punchline wrote:i was thinking Aaron Eckhart as well. My number one choices would have been Thomas Jane or Clive Owen though, if they were maybe just a couple of years younger, and if Owen can pull off a convincing American accent. You never know though, Chris Evans just might pull it out.
afr0puff wrote:My whole point is that if the character is lame to begin with, where does that leave the movie? Maybe to comic book fans he's the most iconic for Marvel, but not to the rest of the world. He doesn't hold a candle in terms of brand recognition to Spider-man, The Hulk, or Wolverine.The REAL Brian wrote:Again, seriously. I feel like we're spending more time in this thread defending a character who shouldn't need defending instead of, you know, discussing the upcoming movie.
But in terms of gimmicky and silly, being frozen in ice and throwing a shield is right up there with molecule man and ant man and whatever else they were scraping with the bottom of the barrel because they ran out of original ideas. The others all present a fantastical element that people can day dream about. Hell, even getting blasted with gamma rays and becoming a green freak is acceptable. No one daydreams about being injected with steroids and throwing a shield.
The REAL Brian wrote:Yeah, edit your qoute brother, because I didn't type that.
Dunno... then what's the reason why it took so long to make a big studio adaptation? During the initial boom of recent comic book flicks, you don't think Captain Americas name was being tossed around? THen when they started to script/storyboard the idea, they came to the conclusion that he is a pretty lame character to portray on screen. He kind of reminds me of Vega from Street FIghter when he loses his claws. SO sad.opie301 wrote:If you're predicting that the movie will suck because Captain America is human and carries a shield, then you're projecting your own opinions out onto the rest of the world. That being said, I've actually seen the last few attempts at a Captain America movie, and they were awful.
Actually, it was being tossed around. Development for a Captain America movie began back in '97 before even the X-men had proven that comic book movies could be a success. But, along with all of the other development nightmares, it got derailed by a lawsuit arguing over who actually owned the rights to Captain America. Three years later, the lawsuit get settled, but the momentum of the CA film gone. The project gets pushed aside in light of more successful properties like X-Men and Spiderman.afr0puff wrote:Dunno... then what's the reason why it took so long to make a big studio adaptation? During the initial boom of recent comic book flicks, you don't think Captain Americas name was being tossed around?
Tom Brazelton wrote:Well, the other thing to consider is that most of the "inferior" Marvel properties were all handled by Fox - Ghost Rider, Daredevil, The Fantastic Four.
So with Marvel Studios behind the helm, there's a much greater likelihood that a Captain America movie will in the very least appease the fanboys.
Users browsing this forum: Pronannuath and 0 guests