MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland

Marvel Goes Mickey Chat on AOTS

38 Responses to “Marvel Goes Mickey Chat on AOTS”

  1. SJRubinstein says:

    Hey – great appearance! Ad if they kill “Thor,” look for the fans to go nuts claiming Disney will be the end of Marvel when, well, I don’t think you’re wrong in your assertions.

  2. scooterzz says:

    funny, i’m always inclined to type ‘atos’ too….

  3. David Poland says:

    Thanks, Scoot… it’s true… my next appearance is on Law & Order: SUV.

  4. martin says:

    I don’t really follow comics at all, but I think Corey Feldman would be great to play that eye-patch guy.

  5. Zac Bertschy says:

    I liked the juxtaposition of the reasonable, informed and intelligent discussion of the acquisition between you and Hardwick versus the scrolling line of tired, predictable and retarded “nerd rage” Twitter comments they had running at the bottom of the screen.

  6. IOIOIOI says:

    1) They already killed Thor. He just came back. I already blame Disney for… House of M, The Civil War, the Skrull Invasion, and Dark Reign. It’s all their fault.
    2) Zac, those two know jack and shit about comics. Dave is more theatre now than man. He sold in his geek card years ago. So here’s to the twitter rage. It’s at least… current.

  7. LexG says:

    Hardwick used to go to one of my open mikes which makes him officially THE most famous person I’ve met in 14 years in L.A., along with David Poland, Greg Behrendt, Brian Austin Green, The Diceman, and Ron Jeremy.

  8. LYT says:

    Good Appearance.
    I think Captain America is a good idea, and a very marketable one, if done with any competence.
    Thor has always seemed like a bit of a minefield, but with Branagh I have hope.
    ScarJo in a Black Widow movie also seems like money.

  9. LexG says:

    “ScarJo in a Black Widow movie also seems like money.”
    In other words, Megan or Scarlett as hot window dressing in some OTHER dude’s superhero story? Geeks are down. JUST Megan or Scarlett wearing tights and spitting cutting camp lines? Guys get a little embarrassed and won’t go EN MASSE to see that shit.
    Wait and watch Jennifer’s Body make 11 dollars flat in two weeks, and see this theory writ large.

  10. LYT says:

    Where do the Angelina Jolie Tomb Raider movies fit into that theory…or all three Resident Evil flicks with Milla?

  11. jeffmcm says:

    Or the Underworld movies.

  12. jeffmcm says:

    Actually, I’m confused – Lex, shouldn’t Jennifer’s Body be one of your stupid ‘one hundred million dollar opening day’ annoyances?

  13. LexG says:

    Lou: You’re cool.
    Jeff: I never had any real animosity toward you, thought it was all theater, but tonight you’ve put me over the top: You’re a fucking PIECE OF SHIT AS A HUMAN BEING and you will be thanked, a la Leydon, NEVER to address me again, ever. Limp-dick scrawny fuck.

  14. christian says:

    And women despised THE MATRIX.

  15. LexG says:

    Hey… Hey Christian!
    You’re a pussy. Suck my balls, motherfucker.

  16. KamikazeCamelV2.0 says:

    The eye patch man actually looks like Liam Neeson.

  17. mysteryperfecta says:

    Nice job, DP. You’re a natural on-screen.

  18. The Big Perm says:

    That was a good show. I’ve never watched G4 but that was funny!
    LYT is right, Captain America could do really well if they make it work. Thor…I don’t know, is there any way to make that non-silly?

  19. storymark says:

    This, is the new well-bahaved Lex? People have the audacity to cite several (very obviouse) exceptions to one of his rules, so they all get called names? How is that new?

  20. Martin S says:

    Odin, the dude with the eyepatch, is supposedly Brian Blessed – Prince Voltan of Flash Gordon fame – since he’s a Branagh stock player.

  21. Martin S says:

    …and the FF bumrush by Fox is totally a play to keep the rights. I hope to god in heaven Disney muddies the F out of those waters and kills the re-launch in its crib.

  22. christian says:

    Lex: The Creature From David’s ID!

  23. yancyskancy says:

    Martin: The “eye patch guy” the others are referring to is Nick Fury, as seen in the screen shot up top.

  24. storymark says:

    Yancy – wrong “eye patch guy”. Both Odin and Fury have a spare socket.

  25. Martin S says:

    I thought the discussion was Thor. My bad if not.
    Fury should have been Kurt Russell, Willis or Berenger.

  26. Hallick says:

    “LYT is right, Captain America could do really well if they make it work. Thor…I don’t know, is there any way to make that non-silly?”
    I would have thought the situation was reversed. I can easily picture somebody pulling off a non-silly “Thor” movie if done in the same vein as “Lord of the Rings”, “Beowulf and Grendel”, “The Navigator”, etc: grimy, tough, mystical, and so on.
    Captain America though…the name sounds silly and dated if you step back and look at it objectively. He actually feels more like he’d belong in the first generation “Watchmen” universe than his own. Sort of like The Comedian, except with a purity streak bordering on reactionary as he got older and lived through the me decades. Start him off now, in the modern era, and you’re looking at a character maybe Dick Cheney would love.

  27. yancyskancy says:

    storymark: I’m pretty sure that (lower case) martin and Kami were referring to the above pic of Nick Fury, which does kinda resemble both Corey Feldman and Liam Neeson (even if that seems impossible in theory).

  28. storymark says:

    yancy – Yeah, I missed the big-M / small-m difference.
    Hallick – “He actually feels more like he’d belong in the first generation “Watchmen” universe than his own.”
    Well, it will be set primarily during WWII, so it’s not far off.

  29. jeffmcm says:

    If somebody could pull of a modern-day Captain America, and have it actually resonate, it would be the pop-culture phenomena of the decade. To appeal to a mass audience across the political spectrum? You’ve got a hit as big as The Dark Knight. I have no idea how it could happen, but if I was Marvel, I’d wait to make that movie until I had the right director/producer who could knock it out of the park. Setting the movie in WWII is taking the easy route.

  30. storymark says:

    But WWII is the character’s roots. You may think it’s the easy route, but it’s also the most logical.
    Besides, we’ve been inundated with modern superhero flicks. I rather like the idea of a period film.

  31. jeffmcm says:

    A WWII setting makes sense for the first 15 minutes of the movie. Then he gets stuck in ice and wakes up in the modern era.
    Mind you, I’m not talking about the version of the movie that will actually get made, or that most people are going to want to see.

  32. Martin S says:

    Marvel won’t do modern, as in Cap created today. They’ve pushed the movie back since 9/11 for a myriad of reasons, but it’s all PC bullshit. Arad was a pussy about it because the analogy of Hydra and Al-Qaeda scared him and Feige’s shown to be as much of a wuss with allusions to how disliked we were internationally.
    It’s been all about the foreign markets for nearly a decade and that’s why on its current trajectory, it’s bound to a Superman Returns fate. They want to introduce the concept of The Invaders but as an international team of Captain America equals, which leads to him forming the Avengers to battle a new threat in that film. But like Singer didn’t understand, once you start down the path of diluting something purely Americana to appease foreign markets, you kill the point of the character and end up with nothing bold to market.
    If they were smart – and they haven’t been with Cap – they’d take the opposite approach. Make him a cross between Audie Murphy, John Wayne and Indiana Jones in WW2, then force him to deal with the complexities of today’s enemies which requires a team.

  33. jeffmcm says:

    Martin, your last point is what I’m hoping, albeit with probably a little less Sands of Iwo Jima John Wayne and a little more The Searchers/ Rio Bravo John Wayne.

  34. Martin S says:

    Jeff – I agree, but anything Wayne would be a step in the right direction.

  35. leahnz says:

    speak of CAP-AM, i’ve been meaning to ask: who is that cheeky-looking wee tyke character next to him on the marvel banner above, wearing what appears to be a pink doggy/bunny-eared-type hat? he’s not ringing any bells for me

  36. Triple Option says:

    Martin S wrote: But like Singer didn’t understand, once you start down the path of diluting something purely Americana to appease foreign markets, you kill the point of the character and end up with nothing bold to market.”
    Bit of a sidestep but would say that was the biggest element or cause for Superman’s failure, either filmatically or financially? (If we can separate that bad movies can be financially successful in spite of poor quality).

  37. jeffmcm says:

    Good point, Triple. I’d say that the lack of Americana in Superman Returns was one of the least of its’ problems.

  38. LexG says:


The Hot Blog

movieman on: BYO What Do You Watch

movieman on: BYO What Do You Watch

palmtree on: BYO What Do You Watch

Sergio on: BYO What Do You Watch

movieman on: BYO What Do You Watch

Bulldog68 on: BYO What Do You Watch

Hcat on: BYO What Do You Watch

movieman on: BYO What Do You Watch

Sideshow Bill on: BYO What Do You Watch

movieman on: BYO What Do You Watch

Quote Unquotesee all »

This is probably going to sound petty, but Martin Scorsese insisting that critics see his film in theaters even though it’s going straight to Netflix and then not screening it in most American cities was a watershed moment for me in this theatrical versus streaming debate.

I completely respect when a filmmaker insists that their movie is meant to be seen in the theater, but the thing is, you got to actually make it possible to see it in the theater. Some movies may be too small for that, and that’s totally OK.

When your movie is largely financed by a streaming service and is going to appear on that streaming service instantly, I don’t really see the point of pretending that it’s a theatrical film. It just seems like we are needlessly indulging some kind of personal fantasy.

I don’t think that making a feature film length production that is going to go straight to a video platform is some sort of “step down.“ I really don’t. Theatrical exhibition as we know it is dying off anyway, for a variety of reasons.

I should clarify myself because this thread is already being misconstrued — I’m talking about how the movie is screened in advance. If it’s going straight to Netflix, why the ritual of demanding people see it in the theater?

There used to be a category that everyone recognized called “TV movie” or “made for television movie” and even though a lot of filmmakers considered that déclassé, it seems to me that probably 90% of feature films fit that description now.

Atlantis has mostly sunk into the ocean, only a few tower spires remain above the waterline, and I’m increasingly at peace with that, because it seems to be what the industry and much of the audience wants. We live in an age of convenience and information control.

Only a very elite group of filmmakers is still allowed to make movies “for theaters“ and actually have them seen and judged that way on a wide scale. Even platform releasing seems to be somewhat endangered. It can’t be fought. It has to be accepted.

9. Addendum: I’ve been informed that it wasn’t Scorsese who requested that the Bob Dylan documentary only be screened for critics in theaters, but a Netflix representative indicated the opposite to me, so I just don’t know what to believe.

It’s actually OK if your film is not eligible for an Oscar — we have a thing called the Emmys. A lot of this anxiety is just a holdover from the days when television was considered culturally inferior to theatrical feature films. Everybody needs to just get over it.

In another 10 to 20 years they’re probably going to merge the Emmys in the Oscars into one program anyway, maybe they’ll call it the Contentys.

“One of the fun things about seeing the new Quentin Tarantino film three months early in Cannes (did I mention this?) is that I know exactly why it’s going to make some people furious, and thus I have time to steel myself for the takes.

Back in July 2017, when it was revealed that Tarantino’s next project was connected to the Manson Family murders, it was condemned in some quarters as an insulting and exploitative stunt. We usually require at least a fig-leaf of compassion for the victims in true-crime adaptations, and even Tarantino partisans like myself – I don’t think he’s made a bad film yet – found ourselves wondering how he might square his more outré stylistic impulses with the depiction of a real mass murder in which five people and one unborn child lost their lives.

After all, it’s one thing to slice off with gusto a fictional policeman’s ear; it’s quite another to linger over the gory details of a massacre that took place within living memory, and which still carries a dread historical significance.

In her essay The White Album, Joan Didion wrote: “Many people I know in Los Angeles believe that the Sixties ended abruptly on August 9, 1969, ended at the exact moment when word of the murders on Cielo Drive traveled like brushfire through the community, and in a sense this is true.”

Early in Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, as Leonardo DiCaprio and Brad Pitt’s characters drive up the hill towards Leo’s bachelor pad, the camera cranes up gently to reveal a street sign: Cielo Drive. Tarantino understands how charged that name is; he can hear the Molotov cocktails clinking as he shoulders the crate.

As you may have read in the reviews from Cannes, much of the film is taken up with following DiCaprio and Pitt’s characters – a fading TV actor and his long-serving stunt double – as they amusingly go about their lives in Los Angeles, while Margot Robbie’s Sharon Tate is a relatively minor presence. But the spectre of the murders is just over the horizon, and when the night of the 9th finally arrives, you feel the mood in the cinema shift.

No spoilers whatsoever about what transpires on screen. But in the audience, as it became clear how Tarantino was going to handle this extraordinarily loaded moment, the room soured and split, like a pan of cream left too long on the hob. I craned in, amazed, but felt the person beside me recoil in either dismay or disgust.

Two weeks on, I’m convinced that the scene is the boldest and most graphically violent of Tarantino’s career – I had to shield my eyes at one point, found myself involuntarily groaning “oh no” at another – and a dead cert for the most controversial. People will be outraged by it, and with good reason. But in a strange and brilliant way, it takes Didion’s death-of-the-Sixties observation and pushes it through a hellfire-hot catharsis.

Hollywood summoned up this horror, the film seems to be saying, and now it’s Hollywood’s turn to exorcise it. I can’t wait until the release in August, when we can finally talk about why.

~ Robbie Collin