"

EWWWW.










EWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW.....

Poofy?  I'd say downright prissy (the hair, the makeup, the delivery of the line about chewing gum).  Definitely not the Wonka I imagine - Gene Wilder's version was much closer.

Gene Wilder's version was nothing like the book. That's why it's one of the most celebrated CHILDREN'S MOVIES. The book is not the celebrated Dahl work. James and the Giant Peach is - you all should really go read the book again with an adult mind.

I'm going to have to say the original movie captured the dark undertones fairly well, imo.  Geene Wilders character does that subtly insanely evil personality great.  I'm not sure how I'm going to like this new one, and while I think it will probably suck, I'm willing to give it a try.

I can't remember though, in the original book, did Wonka say at the end all the other children were really fine, as he did in the movie?  Or did they all really get killed in horrible ways in the book...

If I remember correctly, in the book the other kids survived, albeit horribly disfigured.

That always bothered me a little.

Mike TV got shrunk and then stretched.
Augustus got squished in a pipe.
Violet got dejuiced and was blue for the rest of her fucking life.

But that little cunt Veruca only got covered in rubbish.


How is that fair ?

Bitch.

Because rich, whiney bitches get away with more bullshit and only have to pay the fine. Paris Hilton is making a career of it.

I thought about this in the shower this morning. The Wonka thing bothers me for the same reason another remake bothers me.

The upcoming remake of The Pink Panther, starring Steve Martin as our favorite Inspector Clouseau. See, Martin is an accomplished comedic actor. He can do physical comedy. And there was nothing especially special about the Pink Panther movies themselves...

except for Peter Sellers.

Now maybe it's because I saw that wonderful little production "The Life of Death of Peter Sellers" on HBO recently, but I've had a rekindling of interest in Sellers lately. My wife has never seen one of his movies, so I'm Netflixing some of the better ones (Strangelove, the original PP).

The man was a fucking genius. He created Clouseau from mostly nothing, a bit part in a David Niven vehicle. It wasn't just speech, it was mannerisms, it was improvisation, it was just genius. Clouseau wasn't funny because he was written funny, he was funny because Peter Sellers inhabited that role. No one, and I mean NO ONE, could do the things he did with it without looking like a pale imitation. Throw in his performances in Lolita, Dr. Strangelove and Being There, and his genius just shines through.

Depp is a fantastic actor, with a wide range. And just like he did with Capt. Jack Sparrow, he can inhabit certain roles. I'd rather never see another Pirates film than see someone else play Sparrow, because it was that good a performance. And the sames goes for Gene Wilder as Wonka.

If the original movie were lost to the sands of time and never available to see, I'd say doing a remake homage would be great, because it's that good a story. But that isn't the case, which just means money grab, both for the Wonka movie and for the Pink Panther movie.

I don't think that your disagreement with the idea of that sort of remake is at all unique. I think that most generations get upset at the idea of business selling off your childhood to the highest bidder.

Yeah, I agree. It's hard to see any reason the Pink Panther should be remade other than ressurecting Peter Sellers. Without him, the movies really aren't that funny. Some remakes turn out for the better, but I highly doubt it in this case -- They could give 100% effort and make the movie truly great on all other points, but without Sellers, it's pointless. IMO, he is one of the top 10 greatest screen actors of all time (again..IMO), and newer audiences are better off just seeing his version.

I'm not sure Wonka necessarily falls in that category though. It's got a legacy of it's own without Gene Wilder. But we'll see, I guess.

Gotta side with Haemish on this one. Why?

The Wizard of Oz. Remake that flick sans Judy Garland, and every last faggo-tron in this thread insisting that remakes are just great would be oozing blood from their eardrums, because their fucking brain would explode upon seeing one of the most memorable performances in film history butchered by some halfwit cockblister like Ashlee Simpson.

Wonka was fine as it was. Sellers didn't need the wild and crazy guy to lay a steaming turd squarely upon his legacy. At least when Leslie Neilsen shat all over Mister McGoo he was only violating a cartoon.

Bring the noise.
Cheers..............

There is a world of difference between re-enacting Wonka and Clouseau. Dahl's stories can survive re-interpretation by different casts to produce multiple worthwhile movies. Maybe Depp will add something - time will tell.

The Pink Panther requires the madcap performances of its original cast to work. Attempting to recreate the antics of the former cast might be a worthwhile challenge for a community theatre, but its hardly dignified in the world of multi-mullion dollar movies.

Enough Wonka. Let's talk about the cube (http://www.apple.com/trailers/sony_pictures/xxx-stateoftheunion/large.html).

Edit: Apparently it's not hard to find someone shittier than Diesel (qualification: When he's not playing Riddick).

This is the man who brought us "Get Off My Dick And Tell Yo Bitch To Come Here". Have you no respect for an artist?

Anyone else think the War of the Worlds remake is gonna blow ass?  I was all hyped for a film authentic to the book (Victorian England vs Martian tripod walkers), but they're setting the remake in modern times.

Dumbasses, we already have that movie.  It's called Independence Day.

Ah, but Peter Jackson's King Kong remake is doing it right.  Unlike that shitty 70's remake, PJ is setting his in the 1930's, as the orignal was.  At the time it was current, obviously, but looking back, the time of the setting now seems vital to the sort of mythic atmosphere it had.

PS:  Chronicles of Riddick fucking owned, critics and box office be damned!

But he was so good in Ghosts of Mars!

Ok, I wasn't upset enough about the xxxxl comments in the other thread to say anything, but the fact that you guys think Ice Cube sucks?

I'm outraged.

I don't give a shit about this movie in particular, but damn, are there more than like 3 people on these boards who don't have an utter disdain for anything or anyone related to hip-hop?

If it makes you feel better, Ice Cube didn't suck "back in the day."

Yes, it's going to suck and Dakota won't save it.

It helps to realise that it's not a remake of the story, it's a remake of the old movie with the tri-eyed chaps.  It's going to be really, really bad.

On the other hand, there's an actual movie in production that's of the novel - the downside is that it looks really cheap and nasty.

Dakota Fanning can save anything.

He took a nose dive somewhere around the time he starred with J. Lo's ass and a giant, computer-generated reptile.

EDIT: Having seen the trailer, that looks like two pounds of monkey ass.

If it makes you feel better, Stray, I'm a big Ice Cube fan.  I saw him live (with WC) and it was a pretty decent show.  I also enjoy any movie he happens to be in.  He's probably the only reason why I kept watching Anaconda after I heard Voight speak in that horrible contrived accent.

The Party (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0063415/)

Definately worth a rent if you are a Sellers fan.  I used to watch him all the time as a kid over at my bud's house (his dad had ALL of Sellers movies).

"Birdie Num Num"

and

"Is that your dog? Does your dog bite?" in that hilarious french accent.  Oh man, Netflix here I come.

Lex and Lois are cast. (http://www.cnn.com/2005/SHOWBIZ/Movies/01/07/film.superman.reut/index.html)


I'm looking forward to Singer and Spacey working together again after "The Usual Suspects".

Willy Wonka sucks, m'kay?  Someone I know who was a big Marilyn Manson fan as an adolescent told me I had to see this with her.  I told her I was hoping her inner goth-child had died by now.  Tim Burton sucks too.  The first Batman was passable, the second was an ugly piece of shit.

Too bad they made a less than inspired decision in casting Supes (I don't care to elaborate).

This movie will blow (literally).

I'm sure you're referring to this (http://www.tinmanic.com/archives/2004/11/18/brandon-routh-rumor/).

How about we wait for the movie and see if his ACTING is any good, you bigot.

What? You want a hug from me too?

But the real question:  Does he kill Lex Luthor by shooting a gerbil at him from his ass at mach 17?

Kevin Spacey as Lex Luthor with Bryan Singer directing it will trump any gerbil ass expulsion the movie might suffer from.

The first Burton Batman flick was a fairly serious re-telling of the origin story, and was intended to be darker and decidedly non-campy, in stark contrast to the old Adam West Batman series.

Batman Returns started with the same kind of feel, though the kitty cat CPR on Michelle Pfieffer, as well as some of the over-the-top "let's make the penguin into an actual penguin-human mutant" stuff sucked ass. Plus, Michelle Pfieffer's catwoman is one of the only reasons to watch Returns today. Her skintight leather-clad catwoman became the new standard for the character, right up until Halle Berry took a steaming dump on it in 2004.

The same cannot be said for DeVito's Penguin....the costume, the penguin rocket launchers, the rubber ducky tank...that's what ruined the film, and seemingly inspired the campy tone of Batman Forever and Batman & Robin. Those two pungent piles of shit are barely even worthy of mention here.

I see Batman Begins as another shot at doing a serious take on Batman....albeit that we're back to the origin story again. Bale's Batman looks to be more in the vein Kilmer was shooting for.....to show the Dark Knight as a dark, brooding real person. Unfortunately, Kilmer's Batman was a bit wooden, and surrounded by unmitigated suck. In contrast, you had Clooney and Keaton, who were basically just a case of putting the actor into a suit and saying "OMG LOOK, IT R TEH BATMAN".

Bring the noise.
Cheers.............

Aww, Keaton had his moments. Perhaps he wasn't a good Batman (that suit didn't help either), but I think he was the most believable Bruce Wayne.

EDIT: LOL. Lum's Law still applies, I see.

Does Sam Jackson read anything about the movies he signs onto nowadays besides the amount on the check, or what?  

And unless it's the sequal to Boondock Saints, Willem Dafoe needs to stay the fuck out of action films.

No, motherfucker, now where's my goddamn check? Do they speak English in what?

Sam Jackson said he would play Luke Skywalker's SLAVE just to be in a Star Wars movie. Whereas if you'd told him that he was being cast as a casting director on any other movie, he'd probably punch your lights out.



Fixed that for you.

Willem Dafoe is better off voice acting. I just can't stand looking at the guy.

You of all people should know that NOBODY FUCKS WITH THE JESUS. Especially not Martin Scorsese's Jesus.

It's cool, Way, I'm on the motherfucker....just chill your ass out, and wait for the Judas who will be arriving directly.

Bring the noise.
Cheers............

You sendin' the Judas? Sheeeit, DV- that's all you had to say!

(http://www.f13.net/images/dontpanic.jpg)

NEW WALLPAPER!

That's a solid conception of Marvin.  My hopes rise.

http://www.darkhorizons.com/news05/050107d.php

Seems he doesn't sign on some out of severe hatred, which is always a good thing.

Also, am I alone in thinking that the person responsible for reteaming Sam Rockwell and Alan Rickman in Hitchhiker is a motherfucking genius?  I mean, it's like another Galaxy Quest, almost.

Fuck you George Lucas. Fuck you George Lucas. Fuck you George Lucas. Fuck you George Lucas. Fuck you George Lucas. Fuck you George Lucas. Fuck you George Lucas. Fuck you George Lucas. Fuck you George Lucas. Fuck you George Lucas. Fuck you George Lucas. Fuck you George Lucas. Fuck you George Lucas. Fuck you George Lucas. Fuck you George Lucas. Fuck you George Lucas. Fuck you George Lucas. Fuck you George Lucas.  (http://www.starwars.com/collecting/news/hasbro/news20050113.html)



(http://www.starwars.com/collecting/news/hasbro/img/20050113_1_bg.jpg)

Wow.

Come on, with Lucas is has ALWAYS been about the merchandising, no matter how absurd. I think the worst I ever saw was the "Jar Jar french kiss candy sucker" where his tongue was candy and you had to open his mouth and, well, suck his tongue.

Wasn't George's favorite SW fan film about a kid getting a bunch of Star Wars toys on Christmas morning?

Wow. He is really just raping the bejeesus  out of the corpse that is was my warm feelings for the Star Wars franchise.. I bet Mark Hamill will get a cameo  in Ep III as Cock Knocker.

Hahahahaha, Darth is a potato head.

Luke <breathing sound> I am your father! Join me and we can rule the galaxy as tater and tater-tot!

Regarding Batman Begins:

I await with bated breath.  Please, do not disappoint me.  Please.  I really, really want this movie to be amazing.  I have such high hopes.  Bale is good.  Nolan is good.  Please, please be good.

Regarding Mr. Wonka:

I've heard a few people tossing around a 'fact' that Mr. Dahl himself disliked the Wilder version of the film.  That could be true, or it could be one of those rumors that starts on the 'net and everyone just buys without questioning it.  I tried to find a direct quote but, let's face it, that's not happening.  So can anyone here validate the truth of that statement?  If it is true, wouldn't it seem that there is a call for a remake (even if it's one from beyond the icy clutch of the grave)?  

Certainly if the author of the original story believes that a film did not portray his story accurately, it's not out of the realm of reason to expect that one might wish to attempt to create a film more loyal to the core concepts of the book.

But you are right- Tim has been slipping for a while, and there is great potential for this to be Not So Good.  Big Fish wasn't a bad film, though, so hopefully he learned his lesson with Planet of the Apes.  With any luck, the film WON'T end with a shot of a Lincoln Memorial that looks suspiciously reminiscent of Wonka.

Regarding Roald Dahl not liking the Gene Wilder version, it is mentioned in passing in his biography on his official site which is supported by his estate:

Here (http://www.roalddahl.com/)

Also, a quote from the trivia section of IMDB:

"Roald Dahl was reportedly so angry with the treatment of his book (mainly stemming from the massive rewrite by David Seltzer) that he refused permission for the book's sequel, Charlie and the Great Glass Elevator, to be filmed. Seltzer had an idea for a new sequel, but legal issues meant that it never got off the ground."


I'd say it's probably true since I've never heard a single person claim he liked it. I think, from what little I've seen, that the Tim Burton version has a good possibility of being the "book" version. Different movies, different times.

As for Batman Begins:

I'm there on opening day. Christian Bale, Gary Oldman, Morgan Freeman, Liam Neeson, Ken Watanabe...

They'd have to work very hard to screw this up with this cast.

I am not however, looking forward to Hitchhikers guide to the galaxy. The book mostly inspired lukewarm smiles from me and I don't see it translating well to the big screen. It needs to live in the imagination.

Still looking forward to Sin City a lot more than Batman Begins.  Even if BB is a great movie, it'll still just be a great Batman movie.  It just doesn't seem anywhere near as ambitious as Sin City does.  It also doesn't help that Marvel is continuing to try to run superhero movies into the ground before DC has even gotten back in the game.

DC has been trying as hard as possible to run super hero tv shows into the ground for the past 30 years. Marvel's track record - with TWO good movies is more than DC can vouch for. They gave us Batman and Batman Returns. The second of which is likeable only if you have a deeper understanding of German Impressionism.

As far as the other arguments someone might make against my TV comment - Adam West and Christopher Reeves were horrible superheroes. Though, later, I will admit to digging Lois and Clark and the new series Smallville (comparatively new, I guess).

I've really love someone to dig into the Dark Horse archive - Usagi Yojimbo, Grendel. Well, I'd really just like them to stop digging into the stupid shit in the Dark Horse archive.

Also, someone needs to kick Peter Eastman and Kevin Laird around until they actually make the ORIGINAL TMNT comic books into a film.

(http://www.ninjaturtles.com/comics/mirage/volume01/01/01cover.jpg)

That one.

Edit: The above post really doesn't make much sense - except for the ninja turtles part, and I apologize for that. To clarify, Spiderman and Spiderman 2 were better than anything DC has given us. I can only hope that Batman Begins is 10% as good as the aforementioned. At least then it will be on par with Michael Keaton's Batman.

Turtles in a half shell, turtle power!

And I feel kind of dirty being tricked into thinking whatever was up there was cool when it turned out to be Batman.  Dirty I tell you.

I agree completely that DC has been the King of crap superhero TV, but with the way Batman Begins is shaping up, stealing Bryan Singer away from X-men for Superman, and now from what I hear, hiring Joss Whedon to do Wonder Woman it seems like they're actually putting some effort into their movies.  Maybe the disaster that was Catwoman was enough to make them realize they can't just churn out crap and slap a comic book name on it.  Meanwhile what do we have on the way from Marvel?  We have Man-thing and what will probably be pretty bad Fantastic Four movie.  Oddly enough though I just went to Marvel's website and they've got three ad's for Catwoman on the front page getting about as much space on there as Elektra.

Just out of curiousity though, I thought I recalled you liking Smallville or at least an episode of it, but I could be thinking of someone else.



I have all but the last two trades of Usagi.  Probably the only comic I've bought consistently since I was young.  Dark Horse is also putting out a hell of a good Conan comic right now as well as reprinting a lot of the old Marvel stuff.



That could be a little tricky though since they'd either have to tell a bunch of different stories or throw in a bunch of filler if they just want to focus on Shredder since if I remember right he died at the end of the first issue and it wasn't all that plot heavy.

And I agree that the Spiderman movies have probably been the best Superhero movies made.  I will give Marvel credit for letting Raimi do the movies for their flagship character.  If only all their decisions were this inspired.

I can agree with 99% of what you just said, except one thing: Joss Whedon can't do shit with material that's not his own.

Edit: Mostly because he stumbles through his own. It takes him 123987123712 episodes to tell a cohesive story. Two hours would fucking kill him. I expect the firefly movie to need an entire 7 season tv show to make any sense.

I'll admit, in this instance I'm basing my faith in Whedon off his current run on Astonishing X-men, which has been the only time in my history of reading comics I've actually gone out of my way to pick up an X-men book.  Not sure if you've read those or not.

I stopped reading XMen after issue 4 of X-Men Unlimited, also coincided with issue 50 of wolverine. I think both series jumped the shark at that point. That was pretty much the end of my comic reading days, though I'll go out of my way to sit in a shop and catch up on Usagi Yojimbo, among other things.

There is something missing from modern comics. Oh, wait I think I found it.

My childhood innocence.

Edit: Fucking Marvel. It looks like an X-Men Unlimited with Juggernaut came out in goddamn November of 2004. That's not what I'm talking about. If I can find a cover of the Unlimited series I'm referring to (from 1996 or so) I'll post it.

Edit: Issue #4 of this series:
(http://gjeanmarc.free.fr/vo/xmenunlimited/1.jpg)

Here's issue 3 - to date - the best comic book cover I've ever seen:

(http://gjeanmarc.free.fr/vo/xmenunlimited/3.jpg)

And here's the last X-Men I read:

(http://gjeanmarc.free.fr/vo/xmenunlimited/4.jpg)

And that's obviously Wolverine #50. I'm sure everyone here remembers - and probably has it.

(http://users.ev1.net/~whitskee/Wcomics/wolverine50.jpg)

The last Superman I bought and read?

(http://www.alteredrealms.com/comics/imagessmall/superman_11_back_from_dead_special.jpg)

All of the best stuff, imo, came out around the same time in my youth. Maybe it was just the time of my life. But I have multiples of both the Wolverine #50 and Superman #500 for reading and keeping safe. I thought both storylines were just the cats meow.

I've been thinking of picking up some Sandman stuff. But to be honest, a comic book would have to be really goddamn incredible these days for me to enjoy it. So if there's any compendiums or something anyone would recommend. I may actually take some time off of reading books and delve into some comics.

It's like any other form of entertainment really, be it movies, music, books, or television.  You just have to weed out the crap, especially in the mainstream.  There are still comics out there worth reading.  Conan, The Walking Dead, Astonishing X-men and Usagi to name a few.  Hell, I've been reading a lot of really positive reviews on Captain Fucking America lately (something so shocking that I've actually had to order a few issues now to find out for myself).  And then there's the massive amounts of crap like Spiderman finding out his dead girlfriend Gwen Stacy had pity sex with Norman Osborn (the Green Goblin) and got pregnant with twins who rapidly aged to adulthood.  That not only pisses on your childhood innocence, it beats and rapes your inner child and then goes back to pissing on your childhood innocence.

IMO the time for superhero comics was the late 70s to mid-80s. Late 80s onwards seemed to just spiral towards garbage in accelerating fashion. The few years leading up the formation of Image comics everything started going to hell

Marvel has no clue what to do with Spider-Man anymore. He got married, was a clone, etc. They've done "I'm giving up being Spider-Man" a few times, as well as "wow I lost my powers", "my wife got kidnapped again"...pretty much every storyline they can think of they've done 3 times already, so they have to come up with some truly wack shit like the cloning and Gwen Stacy stuff.

Funny, I think the same thing, but I haven't read any of the X-Men issues you mentioned. What's the significance of Wolverine #50 anyways? I had the first few issues of Wolverine when that series first came out, but that wasn't long before I quit reading comics.

*wonders what Wolverine #1 is worth*

Anyways, 15 years later I pick up Preacher on a whim and was just blown away. After that, I got into comics again last summer...but my interest has already died out. I made the mistake of thinking all comics had evolved in something like Preacher over the years, but I was wrong. Most of that stuff is probably best off where I left it: In my childhood.

I'm sure Velorath is right though, I just need to weed out the bad stuff. Though for myself, I'd make it a rule to stay away from superhero stuff. Movies are cool and shit, but that's only once in a while.

I'm going to take a moment to give our friends to the east a nod. The FLCL Manga and subsequent cartoon are as good, if not superior, to any comic I've ever read.

Oh and props to Hunter X Hunter - the entire series. Also, Fullmetal Alchemist. The basis of a game coming out this Tuesday - localized by Squeenix. I'm excited, in a dorky, ex-anime fan sort of way.

Best comic I've read within the last couple years:
(http://www.silverbulletcomicbooks.com/ambi/images/AgentX.jpg)

Brilliant, hilarious writing.  A parody of... well, everything that comics are, really.  Especially notable moments include Agent X fighting a pair of motorcycle riding japanese assassin anime girls sporting Hello Kitty accessories.  "Punctured lung is not for happy party time go!"

If anyone's looking to get back into comic reading, pick up any of these (as long as the writing credit is Gail Simone... two or three were written by some other hacks).  Unfortunately, they probably won't be easy to find.

The Deadpool comics written by Gail Simone are also classic.  Same story arc, really.

Personal favorite moment:
Agent X is hired by a business man to assassinate a rival business man.  This rival is actually directly across from Agent X's employer- as in, their buildings are right next to each other and their windows view right into one another.  As his employer is going on about the necessity of subtlety in this operation, and how it must be in no way able to be traced back to him, Agent X is building a small ramp from random pieces of furniture in the office.  He wheels in his goped (scooter, whatever) and launches himself off the ramp, through the window, across the space between the two buildings (yelling out "SO MANLY!" as he does) and directly into the opposing building.  The assassination... doesn't go very smoothly.

Sorry for the fairly unrelated plug.  There just aren't enough people who've read those, though, so I find myself painfully unable to make references.

Well, back when we were kids I know most of us probably picked up comics based on the characters we like and probably almost never looked at who was actually writing it.  These days I look for authors whose work I like, read several different review columns, and before torrent sites started getting cracked down on, those with looser morals could even download and read comics before buying them.

Director: "Oh God.  Ok.  Lets just keep Alba in front of the Thing as much as we can.  Christ." (http://www.thesuperficial.com/archives/20050114ff1.jpg)

As far as the X-Men books, for my money, nothing beats the Silvestri/Claremont era.  Lee's run after Silvestri wasn't too bad either.

Ya know, no matter how ya slice it, imo, Fantastic Four already sucked. We don't need a movie. Wonder Woman sucks. She should never be mentioned again. I couldn't care less about X-Factor or any of the other X sideprojects - never have, never will. Don't give two shits about Ghost Rider either.

Why? They were all paler versions of the main characters that companies were publishing stories about. Most of the mainstream stuff in Marvel and DCs stable are just cripple versions of X-Men, Spiderman, Superman and Batman.

They really have to reach into other brands to start pulling out characters I care about.

Like Archie and the gang. That Jughead is an absolute riot.

Well, except the Fantastic Four. They, along with Sub-Mariner and Captain America, were the first things Marvel ever did. They predate the X-Men and Spider-Man by almost 20 years.

I still agree though. It's not a good for a movie.

Although the Fantastic Four's Human Torch was obviously a bit of a retread of Marvel's original Human Torch.  Also, while the Sub-Mariner, the original Human Torch, and Cap all predate Spider-man and the X-men by a good about, the FF only appeared less than year before Spider-man debuted in Amazing Fantasy.

I wasn't much of a comic fan as a child, but my uncle had a million of them.  I did really like Fantastic Four.  I disliked the Submariner very much... he was very elfy looking.  Even back then I knew there was something bad about elves.

(http://www.pjfarmer.com/secret/marvelous/SubMariner-sm3.jpg)

I too am skeptical of a successful Hitch Hiker's translation to the theaters.  Most of the book's charm lay in its narrative, and that doesn't work very well with movies.

Now, I did like the '81 version, but it was a TV series originally, and struck me as an attempt to be very faithful to the book.  For this version, we'll have to see if significant elements are changed to work with a big budget movie format.

If everyone is sick and tired of Marvel and DC (Im getting tired of DC but some of the new Marvel keeps me going) what about the newer publishers and their more...adult-oriented material?

Darkhorse
Image
Anamgalm
Selfpublished (Strangers In Paradise, etc)

Personally I like alot of the new Image stuff, and Darkhorse is truly starting to become an "older/mature" comics publisher for older readers that grew up on them.

When it come to comics, my list goes like this:

Luther Arkwright
Brainstorm
Watchmen
The Invisibles
V for Vendetta
Sandman
Electric Soup
Northern Lights
Oor Wullie

All later period British comic books. Most comic fans know the ones by Moore, Morrison and Gaiman. Everybody should learn about those of Bryan Talbot (http://www.bryan-talbot.com/).

Willy wonka, gay pron and comic books. This thread has it all.

Ian the triffed in the Fantastic Four? Are there trailers out for this yet?

Oh and whoever takes over for Bryan Singer on Xmen 3 better no f**k it up or I will kill them.

I like Conan, Usagi, and the B.P.R.D./Hellboy stuff from Dark Horse.  From Image like I've mentioned, I read Walking Dead, they just put out some new Flaming Carrot stuff, and I'm sure they have other good stuff I just haven't read it.

Not much I read from DC.  Read Identity Crisis mostly because of the hype.  Checking out Green Lantern:  Rebirth for much the same reason.  Surprisingly I think JSA is probably the best comic out there if you're just looking for good superhero stuff.  More importantly it doesn't read like it's ashamed to be a superhero comic like so many others do these days.  If you see some trades in the bookstore, flip through them even if you aren't into DC (which I'm not).  Kurt Busiek is also supposed to have some more Astro City stuff coming out sometime.

DC's best stuff usually comes out of their Vertigo line, and while I don't think anything has matched Preacher, you might want to give The Losers, and Y the Last Man a try.

Very few things I'm reading from Marvel these days.  Thunderbolts is good for classic superhero type action with the twist of several old Marvel villains trying to reform.  I've also already mentioned Astonishing X-men.

That's just the current stuff that I'm readingand not even getting into the 11GB of Conan stuff I'm going through while waiting for Dark Horse to release more Conan TPB's.  Like I said though, there's good stuff out there it's just a matter of weeding through the crap.

Good list.
I'd add Preacher to it myself.
Last time I met Neil Gaiman (notice how I constructed the sentence to underline, that this has happened more than once) we ended up talking only about Bryan Talbot. Especially The Tale of One Bad Rat.
I have a Sandman påaperback signed by Talbot, Gaiman and McKean... and I've never meet Talbot - but his wife taught classes at my department at the university.

What was the subject again?
Oh yes. Like the first Batman, loved the second and hated the rest. And as Schild said, there really isn't that many second tier superheroes from the big publishers worthy of a film.

I first met Bryan Talbot at a small comic convention in Glasgow. I was lucky enough to get to read his unedited and upcoming (at the time) Nemesis the Warlock work months before they were published. He's a very personable chap.

Now I guess I'll have to find copies of Preacher since I'm unfamiliar with it.

Preacher kicks all kind of ass. To the point that I'm sorry that Ennis went on to do the Punisher, because really, that's a character in need of a good permanent vacation.

Whedon's Astonishing X-Men will show you all you need to know about how well Whedon handles someone else's characters. Namely, quite fucking well, provided he likes them.

For good comic stuff I've read recently:
Invincible
Anything by Geoff Johns
Anything by Grant Morrison
Anything by Kurt Busiek
Anything by Mark Waid

Invincible really is a big sleeper surprise for me. It's an Image superhero book, about a teenager whose father is a superhero (that world's equivalent of Superman). The kid gets superpowers as well, and it just goes from there. It's really top-notch stuff.

I do hope you've all read Transmetropolitan.

(http://www.burburinho.com/img/nn020510.jpg)

Given this board's affection for Fear & Loathing and that the main character of this book is based on a particular journalist portrayed by Depp in that film.

I've read the older Marvel stuff, which was OK (Welcome Back Frank is cool and all, but nothin' like Preacher), but I noticed that they moved Ennis' series to Marvel Max. Has it gotten better or worse?



I think Astonishing sucks because I think the art sucks. I have the first couple issues, but I couldn't stick with it. Good writing or not.

You don't like John Cassady's artwork? PHILISTINE!

Well the Fantastic Four trailer (http://www.apple.com/trailers/fox/fantastic_four/FF_large.html) is up now.  Doesn't look as bad as I thought it would, but it's still the Fantastic Four and I still can't bring myself to care all that much about it.

Whedon's Xmen has me tempted to buy a comic again for the first time in over a decade. I was looking through it in a store and caught myself going "I wonder what is going to happen to Kitty in the next issue?"

Good sign that.

That Fantastic Four trailer got me a bit excited. I still think the Thing doesn't look quite right; he's too sheeny, too latexy. But the other effects looked decent. The trailer needed more of the actors speaking, because you get nothing of their characters through that.

Instantly suspicious.

I don't trust trailers with barely any dialogue.  That tells me that they had such a hard time finding decent dialogue, they decided just to go with action shots.  Last movie that did this: Catwoman.

I like the song they picked, but I doubt it's in the film.  That's another reason to be suspicious.

I'm predicting a very mediocre film indeed, not that you have to be psychic to predict that yet another superhero film will suck.

The song was the remixed "Counting bodies like sheep" by A Perfect Circle.  I'm not sure how they got Maynard and Co. to let them use their song, but I suspect pacts with the devil were involved.

Also Marvel related, Mile High comics has a lot of new full issue previews (http://milehighcomics.com/firstlook/marvel/) to check out.  Some decent stuff there, some ok issues, and some crap.