MARVEL CINEMATIC MULTIVERSE Thread -*RIP STAN LEE & Boseman* -Phase 4- Shang-Chi Out Now

62,678
42,024
Joined Dec 13, 2004
Nah you can't say it's a reboot, it's just like Incredible Hulk where it ignores the first one. Returns is the same thing, it ignore III and IV because Singer wanted to follow only Donners work, it's still not the reboot and that is why they casted someone like ROuth who is a spitting image of Reeves.

And those other Batman films, they are just like the James Bond franchise and what they plan to do with Iron Man moving forward, it won't be a reboot but they'll keep making them. But that Bruce Wayne/Batman is pretty much the same in all those films, it just got cheesier and cheesier. You can't let how bad the film was cloud your judgement and say it's a reboot because it was just that bad and different.




And again, dumping all these characters? All we know is that Batman and Superman and a small role for WW. What is this "dumping all these characters" come from? Just based on rumors? At least wait til it's been casted and actually shot before using that as an excuse.

Again they simply could not continue from the world Burton made for the simple reason that they never intended to. Same way Marvel didn't plan to make any Avengers films back then or that Fox has no plans to expand on XMen films but now is planning expanding to XForce and maybe combining it's world with Fantastic Four. Same with Sony, back then they never planned to expand their world to Sinister Six and a solo Venom film but Marvel opened the door and showed how successful it is so now everyone is doing it.

DC has planned a JLA film for a while now actually, it just didn't pan out (and really glad it didn't with how GL and Returns turned out) but remember when Common was already GL back in 2007 or 2008? According to him, it was the writers strike that did it and when the executives decided to pull the plug on the project. Sometimes things just happen that way.
 
30,512
36,519
Joined Jan 17, 2009
DC didn't f' up, they just wasn't thinking about extending their universe. I mean we all know Nolansverse can't have supernatural or magical being in it, it was more "realistic".


Now they keep rebooting their films when Batman was just rebooted in Begins and no other time? They aren't even rebooting Batman in the Superman vs Batman film, Batman just exist already. You aren't going to see another origins story.


Seriously, people just want to crap on DC as much as possible. :rofl:
How are they not rebooting Batman? The characters will be played by a completely different cast, its set in a different universe, and besides Goyer, the production will be handled by a completely different crew (Nolan/Syncopy are not involved anymore asfaik). So it basically has all the elements of a reboot, but since it doesnt include an origin story it isnt? wtf?
 
Last edited:

Mark Antony

Supporter
53,966
70,036
Joined Apr 30, 2010
Marvel didn't start off as a movieverse either, but it was brilliant idea that worked out.
 
30,512
36,519
Joined Jan 17, 2009
^ Nobody thinks that SR is a reboot because Singer said from the jump that he would be continuing the story from Donners universe. Also, the director of Incredible Hulk himself has called the film a reboot btw
 
Last edited:
62,678
42,024
Joined Dec 13, 2004
DC didn't f' up, they just wasn't thinking about extending their universe. I mean we all know Nolansverse can't have supernatural or magical being in it, it was more "realistic".


Now they keep rebooting their films when Batman was just rebooted in Begins and no other time? They aren't even rebooting Batman in the Superman vs Batman film, Batman just exist already. You aren't going to see another origins story.


Seriously, people just want to crap on DC as much as possible. :rofl:
How are they not rebooting Batman? The characters will be played by a completely different cast, its set in a different universe, and besides Goyer, the production will be handled by a completely different crew (Nolan/Syncopy are not involved anymore asfaik). So it basically has all the elements of a reboot, but since it doesnt include an origin story it isnt? wtf?
First, different cast, crew or take on the character doesn't mean reboot, again James Bond reference again. No one is saying those are reboots and Marvel is again going to take that route once RDJ is gone and Feige clearly said that won't be a reboot.

Second, this isn't a Batman film, it is just Batman in a Superman film. Sure it could be a completely different Batman we've seen but that doesn't make it a reboot.
 
62,678
42,024
Joined Dec 13, 2004
^ Nobody thinks that SR is a reboot because Singer said from the jump that he would be continuing the story from Donners universe

Ummm, Brolic just said it.


Superman Returns might as well have been a reboot.

And speaking of Hulk, isn't Rufallo playing Nortons role in that one? Everything is new in the Avengers (cast, crew, director, etc...) but I don't think people consider Ruffalos Hulk a reboot, is it? (serious question as I really do not know in this one).



And yes, I do think this is just somewhat talking crap about DC just to talk crap. I mean this is the Avengers thread and yet DC is brought up when it has already been beaten to death in the Superman/Batman thread. Actually DC is brought up in all Marvel threads just so people could crap on them. :lol:
 
Last edited:
30,512
36,519
Joined Jan 17, 2009
First, different cast, crew or take on the character doesn't mean reboot, again James Bond reference again. No one is saying those are reboots and Marvel is again going to take that route once RDJ is gone and Feige clearly said that won't be a reboot.

Second, this isn't a Batman film, it is just Batman in a Superman film. Sure it could be a completely different Batman we've seen but that doesn't make it a reboot.
Alright imma take one more stab at it cause I dont think this conversation is really worth going on about. :lol:
And speaking of Hulk, isn't Rufallo playing Nortons role in that one? Everything is new in the Avengers (cast, crew, director, etc...) but I don't think people consider Ruffalos Hulk a reboot, is it? (serious question as I really do not know in this one).
No, its not considered a reboot even though everything is new because Marvel has already set the rules with their cinematic universe and we know Ruffalo is continuing on Nortons character. Its the same deal for RDJ and kind o/ not really for James Bond (some people consider Casino Royal to be a reboot, some dont).

This is obviously not the same situation for the new Batman, which is completely removed from the past incarnation and is what i consider to be a reboot. I'm not really sure what you want to say with your second point. Yeah, its not a Batman film but obviously we all know that MoS2 is the jumping point and this will be the character, whether or not Affleck continues with the role, that they will use in JLA and future Batman films.
 
Last edited:
81,153
40,332
Joined Nov 20, 2007
What I think some of yall should know as far as WB and DC is the various heads of WB had very different ideas and attitudes towards their comic book publishing division. DC was on the brink at one point (90s in 2000s). WB was just gonna license out the characters to other comic publishers and dismantle DC. The pres at the time was convinced otherwise. The movies made the real money so in their minds the comics didn't matter. That's why all the Batman and Superman films largely exist in their own universe. All DC is a bunch cobbled together superhero properties and even then they were all still in separate universes. DC got in on the shared universe after Marvel made it popular and profitable.

To me that's the root reason there is no plan for a DC cinematic universe. All WB is mostly fine with doing are Batman and Superman movies and if they didn't drop the ball with Superman Returns they'd probably just stick to that. Especially after the failure of GL. Plus you gotta keep in mind that once again Marvel showed them how to do it (MCU) and given how much money they made with it WB couldn't help but give it a serious try. We're talking billions of dollars here.





So hold up, the Batman movies were only rebooted once? Adam West's, Val Kilmer's, Michael Keaton's, and George Clooney's Batman movies are all in the same continuity? Were each not a reboot to a complete different Batman?

It's different with James Bond cuz he doesn't have a rogues gallery he keeps facing and there's two takes on 007 anyway; either James Bond is a code name a worthy agent takes and their have been multiple agents from Connery to Craig or this is the same James Bond, **** what he looks like. That's closer to Cheadle/Howard and Norton/Ruffalo than every guy that's played Batman.

Every time there was a new Batman movie with a different actor playing him I took that as a reboot.
 
Last edited:
30,512
36,519
Joined Jan 17, 2009
Adam West is by himself, but the Burton/Schumacher films are connected.
 
Last edited:
81,153
40,332
Joined Nov 20, 2007
Adam West is by himself. But the Burton/Schumacher films are connected
Damn if those movies were good enough I'd go back and watch them to be sure and see the clear connection.

I mean Marlon Wayans is still getting paid for not being the first black Robin in that one Batman movie. I just don't see how it all connects to Bat nipples and the rest.
 
30,512
36,519
Joined Jan 17, 2009
Each film is stand alone so there isn't really a connection besides the fact that some of the cast members and the general aesthetic of the movies are the same :lol: But yeah they're just considered to be taking part in the same universe so I wouldnt call them reboots.
 
Last edited:

geministar

Banned
2,463
1,305
Joined Feb 15, 2013
Sir San Diego Sir San Diego

Also remember DC had a chance to flesh out their universe with tv shows and they screwed that up too. Smallville was great and a success and they ain't capitalize off ish.

Aquaman show? Nope. Blue Beetle show? Nope. So can we get a Batman show? Nope.

But what we can give you is 5 trillion animated movies that nobody besides true fans is going to care about (love all of those btw). DC made big mistakes and now they're paying for it.
 
62,678
42,024
Joined Dec 13, 2004
In comparison to James Bond, Burton and Schumacker Bats never faced the same villains either. All villains were only in their respective films.

Technically its the same James Bond, i think even when they were making two Bond films at the same time by different companies it was still the same Bond. It was a bit more evident when Feige described the future IM films where they just recast Stark and take the "Bond" route.
 
62,678
42,024
Joined Dec 13, 2004
Sir San Diego Sir San Diego

Also remember DC had a chance to flesh out their universe with tv shows and they screwed that up too. Smallville was great and a success and they ain't capitalize off ish.

Aquaman show? Nope. Blue Beetle show? Nope. So can we get a Batman show? Nope.

But what we can give you is 5 trillion animated movies that nobody besides true fans is going to care about (love all of those btw). DC made big mistakes and now they're paying for it.
Man you guys act like it is so easy to get a show going like that. :lol:


Smallville became stale after 5 seasons, it got viewers but the quality would have suffered because budget would just take its toll and outside of truly big fans, not many of the public would care. Hell Aquaman is DCs biggest joke and everyone makes fun of him and you think his own show would be a success? :lol:
 

Sir San Diego

formerly brolic scholar
12,456
10,878
Joined Feb 20, 2011
I see those different Batman movies as reboots each time they changed actors. The only connection they share is the title character being Batman. What else makes them exist in the same universe? The characters don't even act the same from one movie to the next. In Batman and Batman Returns the stories are connected. They even talk about Vicki Vale in Returns and why she isn't there. What connections exist in the following movies?
 
Last edited:
81,153
40,332
Joined Nov 20, 2007
Smallville and it's success (even though it did get bad after a while) is really like the last show to fall for that Buffy/Angel era of tv shows where fans could keep a show alive. Now a days you pretty much know what kind of watered down Twilight bull **** is gonna be on the CW.

You'll see there's a clear difference between the Gotham Detective Gordon show on FOX and what they're doing with The Flash and Green Arrow on CW. I'll even go further to say despite rumors you'll never see the guys playing The Flash and Green Arrow show up in any of the movies. They'll recast for a JL movie and unlike Agents of SHIELD they won't have any connective tissue to the movie universe either.

I see those different Batman movies as reboots each time they changed actors. The only connection they share is the title character being Batman. What else makes them exist in the same universe? The characters don't even act the same from one movie to the next. In Batman and Batman Returns the stories are connected. They even talk about Vicki Vale in Returns and why she isn't there. What connections exist in the following movies?
This was my thinking as well.
 
62,678
42,024
Joined Dec 13, 2004
Actors in those Bat films practically played the same Bruce and Bats. That charming, playboy, nillionaire. Bales Bruce is a complete departure, you can see the difference while the 4 films before Bale has like a blurred difference between them.

Alfred is also the same through all 4 films. Gothic environments the same throughout, Batmobile is pretty much an evolution from one movie to the next, Schumacher was just a terrible director so to some, it feels like a different film.

Technically you cant even say its a reboot between Kilmer and Clooney as it has the same director.

At the end its just we have a different definition of a reboot. There are like 4 different interpretation in the past page. :lol:
 
Last edited:
62,678
42,024
Joined Dec 13, 2004
Back to Bind being the same guy through all films, I remember in Skyfall in the end there was a headstone of James' parents and it clearly showed Bond as their last name so the name James Bond is actually the persons name, not a code.

Just a food for thought.
 
32,834
24,848
Joined Sep 23, 2012
Marvel had the balls to pull off an intertwined movie universe and are reaping the benefits. A2 is gonna get that highest grossing film title. Quote me...
 
62,678
42,024
Joined Dec 13, 2004
Looks like Inhumans and mutants are not one in the same at least in the case of Quicksilver and SW.

Marvel Studios Head Kevin Feige On The Future Of 'Doctor Strange'

On Wednesday, we spoke to Marvel Studios president Kevin Feige (the full interview will publish closer to the release of "Captain America: The Winter Soldier") who gave us an update on the status of Dr. Stephen Strange, going as far to admit that he'd be surprised at this point if a "Doctor Strange" movie doesn't happen.

Also, it's already known that in the upcoming "Avengers: Age of Ultron," Elizabeth Olsen and Aaron Taylor-Johnson play the mutants Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver, respectively. The only problem is, the term "mutants" can't be used because that word belongs to Fox, which owns the rights to X-Men. Now, Internet speculation is running wild with the talk of the Inhumans being used as a possible future movie and also a way to skirt around the use of the term mutant. Feige addresses these questions as well.

Is it fair to say that, at this point, it would be surprising to you if there wasn't a Doctor Strange movie in the next two or three years?
So, we're in 2014 now ...

It just feels like this one is so close to being official, yet it's not.
It's time. It's time. I would be surprised if that were the case, yeah. Maybe three or four years, yeah, we'll see. But, I would like it to be the case. Much like Vin Diesel, I like it when something finally happens, and then we can talk about what it is -- versus rumors of what it could be or should be or isn't yet [laughs].

Though, the difference this time, as opposed to Vin Diesel, is that you don't have Doctor Strange taunting you on his Facebook page.
[Laughing] Exactly!

With Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver in "Avengers: Age of Ultron" and the situation over the word "mutant" with Fox, there's some speculation that this might be a way to introduce the Inhumans.
Well, Inhumans is something that we are definitely thinking about and we think there's great potential there for a great movie. But, no, no -- we have not linked those two.

So using the Inhumans would have nothing to do with getting around the word "mutant"?
As it relates to Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver? No. No, no, no.
 
62,678
42,024
Joined Dec 13, 2004
Fine, I'll give you guys Affleck as a "reboot" but that's still only 2 reboots in 27 years and this "new reboot" isn't even a big deal since we aren't getting/wasting a new origins film like the complaint was for Spiderman and Fantastic Four. And again Nolans Batverse just doesn't work with Supes so the "reboot" or using a different Bats is necessary and not just a reboot for the hell of starting over.

It's good that Affleck is just another Batman really since we already know what he is about.
 
Last edited:

geministar

Banned
2,463
1,305
Joined Feb 15, 2013
Wait hold up, so Quicksilver and Scarlett Witch aren't going to be considered mutants?

They're the HMIC's two children for ***** sake. :smh:
 
Last edited:
1,325
327
Joined Jun 1, 2009
Can someone help me understand the ending of Thor 2??
Why'd did thors people give up the red stone to Benicio Del Toro, I know they said why something about not keeping two stones , but Benicio seemed like a bad buy
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom
  AdBlock Detected

Sure, ad-blocking software does a great job at blocking ads, but it also blocks some useful and important features of our website. For the best possible site experience please take a moment to disable your AdBlocker or head over to our upgrade page to donate for an ad-free experience Upgrade now