Wolverine wasn't produced by Marvel/Disney, and neither was First Class.
Also, Men In Black was based on a Malibu Comics series.
I've got two guns pointed west and a broken compass.Some people think the first Hulk never happened but The Incredible Hulk was in fact a direct sequel.
More Buscemi at http://forum.reelsociety.com/
It's considered a sequel in broad strokes.
Hulk was pretty decent, except for that WTF ending. So were the Punisher movies.
I don't think Disney had much to do with the quality of Marvel's films other then possibly raising the budgets for them.
Speaking of Hulk, who do you think will play Banner in his next appearance?
edited 12th Oct '11 9:01:15 AM by NULLcHiLD27
Much as I loved this year's lineup, I'm bemused that your definition of "all the best" leaves out X2 and Spider-Man (really? Those were let-downs?).
Based on your own data, it looks like they had a good run 2000-2005, a slump 2005-2008, and picked up again 2008-present.
edited 12th Oct '11 9:55:47 AM by jewelleddragon
Planescape Hijack
I didn't recognize the guy, but it's not Edward Norton, and that's kind of disappointing. Edward Norton and Robert Downey Jr. playing off each other would be amazing.
Apparently it's someone named Mark Ruffalo.
edited 12th Oct '11 12:57:02 PM by Haven
Productivity is for people without internet connections. -Count DorkuThe film rights to the X-Men and Fantastic Four continue to be held by FOX, and Spider-Man and Ghost Rider by Sony, so there's no causal relationship between the Disney merger and the quality of those four franchises.
“Love is the eternal law whereby the universe was created and is ruled.” — St. BernardRuffalo also looks nothing like Norton.
I would love to write a Gambit movie one of these days (he's my favorite X-Men character) but I'd rather wait until Fox loses the rights. Fox is known for interfering with projects and Marvel's indie projects tend to be more faithful to the source material.
More Buscemi at http://forum.reelsociety.com/Dark Knight was not the first truly serious comic book movie. Batman Begins would have to not exist if it was. Of course the Punisher was truly serious by those standards and it was out in the 80s. Yeah, the local news update got three movies somehow, two of them had the same plot.
How was Ironman cheesy besides having a sense of humor? Ironman Two I'll give you(It was pretty good but it had its fair share of cheese) Also, Ironman came before Dark Knight.
And then just how much are you willing to excuse? Were the exploding heads in Blade really cheesier than Two Face's unrealistic burn? Why, because the former was played for laughs?
Modified Ura-nage, Torture RackSo you're blaming the slump in the last two years on Disney? You have some idea of how long it takes to make a film right now, right? Especially effects-heavy movies like superhero films?
Being generous, we might be seeing Disney's influence start to enter into the movies this year and next year. Two to three years is enough time to affect the course of a film on a deeper level than some edits and line rewrites.
The X-Men are franchised out to a different company, so they don't have anything to do with Disney/Marvel. In fact, I'm pretty sure every character Marvel has the rights to are included in Avengers, except maybe the Fantastic Four franchise.
Fresh-eyed movie blogFox still has the Fantastic Four, and they're working on a reboot to get them.
I've got two guns pointed west and a broken compass.Patty Jenkins (she directed Monster) has been confirmed to direct Thor 2. This might be one of the most interesting choices for a tentpole release in recent memory.
More Buscemi at http://forum.reelsociety.com/

Guys, I hate to be the one to say this. I really do. You have no idea. Even though Disney gave me most of my childhood, and a few great video games, they are an all-dominating company that took years to start producing good movies again instead of stupid crap, not to mention their problems with racism in films. There have been a lot of bad movies this millennium, and Disney was behind several of them, being such a large company.
But as I was walking home today, I was reflecting on Marvel's recent comic book movies compared to their older stuff. Before you get nitpicky, I know that Marvel had a successful run of movies based on their comics before 2000 (Men In Black, The Blade series) along with a slew of bad ones (The first Captain America film, the first Fantastic Four film, and (shudder) Howard The Duck). But all their movies released after 2000 were let-downs. Now, they're starting to get good. What changed? I wondered. As I reflected on all this, an odd correlation occurred to me...followed by a sense of dread and jubilation rolled into one.
All the best successful Marvel films in this century were released after Disney bought Marvel Comics.
On a personal note, I hate very few of the Marvel comics films. But there's a big difference between a film being enjoyable and a film being good, and they don't always go hand-in-hand. This is a comparison based on quality of acting, dialogue, effects, and emotional investment in the film.
Draw your own conclusions, make arguments, but above all, note the correlation.
edited 11th Oct '11 1:51:38 PM by burinnu
I'm in your fanfiction, correcting your spelling.