The Energon Pub

Shadowman wrote:

SlyTF1 wrote:

Shadowman wrote:

Burn wrote:Yeah but past posts tend to indicate no one agrees with your views on movies.

Guessing this FF must have had more violence than the other two.

I recall he once said the Godfather was **** because it didn't have any explosions in it. So there's that.

I've literally never seen that movie. I'm in no rush to see it, seeing as though there are no aliens, explosions, or anything else I find interesting. There aren't many ultra realistic movies I'm overly fond of, anyway.

And I say Transformers are the greatest movies because:
1. I'm a fan of Transformers.
2. I like the fact that the Transformers are actual characters (especially in AOE) that don't resemble human beings or anything from Earth.
3. They're actually characters I can relate to, which is a rarity for me.
4. They give me everything I want and don't hold back, unlike just about every other movie ever. I like that they have no restraint.

Like I said, you've got extremely low standards.

My standards are whatever the **** I say they are. You don't get to tell me if they're high or low.

SlyTF1 wrote:

Shadowman wrote:

SlyTF1 wrote:

Shadowman wrote:

Burn wrote:Yeah but past posts tend to indicate no one agrees with your views on movies.

Guessing this FF must have had more violence than the other two.

I recall he once said the Godfather was **** because it didn't have any explosions in it. So there's that.

I've literally never seen that movie. I'm in no rush to see it, seeing as though there are no aliens, explosions, or anything else I find interesting. There aren't many ultra realistic movies I'm overly fond of, anyway.

And I say Transformers are the greatest movies because:
1. I'm a fan of Transformers.
2. I like the fact that the Transformers are actual characters (especially in AOE) that don't resemble human beings or anything from Earth.
3. They're actually characters I can relate to, which is a rarity for me.
4. They give me everything I want and don't hold back, unlike just about every other movie ever. I like that they have no restraint.

Like I said, you've got extremely low standards.

My standards are whatever the **** I say they are. You don't get to tell me if they're high or low.

Nah, they're just low. You're young, I don't expect you to understand, but when you actually experience good movies, you'll see just how God-awful Michael Bay's movies are.

Shadowman wrote:

SlyTF1 wrote:

Shadowman wrote:

SlyTF1 wrote:

Shadowman wrote:

Burn wrote:Yeah but past posts tend to indicate no one agrees with your views on movies.

Guessing this FF must have had more violence than the other two.

I recall he once said the Godfather was **** because it didn't have any explosions in it. So there's that.

I've literally never seen that movie. I'm in no rush to see it, seeing as though there are no aliens, explosions, or anything else I find interesting. There aren't many ultra realistic movies I'm overly fond of, anyway.

And I say Transformers are the greatest movies because:
1. I'm a fan of Transformers.
2. I like the fact that the Transformers are actual characters (especially in AOE) that don't resemble human beings or anything from Earth.
3. They're actually characters I can relate to, which is a rarity for me.
4. They give me everything I want and don't hold back, unlike just about every other movie ever. I like that they have no restraint.

Like I said, you've got extremely low standards.

My standards are whatever the **** I say they are. You don't get to tell me if they're high or low.

Nah, they're just low. You're young, I don't expect you to understand, but when you actually experience good movies, you'll see just how God-awful Michael Bay's movies are.

So, because they don't add up to your standards, or anyone else's, they're automatically low? If only 5 or 6 movies in history meet my standards, how can they be low? If they were low, There would be more than 6 that meet my standards.

SlyTF1 wrote:So, because they don't add up to your standards, or anyone else's, they're automatically low? If only 5 or 6 movies in history meet my standards, how can they be low? If they were low, There would be more than 6 that meet my standards.

I could switch over to saying you just have really poopy taste in movies...but no, I prefer to point out how you just have really low standards for movies.

Which you do, by the by. I mean, come on, you can't honestly think the terrible writing and direction Bay puts out is any good, can you? It's all just an act, like your little "Kid with a God Complex" routine.

And to keep it MCU-related, who was the chick in the Deadpool trailer with Colossus?

Rodimus Prime wrote:

And to keep it MCU-related, who was the chick in the Deadpool trailer with Colossus?

My educated guess would be Domino. She has a history with the X-Force stuff, and is a mercenary. In the comics, anyway.

I was listening to a Movie Podcast the other day and I knew there was trouble when they thought Cyclops was a Good Character but then they had to look up The magnificent 7 as they'd not heard of it.

I felt like face palming. do those people who don't watch movies made since 1999 really exist ?

I keep tripping over them and I'm still not sure if they are winding me up or not.
I mean really who wouldn't wanna Watch Ghostbusters or Back to the Future, Aliens, or Even Star Wars IV & V- are they ill ?

These people say things like anything before CGI is S**t they even often say Jurassic Park is old hat too. That Movie is nearly as much a template for modern Movie making as Independence Day is.

Though you know your in trouble with modern movies when Independence day starts to look 'above average'.

I suppose we should be Grateful that the majority of marvel Studios Movies have some redeemable qualities to them (well I can't say that about Thor as I've still not bothered to watch them yet).

RAR. Is there anything, I repeat, anything you actually like about the Marvel movies?

Nemesis Maximo wrote:

Rodimus Prime wrote:

And to keep it MCU-related, who was the chick in the Deadpool trailer with Colossus?

My educated guess would be Domino. She has a history with the X-Force stuff, and is a mercenary. In the comics, anyway.

Nope, that was Teenage Negasonic Warhead (IDK if that's the actress you're talking about)

Shadowman wrote:

SlyTF1 wrote:So, because they don't add up to your standards, or anyone else's, they're automatically low? If only 5 or 6 movies in history meet my standards, how can they be low? If they were low, There would be more than 6 that meet my standards.

I could switch over to saying you just have really **** taste in movies...but no, I prefer to point out how you just have really low standards for movies.

Which you do, by the by. I mean, come on, you can't honestly think the terrible writing and direction Bay puts out is any good, can you? It's all just an act, like your little "Kid with a God Complex" routine.

I don't see the damn writing, so it doesn't make a bit of difference to me whether it's good or bad. And I like his direction. The only problems I have are with the jokes and some of the dialogue. That's it.

Rodimus Prime wrote:

And to keep it MCU-related, who was the chick in the Deadpool trailer with Colossus?

But Deadpool isn't a part of the MCU. Why would you do that?

SlyTF1 wrote:

Shadowman wrote:

SlyTF1 wrote:So, because they don't add up to your standards, or anyone else's, they're automatically low? If only 5 or 6 movies in history meet my standards, how can they be low? If they were low, There would be more than 6 that meet my standards.

I could switch over to saying you just have really **** taste in movies...but no, I prefer to point out how you just have really low standards for movies.

Which you do, by the by. I mean, come on, you can't honestly think the terrible writing and direction Bay puts out is any good, can you? It's all just an act, like your little "Kid with a God Complex" routine.

I don't see the damn writing, so it doesn't make a bit of difference to me whether it's good or bad. And I like his direction. The only problems I have are with the jokes and some of the dialogue. That's it.

Of course you see the writing. It's a little thing called stage directions. It'll say in the script "Shadowman slaps his forehead after seeing Sly continue to lack any real understanding of writing." Just because the words don't show up on the screen doesn't mean they don't happen.

SlyTF1 wrote:

I wrote:And to keep it MCU-related, who was the chick in the Deadpool trailer with Colossus?

But Deadpool isn't a part of the MCU. Why would you do that?

So the big, fat "MARVEL" tag in the trailer is there just for shits and giggles? Or is MCU only applies to characters associated with The Avengers?

Rodimus Prime wrote:

SlyTF1 wrote:

I wrote:And to keep it MCU-related, who was the chick in the Deadpool trailer with Colossus?

But Deadpool isn't a part of the MCU. Why would you do that?

So the big, fat "MARVEL" tag in the trailer is there just for **** and giggles? Or is MCU only applies to characters associated with The Avengers?

Actually, yes. Deadpool is part of the X-men universe, which is separate from the MCU.

That should fix things then.

Shadowman wrote:Deadpool is part of the X-men universe, which is separate from the MCU.

I figured any movie with the "MARVEL" tag at the beginning, regardless of any other studio's involvement, is in the MARVEL cinematic universe. I guess I learned something new today.

In addition to the X-Men & Wolverine & Now Deadpool Franchises The Ang Lee directed Hulk Movie isn't in the MCU either, Neither is : Ghost Rider, Blade, The Daredevil & Electra Movies, Any Fantastic Four or any Spider-Man movie.

Then there is Big Hero 6 which although it is made by Disney/Marvel Studios but isn't in the same continuity as it's a Cartoon set in another Universe.

I heard recently there maybe is going to be a Man Thing Movie but I have no idea who is making it.

Marvel needs to introduce it's own logo for it's own Movies and then have another logo for The Sony & Fox stuff. - They sort of have to have their name on it but they really should want to have their branding on it in the same way as say an Avengers Movie as they seem to think anything that isn't in the Disney stable is now a red headed stepchild.

Thus why Marvel Comic is seemingly excreting all over the X-men and Fantastic Four in comic terms lately (by cancelling their books and mocking the characters) and even ignoring the Marvel Horror Universe almost completely these days - I can't say I blame them on some level it's like promoting your competition - but is devaluing their own franchises in the process really good business sense ?

There is no guarantee you can recover what you destroy - it's not like Buck Rogers, The Shadow, The Phantom, or Flash Gordon do much these days of any note.. And reboot attempts never got very far past the odd quickly forgotten attempts for the simple reason their time had passed.

It seems like the poor ol' Fantastic Four is being thrown on the scrap heap of History too.

Heck these Non continuity Pre- MCU Movie may have done Marvel a favour if X-Men and Blade didn't exist their job of making Marvel Movies would have been so very much harder.

But yes Fox were doing their very best to huckster people into thinking Fantastic Four was a 'proper' MCU Marvel Movie. Slapping the Marvel Brand all over every thing in an attempt to potentially deceive people.

I heard someone suggest that the FF could be re-started in the 1960's if/when marvel get the right back (or if Fox want to waste some more money) then if it's MCU by then they could be propelled into the current time period so they would literally be 'of their time'.

That could be done quite cleverly as it allows another link to the earlier Marvel period that can have Hank Pymm, Howard Stark and Peggy Carter in it.

But Fox are stubborn than the only way that Marvel will get the rights back quickly is if it is a side effect of a deal to allow Fox to make an X-Men TV show (which they can't at the moment - but they want to).

I hear Marvel only really want Galactus, The Skrulls and The Silver Surfer back quickly anyway and are not over bothered by the FF until (ironically) Phase 4.

I don't think Fox has the good will by the public to allow them to try to make another FF movie they will just get a huge tone of abuse if they even try to do it.

I've not heard anything on another Man-Thing movie. The fact that the first one was even made is surprising. That's not to say I don't want another one though. I'm fascinated by Man-Thing, mainly because he can either be a hero or a villain depending on the situation. Of course that's what would make it extremely hard for him to be the "star" of a movie, because you can't really relate to a gurgling pile of swamp sludge, but he can relate to you.

But Marvel does have the rights to Man-Thing. A great fun fact I learned online that the female A.I.M. agent in Iron Man 3 is the same one from the comics that got her face burned by Man-Thing, and Agents of Shield referenced him as well.

I could see Ghost Rider, Man-Thing, Blade(Wesley Snipes said he'd be up for another one) being spun off from Dr. Strange. During the 90's they were all part of the "Midnight Sons", so they could even do a crossover movie. I'm not surprised Marvel hasn't dipped their toes into the "horror" realm yet, and if something mystical like Dr. Strange doesn't do so well they probably won't. But I'm sure they could, because Guardians of the Galaxy was probably seen as a risk and it did even better than Amazing Spider-Man 2.

Duke of Luns wrote:Of course that's what would make it extremely hard for him to be the "star" of a movie, because you can't really relate to a gurgling pile of swamp sludge, but he can relate to you.

Well, neither can audiences relate to some other fictional characters, but it doesn't stop them from being beloved. Either way, with modern day CG, I think Man-Thing could be dynamite looking, especially if they played on the faint Hulk aspect (even though it's a beast, there is still some remnant of the original guy).

Guys, didn't the end of SHIELD Season 2 feature a surprise appearance by a goo/sludge/slime thing that absorbed a certain scientist named Gemma? That could almost maybe possibly be a man thing.

Madeus Prime wrote:

Duke of Luns wrote:Of course that's what would make it extremely hard for him to be the "star" of a movie, because you can't really relate to a gurgling pile of swamp sludge, but he can relate to you.

Well, neither can audiences relate to some other fictional characters, but it doesn't stop them from being beloved. Either way, with modern day CG, I think Man-Thing could be dynamite looking, especially if they played on the faint Hulk aspect (even though it's a beast, there is still some remnant of the original guy).

Man-Thing didn't look too bad in the 2005 film, so yeah he would look even better today.

And somehow I forgot about Groot! He could only say five words, but the way they animated him, from the way he reacted to the people and things in the environment to his facial expressions made me easily forget he was CG and is my favorite part of Guardians.

Man-Thing would be a little more difficult to sell though, as I think he's kinda the opposite of the (film)Groot. He has no mouth, only some kind of trunk like thing, so the most expression they could get out of his face is his eyes(which could be a good range). He can say no words of any kind, so conversation would be moot, and they couldn't even get a popular celebrity voice. His body is composed of smelly earth, sticks, and bog water, and is overall a very grotesque looking creature. Unlike Groot nobody's going to want to hug him.

However I'll bet Marvel could pull it off, but I don't see them even considering it until after Dr. Strange.

Duke of Luns wrote:And somehow I forgot about Groot! He could only say five words, but the way they animated him, from the way he reacted to the people and things in the environment to his facial expressions made me easily forget he was CG and is my favorite part of Guardians.

To be fair, though, his body movement was done through motion capture, like Gollum.

Rodimus Prime wrote:

Shadowman wrote:Deadpool is part of the X-men universe, which is separate from the MCU.

I figured any movie with the "MARVEL" tag at the beginning, regardless of any other studio's involvement, is in the MARVEL cinematic universe. I guess I learned something new today.

Now you Know!!!!








C'mon, don't leave me hanging.......

Ironhidensh wrote:

Rodimus Prime wrote:

Shadowman wrote:Deadpool is part of the X-men universe, which is separate from the MCU.

I figured any movie with the "MARVEL" tag at the beginning, regardless of any other studio's involvement, is in the MARVEL cinematic universe. I guess I learned something new today.

Now you Know!!!!

C'mon, don't leave me hanging.......

Um, wrong film franchise, Densh. Get it right.

Nemesis Maximo wrote:

Ironhidensh wrote:

Rodimus Prime wrote:

Shadowman wrote:Deadpool is part of the X-men universe, which is separate from the MCU.

I figured any movie with the "MARVEL" tag at the beginning, regardless of any other studio's involvement, is in the MARVEL cinematic universe. I guess I learned something new today.

Now you Know!!!!

C'mon, don't leave me hanging.......

Um, wrong film franchise, Densh. Get it right.

So what are the odds of Cable and Bishop appearing in Age of Apocalypse?

Ironhidensh wrote:

Rodimus Prime wrote:

Shadowman wrote:Deadpool is part of the X-men universe, which is separate from the MCU.

I figured any movie with the "MARVEL" tag at the beginning, regardless of any other studio's involvement, is in the MARVEL cinematic universe. I guess I learned something new today.

Now you Know!!!!








C'mon, don't leave me hanging.......

Knowing is half the battle.