She's way more MJ than Kirsten Dunst. I did like what they did with MJ in the first two movies, but I think Emma Stone will be different and more of the "Go get em tiger" Mary Jane

Diana Agron would be a good Gwen Stacy.

The smartass chick from Zombieland? Yeah, that's totally 616 MJ right there.

Spidey reboot is looking better and better. Now let's get Gwen and JJ casted.

AICN reports that Stone was cast not as MJ, but Gwen.

That's strange. She seems way more suited to be MJ. She is absolutely perfect for MJ actually.

I wish them luck in trying to even come close to as good of a casting for Jameson as JK Simmons was

"Aronofsky to Take on "Wolverine 2""

http://www.comicbookresources.com/?p...ticle&id=28699

Hopefully it's next to nothing like the first one. Since he's an amnesiac I think it will be easy for them to distance it from that first film and do their own thing.

Well, they did say that the reboot was based off of the Ultimate Spider-Man comics, and in those Mary Jane and Gwen pretty much just had their personalities swapped around, so MJ is the innocent girl-next-door type, and Gwen is the smartass sassy type prone to skanky outfits and juvenile delinquency. So if they are indeed taking the USM route, I guess Emma Stone works for Gwen now instead of MJ.

I wish they'd explore the 80's era of more adult Spiderman comics, where Peter Parker is out of college, married to MJ, and we see villains like Kingpin and all his goons. Then maybe down the road you could see the symbiotes done properly.
I'd rather have seen them go there, rather than back to the beginning. They wouldn't have to be sequels to the first 3 at all. But they could sort of just dig into a whole new style and cast without re-doing high school/college and the origins. Sort of like what Batman Forever went for, but better.

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/8z80G9DrMB8?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US&amp;color1=0x006699&amp;color2=0x54abd6"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/8z80G9DrMB8?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US&amp;color1=0x006699&amp;color2=0x54abd6" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>
<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/YMsUKwJ8Qb4?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US&amp;color1=0x006699&amp;color2=0x54abd6"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/YMsUKwJ8Qb4?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US&amp;color1=0x006699&amp;color2=0x54abd6" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

"Howlett, I need recon!"
"I'm working on it, bub."

HSKSHKJDHKHE

Lot's of Robin overlap with Bucky, too (VO, mannerisms).

Wow.

This cartoon is looking fucking awesome! This has the potential to be the best Marvel cartoon ever if they let it run for more than two seasons (better than 90's X-Men and Spider-Man).

Really cool to see Bucky, Dum Dum, Wolverine and 'James' (he became the Nomad right?).

Nice ending as well, assuming that is the end for now. It was revealed in a comic somewhere that Cap first encountered Thor back in WW2 when Thor captured an Asgardian Wolf thingy that had escaped and was slaughtering soldiers.

Kind of funny that the original Spider man movies casta blond as MJ, and now they've cast a red head as Gwen Stacey.

Emma Stone is a natural blonde, apparently.

Wikipedia says you're right.

Oh well

Entertainment Weekly reporting that Rhys Ifans has been cast as the villain in the Spider Man reboot. Which villain is not known.

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/npcANA1WuI8?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US&amp;color1=0x006699&amp;color2=0x54abd6"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/npcANA1WuI8?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US&amp;color1=0x006699&amp;color2=0x54abd6" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>
<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/dzmsoVrtV7M?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US&amp;color1=0x3a3a3a&amp;color2=0x999999"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/dzmsoVrtV7M?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US&amp;color1=0x3a3a3a&amp;color2=0x999999" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

With Bucky, you think they're going to... go there?

what u mean?

Winter Soldier.

I doubt there'll be time for it in the first movie. They MIGHT make a mention of it in the Avengers movie, but I doubt more than that.

Talking about the cartoons...

BUT

The dude playing Bucky in the Cap movie curiously signed for future Marvel films. Hmmmm...

I just hope it's directed by Robert Rodriguez

Wow that sounds awesome. I stopped reading because I don't want to know any more.

I wonder of Fox has the balls to stay true to the tone. Sounds more hardcore than the comic.

Holy SHIT! This sounds fun, dark, disgusting, hilarious and awesome all at once.

I am now more psyched for Deadpool than I am for Avengers.

Release the flying pigs.

Can we hope for a Bea Arthur reference?

Hopefully it actually gets made. Sounds like the thing even being greenlit is in question. How is Reynolds involvement in question? I thought he was signed on for it.

WB wants to cockblock and hold Ryan for Green Lantern back-to-back sequels, which isn't really their style to people assumed they specifically didn't want him in another superhero movie.

Not like Fox/Marvel had him first but business this and that.

My ass if Ryan doesn't do this.

While they're at it they should add a subtle joke about him also being Green Lantern. If they're going to allude to Wolverine being a seperate thing and sucking, then why not?

Well if GL turns out awesome I don't think they'd risk it. Ripping on quality shows and celebs did MADtv no favors in their final years.

I agree with the movie having no connection to Wolverine, but since they're using the same actor to play the role it will be strange to hear him reference it.
I know Deadpool breaks the 4th wall, but he still exists in the X-Men universe. And reboots don't usually refer to what they're rebooting.
Kind of hard to tell what they mean by referencing it without coming out and saying it. I'd guess I'd have to see what he says to understand.

I thought the whole idea was that the bootleg Deadpool from the end of the Wolverine movie wasn't actually him.
Maybe that's what he'll address, while subtlely joking about how much it sucked.

So it's probably nothing to do with any of the X-Men movies altogether. Since they don't actually mention the Wolverine movie directly, it will probably be some subtle jab that makes sense within the movie, but also has a double meaning to the fans watching who get it.

I'm not so sure this Deadpool exists in the Singer-verse (which is pretty much at an end anyway). Even Wolverine 2 sounds like a reboot.

The X-Men universe is literally doing the opposite of the Avengers universe, branching off into separate entities. Strange.

Yea but they're using the same actors and loosely trying to fit into the continuity, while rebooting. That leads to confusion.

With Deadpool it can work since he breaks the 4th wall and can make a subtle reference to it, and the movie can just be it's own thing outside of that.
Although it's strange to think he will exist in a universe where Wolverine is a movie to him as well. That's why I'm thinking there has to be more to that reference than the article reveals. It can't really say that.

Wolverine 2 can't be a reboot at all. Not as long as Hugh Jackman is playing the role.
They can completely ignore the first Wolverine though, which I hope they do. Since he has amnesia he can just be onto his next adventure with no memories or references to the previous film, at all. But it won't go back on anything from that film I don't think. Not with the same actor in the role.

Also, haven't they confirmed that X-Men First Class is trying to serve as a prequel to the X-Men movies?
There are hardly any X-Men in it because they are letting the continuity limit them.
They want to reboot, but they're still fucking around with the movies also being sequels.

Emma Frost is in First Class, a direct contradiction to Wolverine 1 (which is of the Singer-verse). First Class is very much a reboot. And having Hugh Jackman won't stop a reboot any more than Ryan stops Deadpool from being reboot. They're pretty much writing new rules here.

But they have also said it is a prequel. The director says it's a prequel. Cyclops, Storm, Jean Grey and other major characters have been specifically left out because they are adhering to loose rules.
If they were starting from scratch, don't you'd think they'd want some of the major X-Men to be in their X-Men movie?
Why would they even go back to First Class instead of just starting over with all the components like Spiderman and Batman have?

Contradictions are a result of them trying to keep it a franchise while going in new directions. It's a mess, not a reboot.

I think what's happening here is the first 3 X-Men movies are being treated like Canon, but that piece of shit Wolverine flick is being thrown in the trash, both by the X-Men prequel, and the Wolverine and Deadpool solo films that are coming in the wake of Wolverine

Now let's watch Charles and Erik's visit to a young Jean Grey go ignored, as well as Charles save in Origins.

At what point would you consider this a reboot?

And actions speak louder than words. I know what a reboot is, and unless there's some Star Trek genius explanation in the story, everything about this production says reboot.

When the people making it do. When they completely ignore any previous films and include the characters from a clean slate.
Cleverly leaving characters out of it and trying to fit it into the timeline of the existing films isn't a reboot. It may be trying to reboot things in a way, but it really isn't. The director says so. They're trying to have their cake and eat it too.
They are making creative choices based on elements from the other movies.

If we saw a whole new X-Men universe with all new introductions for Cyclops, Jean, Wolverine, etc. etc. etc. then it would be a reboot.
I'll take the director and character listing's word on this being a prequel.

Besides the director. And the fact that none of the characters from the original film are being included aside from Magneto and Prof X at a younger age.

We won't really know until First Class 2 or 3, where they have no choice but to tread on Singer-verse ground, and then see if it's in continuity or not.

I'm not sure where you're coming from though, just looking at the information about the movie.
You think they're rebooting this like Batman Begins or the upcoming Spider-Man, but they have just decided to include characters like Banshee, Havok and Azazel, and coincidentally leave out all of the major recognizable mutants from the first films like Cyclops, Jean Grey, Storm, Wolverine, Nightcrawler? All of them. None of them are in it, but some of their fathers are, but it's a reboot?

That doesn't change the fact that this isn't a reboot. If they retroactively decide to say fuck the originals, and build off of this and re-introduce all of the other characters, that doesn't mean it's a reboot.
It just means they decided to do so at a later date. This movie is clearly being made to be in continuity, besides the director coming out and saying as much.
Plus they are setting it in a timeframe that allows it to be so. If they were trying to start X-Men anew they would probably not be going for the late 1960s. They would set it in present for a number of reasons.

They showed interest in going back into Prof X and especially Magneto's past for a while, in continuity or not.

I'm simply not convinced at this prequel angle.

Why aren't you convinced? The director says it's a prequel, and it's clearly fucking obvious that they are setting it the past and leaving out characters who are not of age or were introduced differently in the orignal films.
The only example you have given is Emma Frost from Wolverine (which has likely just been ignored) and your own notion that it's a reboot, and that's that.
Everyone making it, and everything about the film that is known has pointed to it being a prequel plain and simple.
That's like saying Star Wars Episode 1 is a reboot, because I say so, and you can't prove me wrong until they don't introduce Han Solo and Luke Skywalker differently.
You're asking me to disregard everything the director, filmmakers, and common sense is saying about the movie, and prove a negative (it's a reboot until Wolverine doesn't show up in any hypothetical sequels), based on your claim which is supported by 0 evidence.

So if they make 4 of these, and Wolverine and Rogue are still never introduced, you can say it's still a reboot because it might happen in the next one? Just ignoring all of the evidence to the contrary.
Don't you see how that is an ass backwards argument that has no end to it?

Also, just looking at it as a property, if this was a reboot the studio and filmakers would be chomping at the bit to get all of the recognizable characters in there. You think they just don't like money and popular characters, and just want to use Banshee and Havok instead of Wolverine and Rogue etc. for the fuck of it?

Yes and their interest in doing so was in the form of prequels set in the 1960s, just like this has shaped into being.

The reason they have show such interest in going into the past of the franchise is because they want to continue it, but X3 fucked it up so much they can only go backwards.

It will be a reboot when they decide to reboot. Not when you decide it is. I'm sorry Jean Kalyx but I feel like you are completely ignoring multiple facts here just to preserve some notion that you had of it being a reboot.

Nope, not buying it. Nope, nope, nope.

Let me phone Mathew Vaughn and tell him that Jean Kalyx has sniffed him out and he can't proceed as planned.

Ask him if he's making a Hit-Girl reboot/spin-off/alternate universe/sequel while you're at it.

He says he's making a Kick Ass movie set several years before Kick Ass, and for the most part faithful to the events of Kick Ass, without including any characters first introduced during first movie. There will be no reworking of events. He says it's what is referred to in the industry as a "prequel" and very similar to what they did with Star Wars, or the upcoming Hobbit picture.

It's a reboot, I think.

Sounds awesome. And suspicious.

They should just have all prints and evidence of X-Men 3 and Wolverine destroyed. Pretend it never happened, and let Bryan Singer make X-Men 3, 4, and so on.

Wish Raimi was doing Spidey 4.

True, but at least the last Spiderman Raimi did was disappointing. Not that it was really his fault either, but the fact that it was flawed makes it a little bit easier to accept that they're starting over clean.
I still think they should have let him do Spidey 4. Him and his take deserved another try. I'm sure it would have taken things back to basics.
I'm actually warming up to the new Spidey based on some of the casting. I still think it's too soon but that isn't going to make me root against it. I hope it's great. Though I do wish they'd explore some new territory. Going back to the origin story seems a bit pointless now. They can start fresh without doing that again.

In the case of X-Men, Singer never failed. A damn shame he didn't continue. They should have at least been more conservative in their treatment of the story and characters so there was a possible future of him returning, or any future for that matter.

Oh well on both accounts, I guess.

Rhys Ifans playing Curt Connors/The Lizard apparently.

I'm glad they're finally going to do Lizard. Since it's going to start with Spidey's days as a student I think it's a fine choice.
It's a shame though because they had built Curt Connors up so well in the Spider-Man films. It would have been great when Raimi did it in part 4.

I'd still like to see them go a different route with villains in this series though. Does Sony have the rights to Kingpin, or does Fox have him locked up with Daredevil?
I'd love to see Kingpin established as a major crime lord/villain in Spider-Man. That would be a great way to use some of Spider-Mans villains that wouldn't really be able to carry an entire film alone. Tombstone, Smythe, Shocker and Rhino, maybe even Scorpion or Hobgoblin.

It would also be a different approach to the villains, to have him fighting a crime lord and corrupt businessman. They could also build up Oscorp and the Norman Osborn arch a bit more this time around, and even play Jameson as more of an asshole than comic relief.
That would really set the tone for the whole scope of Spidey's New York and the odds he's up against with corporations, the mafia, and the media all against him, while he still has to balance girlfriends and homework.

I think it would be a lot more complex and wide-scale than him fighting individual villains who wreak havoc after failed experiments. That's great in it's own right, but Raimi did it so well and it would be nice to see them captialize on a chance to do something different.

well the odds logically should be good as that's exactly how bendis wrote/writes ultimate spider-man. real focus on organised crime.

I really love Kingpin. I haven't read Ultimates but that's great. I was a huge fan of Spidey comics from the 80s because of their use of Kingpin and his lesser villains

read the original run of usm. bendis took spidey's 12 page origin story and made it last the whole first arc, basically. lots of interaction with b-listers and a decent clone saga. it's good stuff.

Marvel, ABC prep TV return for "Incredible Hulk"
By Borys Kit and James Hibberd Thu Oct 14, 8:12 PM PDT

Who's ready for another Hulk TV series?

As DC Comics heroine Wonder Woman, who had a TV series during the 1970s, is being prepped for a return to the small screen, Marvel and ABC are developing a TV return for the Incredible Hulk. CBS produced a memorable series featuring the jade giant that ran from 1978-82 and starred Bill Bixby and Lou Ferrigno.

At the end of the decade, ABC followed up with three TV movies that featured incarnations of Marvel heroes Daredevil and Thor.

"Hulk" is one of two projects that are priorities at Marvel Television, Marvel Studio's TV division, which has been operating under the radar since Jeph Loeb took the reins at the end of June. The second hot property is "Cloak and Dagger," which is being developed as a possible show for ABC Family.

Both are in the early stages of development; "Hulk" has a "showrunner wanted" placard around its neck; meanwhile, Loeb is meeting with writers to hear ideas for "Cloak and Dagger."

Marvel began narrowing its list of possible TV adaptations in May with a presentation on the Disney lot. Executives presented ABC suits with a list of titles they identified as possible series:

• "Heroes for Hire" (focusing on ex-con Luke Cage offering to take on bad guys for a price);
• "The Eternals" (a race of superpowered beings live amid humanity in secret, inspiring legends);
• "Agents of Atlas, Alter Ego" (private investigator Jessica Jones takes on cases involving superhumans);
• "Moon Knight, the Red Hood" (a low-rent criminal discovers a cloak that gives him superpowers);
• "Ka-Zar" (a Tarzan-type and his saber-toothed tiger must journey to the concrete jungle to seek justice);
• "Daughters of the Dragon" (a dynamic female duo, one with a bionic arm and the other a granddaughter of a samurai, open a private-detective agency); and
• "The Punisher" (one man wages a war on crime; already adapted as two feature films).
• "Cloak and Dagger" wasn't on the list. "Hulk" was.

Although the focus appears to be on "Hulk" and "Cloak and Dagger," "Punisher" also has been selected from the herd and is eyed as a cable entry, but that is even further away. Marvel's TV division wants to take things slow, according to insiders, focusing on one or two shows, making sure they are the best they can be and establishing a quality brand before moving forward.

Marvel is in the middle of establishing a shared universe among its movies (the plots and characters form one big story), but it's unknown whether the studio will undertake a similar path with TV. Also unknown is whether there would be a connection between the film world and TV world.

Punisher should be on premium cable so they don't have to hold back, but they can probably do it justice on basic cable as long as the channel gives them some slack.

Incredible Hulk as a television series similar to the original would be "incredible." I wonder if they'd use CGI or an actor again. Hopefully it wouldn't be horrible looking TV quality CGI.
Too bad Mark Ruffalo is way too big of a star to carry over into the television series

So they don't acknowledge the Dolph Lundgren version?

I'm not so sure it was ever even released in theaters

According to imdb it was released theatrically in many countries, but not US.

So I guess that might be it.

I don't even remember that Mariachi shit in the trailer. Is that the same guy from Desperado?

A Punisher TV series would be great as long as they get to cut loose on the violence.

There's actually some other pretty cool options there, but the problem with TV someone mentioned above is that the effects are usually shit, and I'd hate to see my beloved Marvel characters look shit like that.

"Moon Knight, the Red Hood"?

As in somehow combining these two different characters into one?

Big Bad Wolf ate Alfred.

Probably more like Moon Knight is after the Hood (WTF @ Red Hood?)

Unlikely given Red Hood isn't even a Marvel character.

Fuck. Just googled it and it's some DC character.

Thought you were talking about Red Riding Hood. Meh.

I think they mean The Hood. It would certainly tie in with the description of the plot.

No. Red Riding Hood would.

Thought he WAS called Red Hood and not just "The Hood". People would call him The Hood for short, but his full legal name was Red Hood.

Nope.

Either goes by The Hood or by his real name of Parker Robbins.

SHIELD Helicarrier!:

http://cache.gawkerassets.com/assets...0/10/heli0.jpg
http://cache.gawkerassets.com/assets...0/10/heli1.jpg

Was supposed to be in Iron Man 2. Will most likely be in Avengers.

I hope they build a life-size set. :drool:

Actually they wanna build a replica (not life-size, of course) for next year's Comic-Con.

How about building a real one, then hold the CC there.

We wish.

Disney will be distributing Avengers and Iron Man 3 (oops, confirmation) instead of Paramount - who are pretty much building up Avengers as we speak. Disney purchased the rights legit, so I wonder what the heck Paramount were thinking.

This will likely not affect material.

All they have to do is make the movies they are still doing good and make a ton of money and then move on. Paramount can't sabotage the project without costing themselves millions of dollars in the process.

Makes sense that Disney would distribute now that they own Marvel anyways. I'm sure Disney would like to distribute all of the Marvel films eventually.

Marvel + Tron =

http://cache-04.gawkerassets.com/ass.../10/otron5.jpg

Moar

Disney and Marvel could do sexy things together.

I wonder what projects they have lined up

Disney should hit up Power Pack already.

I wonder if they will do a Marvel-Disney universe crossover video game

Marvel Universe in the next Kingdom Hearts game.

Not in Square-Enix's house.

Every now and then I will watch The Iron man cartoon from 95 or 96. Let me tell you something that show is bad. I know 95 is kind of a long time ago, but the show looks like it was made in 1985. The animation, the dialogue, and the acting is terrible. Same with Fantastic Four, and Silver Surfer. The Incredible Hulk at best might be ok... At best. Also The Spider-Man cartoon was terrible so don't say that was good.

Outside of the X-Men cartoon how come Marvel cartoons were so bad? I feel like they should have been better. They should have had a better decade.

The Spider-Man cartoon was good.

If you're wondering why they were bad it's probably because they were saturday morning cartoons for kids and the storyelling was simplified and in many cases toned down to have less violence.
I don't reccomend holding kids cartoons up to the standard of adult storytelling. You're going to be disappointed. There are few exceptions.
Also, if you think Spider-Man is awful how do you think X-Men is good? The dialogue and content is the same shit, and the animation is worse.