Marvel Comics on Film

Discuss films of the 21st century including current cinema, current filmmakers, and film festivals.
Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
thirtyframesasecond
Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2007 1:48 pm

Re: Marvel Comics on Film

#251 Post by thirtyframesasecond » Wed Oct 10, 2018 4:30 pm

Hardy's a weird one. Besides Bronson and the Nolan films he doesn't have much of a filmography, yet he's a big name. I saw a trailer for that romcom he did with Witherspoon and Pine; they're both spies, stringing her along. I assume that will be his one and only effort in that genre.

User avatar
tenia
Ask Me About My Bassoon
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 11:13 am

Re: Marvel Comics on Film

#252 Post by tenia » Thu Oct 11, 2018 3:58 am

If I'm not mistaken, he's famous also for Warrior, Lawless, Fury Road and The Revenant, and I seem to remember Locke wasn't too badly received as well. It certainly isn't a massively successful filmo, but it seems to be enough to make a recongizable face for the audience.

User avatar
reaky
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 8:53 am
Location: Cambridge, England

Re: Marvel Comics on Film

#253 Post by reaky » Thu Oct 11, 2018 5:27 am

I’d say his signature role is in the TV series Taboo, which he stalks through like a timebomb. He’s often touted as a future Bond, and I know a good number of women who fancy the pants off him.

User avatar
DarkImbecile
LightGenius
Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2013 6:24 pm
Location: Albuquerque, NM

Re: Marvel Comics on Film

#254 Post by DarkImbecile » Thu Oct 11, 2018 10:18 am

Also, “and the Nolan films” encompasses several hundred million tickets sold (too say nothing of home video copies and streaming) all by themselves, which goes a long way toward making one a big name.

User avatar
Big Ben
Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2016 12:54 pm
Location: Great Falls, Montana

Re: Marvel Comics on Film

#255 Post by Big Ben » Thu Oct 11, 2018 10:33 am

Hardy is a good actor in my opinion who occasionally takes on some real WTF projects. Him taking on the role as Venom was because his son is a fan of the character.

User avatar
tenia
Ask Me About My Bassoon
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 11:13 am

Re: Marvel Comics on Film

#256 Post by tenia » Thu Oct 11, 2018 10:41 am

DarkImbecile wrote:
Thu Oct 11, 2018 10:18 am
Also, “and the Nolan films” encompasses several hundred million tickets sold (too say nothing of home video copies and streaming) all by themselves, which goes a long way toward making one a big name.
It does make for a lot of tickets sold, but it also doesn't make for a lot of movies (and I'd argue that Dunkirk isn't really a front for Hardy considering his very limited screentime in this one). Lots and lots of actors have been lucky to get one or two roles selling tons of tickets and not much else, so in this regard, it can be fair to ponder that yes, they're huge sellers, but they're also "only" 3 movies.

User avatar
Mr Sausage
Not PETA approved
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Marvel Comics on Film

#257 Post by Mr Sausage » Thu Oct 11, 2018 1:28 pm

Tom Hardy is an odd phenomenon: an eccentric character actor who's become a popular leading man. I'm sure his charisma and good looks have helped him in this, but it is notable how weird and unglamorous a lot of his more popular performances are, and how unafraid he is to use peculiar and difficult vocal characteristics that risk incomprehensibility.

User avatar
colinr0380
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 4:30 pm
Location: Chapel-en-le-Frith, Derbyshire, UK

Re: Marvel Comics on Film

#258 Post by colinr0380 » Tue Oct 16, 2018 3:29 am

Reading Never Cursed's comments on the previous page, I'm just curious as to when the Venom character was created. Was it before or after the manga series Parasyte?

EDIT: To add to the Tom Hardy comments, he also seems like the only actor to have worked out in the modern era that a well placed mask can add to the hotness factor (I wouldn't be surprised if a Phantom of the Opera adaptation was in his future somewhere down the line!)

User avatar
tenia
Ask Me About My Bassoon
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 11:13 am

Re: Marvel Comics on Film

#259 Post by tenia » Tue Oct 16, 2018 4:06 am

colinr0380 wrote:
Tue Oct 16, 2018 3:29 am
Reading Never Cursed's comments on the previous page, I'm just curious as to when the Venom character was created. Was it before or after the manga series Parasyte?
Venom appeared in May 1984, while Parasyte was published between 1988 and 1995.

User avatar
bunuelian
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 11:49 am
Location: San Diego

Re: Marvel Comics on Film

#260 Post by bunuelian » Tue Oct 16, 2018 6:48 pm

Big Ben wrote:
Thu Oct 11, 2018 10:33 am
Hardy is a good actor in my opinion who occasionally takes on some real WTF projects. Him taking on the role as Venom was because his son is a fan of the character.
It wasn't because of the $7 million they paid him? (I've taken this figure from a random website that popped up on Google, but it seems reasonable.)

I would think seven million bucks is a good incentive to put aside artistic integrity for a few months' work.

User avatar
Dead or Deader
Joined: Sun May 08, 2016 12:47 am

Re: Marvel Comics on Film

#261 Post by Dead or Deader » Tue Oct 16, 2018 7:23 pm

Michelle Williams only did the role for the paycheck and to work with Hardy. Having a son whose a fan of the character sounds like a good excuse to do the project.

User avatar
swo17
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 10:25 am
Location: SLC, UT

Re: Marvel Comics on Film

#262 Post by swo17 » Tue Oct 16, 2018 7:27 pm

They're paying Michelle Williams to be in movies now?

User avatar
Dead or Deader
Joined: Sun May 08, 2016 12:47 am

Re: Marvel Comics on Film

#263 Post by Dead or Deader » Tue Oct 16, 2018 9:44 pm

Movies where her co-star isn't Marky Mark.

User avatar
McCrutchy
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 4:57 am
Location: East Coast, USA

Re: Marvel Comics on Film

#264 Post by McCrutchy » Mon Oct 29, 2018 11:07 pm

Ryan Reynolds Filmed New Scenes for PG-13 Deadpool 2

I don't like this. On the one hand, Reynolds aping The Princess Bride with adult Fred Savage sounds clever, but the concept doesn't sound funny enough to sustain a theatrical release of a censored version of the film, and the fact that this is happening when Fox is being sold to Disney, and with a Marvel character (on the heels of Venom also not being R-rated, to boot), means that it really does feel like it could be an attempt to see if the character works without profanity and bloody violence. Surely it's also an attempt by Fox to wring the last drops of profit out of a burgeoning franchise before they become Mickey's lapdogs, but still, I think I would feel a lot better if this were being released on home video instead of in theatres for Christmas. I'm sure Fox doesn't expect much, but Disney might be looking to this as a perfect opportunity to retire the character and then bring him back in a couple of years as an MCU version.

I'm also tired of the backhanded admission, time and again, that kids love R-rated franchises even though the movies don't make as much money. If the R-rated films are so kid-friendly that installments released when that audience is older need to be PG-13, then bring the kids to see the R-rated film in the first place. This is what I never understood about Live Free or Die Hard or the Alien vs. Predator films, with PG-13 entries following on from R-rated films--if anything, it should be done the other way around.
Last edited by McCrutchy on Mon Oct 29, 2018 11:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Big Ben
Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2016 12:54 pm
Location: Great Falls, Montana

Re: Marvel Comics on Film

#265 Post by Big Ben » Mon Oct 29, 2018 11:11 pm

It didn't work for The King's Speech but again that's a different kind of film. Deadpool certainly exists in more family friendly formats but his vulgarity is sort of a staple. Given Disney Executives have stated they have no desire to really change much at Fox I'm of the opinion that is is indeed an attempt to squeeze more out of Deadpool but with far less nefarious intentions.

User avatar
colinr0380
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 4:30 pm
Location: Chapel-en-le-Frith, Derbyshire, UK

Re: Marvel Comics on Film

#266 Post by colinr0380 » Tue Oct 30, 2018 6:38 am

This is taking me back to the days of 'R' and 'Unrated' sex comedies of the late 90s and early 2000s, as popularised by American Pie and Borat, just involving films that I might actually watch some day! I don't think there is too big a problem with filming alternate scenes for different versions, although it would be nice to have an indication as to which is the version that the filmmakers most intend to be seen, which with Deadpool 2 is presumably the R rated version. Maybe the swapping out of scenes for a toned down version placated the studio and allowed them to go further in the R version? Unfortunately I guess it is too late to get the newly filmed PG-13 footage onto any DVD edition of the film, but it might turn up on future reissues.
McCrutchy wrote:
Mon Oct 29, 2018 11:07 pm
I'm also tired of the backhanded admission, time and again, that kids love R-rated franchises even though the movies don't make as much money. If the R-rated films are so kid-friendly that installments released when that audience is older need to be PG-13, then bring the kids to see the R-rated film in the first place. This is what I never understood about Live Free or Die Hard or the Alien vs. Predator films, with PG-13 entries following on from R-rated films--if anything, it should be done the other way around.
As with the way the Harry Potter films get darker and more 'grown up' along with their assumed audience?

Apropos of nothing and regarding UK ratings but this reminds me of the time in my local video store in the early 90s when I unsuccessfully tried to argue with my dad that if I was allowed to rent out the PG rated Iron Eagle 2 then I should obviously be able to watch the 15 rated Iron Eagle too, since why would anyone expect somebody to watch the sequel without having first seen the original?

User avatar
tenia
Ask Me About My Bassoon
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 11:13 am

Re: Marvel Comics on Film

#267 Post by tenia » Tue Oct 30, 2018 6:50 am

colinr0380 wrote:
Tue Oct 30, 2018 6:38 am
I don't think there is too big a problem with filming alternate scenes for different versions, although it would be nice to have an indication as to which is the version that the filmmakers most intend to be seen, which with Deadpool 2 is presumably the R rated version.
This seems cynical to the last degree, and rather different from making this kind of alternative versions straight from the start, in which cases I feel it has more to do with very slightly altering the tone to push it as much as you can while still being able to show it to much of its core audience (say, like very slightly altering a movie in the UK to go from 15 to 12). You probably can make a rather raunchy teen comedy and be rated PG-13 somehow.
But Deadpool (the movies) have always been marketed as this vulgar super-hero comic-movie that isn't family friendly. It's graphic, it's vulgar, it's gross, it's stupid. It's not your average family super-hero movie. And now, they're actually doing the exact opposite, to turn it into a family movie at which you can bring your kids ?

Post Reply