Now that You mention the Demon Etrigan, much as I hate to say it, I think filmmakers would feel hesitant at producing a film which is so blatantly satanic. By that, I mean where the demon is a "hero." On the other hand, it's alright if the demon is a villain, but to portray him as a hero would be too much. That's why DC's movie of Jonah Hex failed so miserably at the box office.

Oh, I suspect Jonah Hex failed miserably for reasons other than that. (Like just being a simply awful movie!)

It was pretty awful.

So, are you ready for Captain Marvel? (Marvels most POWERFUL Super hero!)

https://ew.com/movies/2018/09/05/captain......-larson/

Click here to view attached image.

I remember Ronda Rowsey expressing interest in the roll.

DC's Doom Patrol to become live action TV series:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/deadline.co......702/amp/

More bad news for DC.

"The DCEU, As We Once Knew It, Appears To Be Done"

https://www.cinemablend.com/news/2457426......-is-done

Did she express interest in the butter as well?

How about the marmalade?

I expect that DC will rebuild and come back, but they need to take a good look at what they are doing and come back high quality. Justice League was not a bad movie, it just needed to be better and wasn't. Someone else can play Superman. After all, who is your favorite James Bond? That franchise is still running after 6 actors and 55 years.

This one was not even auto correct. It was not gorilla fingers either. It was my brain working at maximum capacity!

Mission Impossible or Watchmen? DC needs to make up its mind about comic book heroes. It's about how the characters work for the audience.
*
*



*****************
Here's a different opinion on classic characters: TL:DR the stories need to work for the audience, the archetypes are fine.
https://chasemagnett.wordpress.com/2014/......ne-else/

In the comics world things have moved on. Delight became Delirium in the mythical past. All-Star Superman was nostalgia. And the third of Matt Wagner's Mage stories is happening.

Of course they could do something like Wonder Woman as secret agent of a high-tech Themyscira. They could do stories from the point of view of a truly fast Flash who sees us as statues whenever he moves. They could even do the Forever People as comedy.

It starts with a watchable cast. Look back at the Harry Potter movie cast for a working example. Marvel did a great job in 2008 presenting Robert Downy Jr as Tony Stark/Iron Man and Samuel L. Jackson as Nick Fury. The cast needs to be watchable. The cast for Captain America and Thor are similarly interesting. Notice which characters stay with the story and which are left in background.

The story needs to work as an episode of something in a universe that has some context. What's there at the start and what background features are developed?

The Marvel movies also work in terms of world building and character progression. At the end of the first Iron Man movie you get both win for Iron Man and hints about S.H.I.E.L.D. / Nick Fury. Contrast that with the Batman and Superman movies with play out as dramatic ordeals.

Maybe Marvel got lucky in quickly identifying what movie watchers enjoyed about Iron Man 1/2. Remember they also did a Fantastic Four and Spiderman movie that did not play so well for fans.

Okay DC can try again with the dark night detective, the orphaned alien and some heroes who deliberately stay in the shadows. They have the stories. They need a cast.

The trailer has landed. (And much earlier than anticipated!)

The official trailer for Captain Marvel was released today:



That's the next MCU movie, before Avengers 4.

- Donald

Marlana and I watched Justice League a couple of nights ago.

A couple of things struck me in the comparison of DC to Marvel. If these have already been explored to death here, I apologize: I decided not to plow through 50 pages.

The first was the costumes: for the most part, DC's superheroes' costumes are awful. Textured, glittery, over-the-top awful. Compare, say, Superman's to Spiderman's; Superman loses hands down.

The second was the overall tone: DC's is much darker than Marvel's. That may be deliberate, and it may reflect the tones of the comic books themselves, but I suspect that there's a much larger viewing audience who prefer Marvel's lighter tone to DC's darker.

At least, I do.

The tone was definitely deliberate. I believe it was an attempt to differentiate themselves from Marvel and not necessarily a bad idea although it doesn't seemed to have panned out very well. It does not necessarily reflect the comic books themselves although comic book tone varies greatly from writer to writer, not so much from within a particular brand. I do think that many of DC's stories that have been 'dark', have been some of the most critically acclaimed stories and that could have been a factor in their decision to try and take their movies in that direction also.

Regarding Marvel Studios.

Keep in mind that the Fantastic Four movies aren't considered to be a part of MCU. Marvel Studios were involved, but the movies were from 20th Century Fox.

The X-Men movie series is also from 20th Century Fox, with involvement from Marvel Studios. But, it's not a part of the MCU either.

Also, most of the Spiderman movies (3 with Tobey Maguire and 2 with Andrew Garfield) aren't considered to be a part of MCU. They were from Sony, with involvement from Marvel Studios.

I think because those other studios were involved, it charges the final product.

All of the MCU movies were from Marvel Studios. "Spider-man: Homecoming" was a MCU project from Sony & Marvel Studios working together (that was the arrangement they had, so they could use the character in "Captain America: Civil War", "Avengers: Infinity War", etc. and cross over some characters from MCU into the Spider-man movies), but all of the other MCU movies were from Marvel Studios only.

The upcoming "Venom" is from Columbia / Sony, isn't considered to be a part of MCU but is related to the Spider-man universe re-launched in "Spider-man: Homecoming". Read the page I've linked to for their explanation.

So, my point is that it can get a little confusing comparing some movies with Marvel characters with other movies with Marvel characters, because they don't all have the same studio / creative team behind them.

- Donald

P.S. An example of this confusion also exists in DC movies. Currently, there is a series of DCEU (DC Extended Universe) movies. We've had "Man of Steel", "Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice", "Suicide Squad", "Wonder Woman", & "Justice League". And upcoming movies are "Aquaman" (2018), "Shazam!" (2019), and "Wonder Woman 1984" (2019). However, another DC movie coming out in 2019 is about the "Joker", and it's not going to be a part of the DCEU. It's not the same actor who played the Joker in Suicide Squad, etc. Something odd is that the DCEU movies and the Joker movie are all from the same studio, Warner Brothers.

The trailer for Captain Marvel shows the white and green costume. Big nod to longtime fans there.

I get it that you're saying Captain America is not going to turn into a fire creature and fly. And Magneto is not retiring to Middle Earth after taking Thor into the future so he can be a starship captain.

Meanwhile in DC comics there's a Watchmen crossover happening - and a new League of Extraordinary Gentlemen story. Both have potential as big screen stories.

Thanks for mentioning the new League of E-G, Jonathan. I thoroughly enjoyed their first movie, and so agree with you that a sequel would be well-deserved.
As I see it,the Invisible Man in that League was an improvement over the original one who wore Bandages because the new one, Rodney Skinner, applies a white greasepaint to make his face visible. That way, we can at least see facial expressions as compared with the original Bandaged one, John Griffin. Along those lines, I vaguely recall another movie where it was a Lady who became Invisible and also applied facial makeup to appear as normal. The difference is that instead of using white grease paint, she used regular Cosmetics that ladies use. This makes me wonder, which one was the first to use the idea of facial application to make the face appear normal? Was it the movie about the Lady or was it the gent from the League of Extraordinary Gentlemen? I don't know because I don't remember the title of the movie about the Lady.

So, did anyone notice that 20th Century Fox recently released a trailer for "Dark Phoenix" (the next X-Men movie), and then changed the release date the next day, from February 2019 to June 2019? And they also pushed back the release date for "The New Mutants" to August 2019. If I recall correctly, this is the second or third time their release dates have been pushed back. I wonder if it's because the trailers aren't being well received?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-Men_(fil......ng_films

http://www.themagiccafe.com/forums/viewt......t=600#14

http://www.themagiccafe.com/forums/viewt......rt=820#4



- Donald

P.S. The trailer for "The New Mutants" was released back in October 2017.