The Screengrab : stan lee

Morning Deal Report: Rosario Dawson Meets the Zookeeper

Scott Von Doviak — Thu, 21 May 2009 14:30:00 GMT

“Rosario Dawson will star opposite Kevin James in romantic comedy The Zookeeper,” Variety reports. “Live actioner centers on zoo animals trying to teach the keeper their methods of dating and mating to help him win back the woman of his dreams.” Kevin James will keep the fat guy/hot chick genre alive as long as he possibly can.

Stan Lee teams up with Disney to bring his latest hero to the screen. Nick Ratchet is a “lighthearted mystery thriller centers on a Jekyll & Hyde struggle between a meek, ineffectual police officer and his online alter-ego, a tough avatar cop named Nick Ratchet who emerges from inside a video game to usurp the life of his creator,” per The Hollywood Reporter.

Will Smith’s production company has enlisted John Lee Hancock (The Alamo) to bring a Hurricane Katrina story to the screen. The film will tell the story of “John Keller, an ex-Marine who orchestrated the rescue of 244 of his New Orleans neighbors after their building, the American Can Co., was flooded in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. The five-story structure sat in 11 feet of water after the breach of the levees,” Variety reports.

Hollywood Welcomes Virgin

Leonard Pierce — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 14:30:00 GMT

The comics racket is a tough one -- or, as Variety puts it in a bizarre moment of Coen-channeling when discussing Virgin's entry into the field a few years back, it is "a rocky place where their seeds could find no purchase". (Comics2Film adds the unwelcome phrasing that the company was "inseminated with funds from Richard Branson's media empire". Those guys really need to get out more.) After several largely fruitless years of attempting to steal market share away from the bigwigs at Marvel and DC -- and signing a deal with ex-Marvel boss Stan Lee to develop a line of properties for them that went nowhere -- Virgin Comics has finally realized what everyone else in the business already knows: that the real money in comics doesn't come from the books themselves, but from farming out their characters as properties to be used in Hollywood blockbusters. In aid of this, they're shuttering their New York office and moving the whole operation to L.A.

Branson insists that the comics wing isn't shutting down, it's simply reorganizing as a development company; but that's just typical business boilderplate. What should truly concern us here are the various bits of trivia concealed deep within the article, where the author clearly hoped we would not notice them: the fact that Virgin's "Hollywood development deals" for their characters are almost all slotted for release on the Sci-Fi Channel as opposed to an actual movie theatre, and feature such blockbuster properties as "Guy Ritchie's The Gamekeeper" and "Ed Burns' Dock Walloper"; the fact that, despite deals being inked all over town, not a single Virgin Comics film or TV production has actually been made; and the boffo news that Branson's partner in the venture is Deepak Chopra's son Gotham -- as in Gotham City, home of the Batman -- which likely explains the commonly cited reason for the comics line's failure, that it focuses on stories involving relatively obscure Indian mythology.

Still, the company has some real talent signed, from well-liked comics writer Mike Carey to porn star Jenna Jameson to Stan the Man himself. Time will tell if Virgin Comics can develop any of those signings into decent movies and/or TV shows, but this morning, Branson has to be wishing the entire venture didn't sound so much like a bad nepotistic joke in an inside-Hollywood parody.

Screengrab Review: "The Incredible Hulk"

Scott Von Doviak — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 12:00:00 GMT

As one of the few defenders of Ang Lee's 2003 Hulk – and as someone who picked The Incredible Hulk to be the biggest bomb of this summer – I readily admit to having some preconceived notions about Transporter director Louis Leterrier's take on the latest Marvel comics adaptation. This would be the part where I tell you how pleasantly surprised I was to be proven wrong…but unfortunately, that didn't happen.

The big question all along about The Incredible Hulk has been: What is it? Is it a sequel to the Ang Lee movie? A remake? It's sort of neither, which turns out to be the cleverest aspect of Leterrier's movie. As the opening credits roll, we see a montage of scenes from a previous Hulk movie that never existed. A Hulk origin sequence closer to the 1970s TV show than either the comics or the previous movie plays out as Dr. Bruce Banner (Edward Norton) uses himself as a guinea pig in an experiment with high-level gamma radiation. We know what happens, so why dwell on it? Within two minutes, Banner has Hulked out, smashed up the lab, destroyed his relationship with fellow scientist Betty Ross (Liv Tyler) and pissed off her father General “Thunderbolt” Ross (William Hurt), who vows to pursue him to the ends of the earth. It’s as if Letterier is saying, “Let’s just pretend we all saw this movie and be done with it.” And really, that’s perfectly in keeping with the Hulk’s Marvel comics universe, where new writers and artists are constantly taking over his story and retroactively tweaking his origins.

As the story proper begins, Banner has been on the run for five years. Now working in a Brazilian bottling plant, Banner has learned to keep the Hulk under wraps with a few simple deep breathing exercises. His serenity doesn’t last, as General Ross and his troops – including British commando Emil Blonsky (Tim Roth) – track him down and unleash the beast within Banner. The Hulk escapes but the hunt continues, pretty much for the rest of the movie. In order to boost his chances against the green goliath, Blonsky undergoes a series of injections that promise to transform him into a super-soldier. Banner reunites with Betty, who helps him find Samuel Sterns (Tim Blake Nelson), a genetic scientist who may be able to cure him. Instead, Sterns ends up transforming Blonksy into the Abomination, an even bigger, uglier mass of roid-rage than the Hulk.

As expected, The Incredible Hulk is louder, faster and more action-packed than the 2003 version. Every twenty minutes or so, Ross and his goons show up and there’s another big battle. (The most entertaining one, in which Ross keeps escalating the level of artillery to no avail, almost plays like a Monty Python sketch.) By the end, when the Hulk and Abomination are going mano-a-mano in the streets of New York, the movie resembles less a Marvel comic than an updated King Kong vs. Godzilla – you’re basically aware you’re just watching one big slab of pixels punching the crap out of another big slab of pixels. The Hulk actually looks pretty good most of the time, especially if it’s dark or raining. The humans don’t come off quite as well. I’m willing to bet this isn’t the cut Edward Norton had in mind, but that’s okay – I didn’t need a lot more Banner torment in my life. Roth doesn’t do much but glower, Tyler’s role is even more thankless than the Jennifer Connelly version of same, and when it comes to mustachioed generals, William Hurt is no Sam Elliott.

Leterrier does try to provide a little something for everyone. There are inside references for the comic book fans, geeky cameos by Stan Lee, Lou Ferrigno, and someone else who is supposed to be a surprise, except that his appearance is all over the TV ads in what smells like a desperate marketing stunt, and jokes about stretchy purple pants. (The best gag involves Norton’s mangling of the signature “You wouldn’t like me when I’m angry” line.) And we finally get to hear that immortal call to action, “HULK SMASH!” There’s even a brief stab at Ang Lee’s more lyrical, haunting tone as the Hulk broods on a cliff in a rainstorm. But the whole thing plays like it’s been focus-grouped to death, stripped of any real personality of its own. It may not end up being the biggest bomb of the summer – stuff does blow up real good, after all – but despite hints of another sequel, it provides no compelling reason for the Hulk’s big screen career to continue.

Related:
Hulk Smash?
The Summer of Super-Duds

Marvel Brings The Multiverse To Movies

Leonard Pierce — Fri, 16 May 2008 16:00:00 GMT

Recently, our own Phil Nugent took a look at the debut of Marvel Studios, the big-screen production arm of the comics company behind Spider-Man, the Hulk, and the Fantastic Four. While Marvel's been taking a critical beating lately with its flagship comics, losing retail ground to longtime rival DC, the opposite has been the case in the multiplex: Marvel's aggressive approach and multifaceted marketing has proven to be a success at the box office, and as a rule, Marvel's properties have outperformed DC's and brought in piles of cash for the company.

One of the reasons that Marvel became such a hit amongst comics fans in the 1960s was its 'multiverse' approach; unlike DC, which at the time told all their stories in a disconnected, separate manner, Marvel ran with the pretense that all their stories were taking place in the same world, at the same time, and pushed the idea that any one of their characters could show up in any of their titles. Fans took to the idea that all the stories were connected, that all the pieces mattered, and that what happened in one book made a difference in other books. The idea that the world of the Marvel Universe was unified and that the storytellers were actually creating pieces of a whole was so appealing that DC was forced to adopt it as an editorial policy for their own characters.

Now, as the Hollywood Reporter notes, Marvel is taking the same multiversal approach to their films. The much-discussed post-credits cameo by S.H.I.E.L.D. boss Nick Fury, to be reprised in the new Hulk film, hints at the cohesion that the studio hopes will make the upcoming Avengers movie a box office draw (and, incidentally, beat DC to the punch once again as Warner Brothers scrambles to figure out how to get a Justice League movie in the can). The driving force behind Marvel's unified approach in the comics was editor/writer/mastermind Stan Lee; with Marvel Studios, president Kevin Feige is stepping into that role and keeping the film franchises tied together. Warner Brothers has the money to make something similar happen, but will they give DC's editors a freer hand in film production -- and insist on an easing of the auteur approach that they've used in the recent past?

Toaster Head Fans Viciously Snubbed By Marvel

Leonard Pierce — Wed, 07 May 2008 14:00:00 GMT

With Iron Man looking to be a runaway success, Marvel Comics' film production arm is naturally looking to capitalize on the box office take to move ahead with production on future superhero franchises. So what comic book superhero is next for the House of Ideas? How about...all of them?

In its quarterly earnings report, Marvel discloses (among other things, including that it made enough money this year to buy Stan Lee a Silver Surfer-themed iron lung) that it's in the process of developing a boatload of new multimedia projects for release in the next four years. In addition to a plethora of video games, TV shows, animated series and direct-to-DVD animated features, Marvel Film -- the company's in-house production unit -- has scheduled for release The Incredible Hulk, an Iron Man sequel, a Thor movie, a Captain America solo adventure, an Avengers team picture, and, of all things, a feature film starring perennial sad-sack second-stringer Ant-Man. (We're hoping that this one sticks to the current comics approach to the character and plays as straight-up satire.) In addition to all of that, Marvel has two licensed properties set to release in the next year: a Punisher sequel, entitled War Zone, is releasing through Lionsgate this Christmas, and an X-Men prequel, entitled Wolverine, drops a year from now through Fox. All that, and no Dr. Strange? I guess no one wants to take on the supreme challenge of out-acting Peter Hooten.

Speaking of the X-Men prequel, who better to write the screenplay than, uh, the guy responsible for Gossip Girl? In an interview with Black Book magazine (that, ominously, has since been deleted from the site's archives, leading Comics2Film to speculate that he spoke a bit too soon), Josh Schwartz slagged on previous X-Men franchise directors, took a cheap shot at a movie he hasn't seen yet, and salivates at the big paycheck he'll be getting, but tells fans not to worry: "It's not like I'm adding new characters like Toaster Head, or anything like that." Angry Toaster Head fans immediately flooded Marvel with e-mails.

Marvel Comics Is Ready for Its Close-Up

Phil Nugent — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 16:00:00 GMT

A long time ago when the world made sense, there were two kinds of comic books: DC comics and Marvel comics. And while Marvel reigned supreme at the comics shop, the company dearly wanted to break into the lucrative and ego-stroking business of licensing it characters for major motion pictures, and it was there that DC pantsed Marvel and took its lunch money. While DC was the home of Superman and Batman, Marvel was the home base of Howard the Duck. For years, Marvel's role in the Hollywood fod chain was epitomized by the 1994 Fantastic Four movie, a cheesy, cheap-looking affair that Marvel put into production without bothering to inform the people who worked on it that they had no intention of releasing it to theaters or even home video but were contractually obliged to make something if they wanted to hang onto the film rights to their own characters. All that started to change in 2000 with Bryan Singer's X-Men, whose success the director was unable to duplicate with his later stab at rebooting Superman. A couple of years later, Sam Raimi's take on the Marvel flagship hero Spider-Man launched a major franchise and proved that Marvel could sire a blockbuster movie without Singer or Hugh Jackman modeling a haircut that could open bottles and cans. Since then, Marvel has had varying degrees of commercial success with a for-real Fantastic Four movie and its sequel, as well as Ghost Rider, Daredevil, and Elektra, a bust in theaters but more of an earner as a DVD release that allowed film connoisseurs to conduct a close study of Jennifer Garner's moist eyes and washboard abs in the tranquil setting of their own fortress of solitude. Even The Punisher managed to make it into theaters with John Travolta on the poster, which helps to set it apart from the 1989 straight-to-video version, with Dolph Lundgren grunting his lines as if his tight skull-face T-shirt were cutting off his circulation.

Stage two in Marvel's renewed campaign to take over the film industry goes into effect on May 2 when Iron Man, the first official production of Marvel Studios, is released to theaters. As reporter Geoff Boucher puts it, this marks "the first step in the company's quest to go from intellectual-property fount to a stand-alone Hollywood player that can greenlight big-time popcorn movies." Studio chairman David Maisel crows that "We're the first since DreamWorks started 14 years ago that can greenlight its own $100 million movies. It doesn't happen very often." In some ways, Marvel might still look pretty small to the big guys: the "studio" is modestly staffed and will rely mostly on Paramount to distribute their finished films. What they do have is the backlist of established characters, many of them created back in the golden days when the legendary Stan Lee and the uber-legendary Jack Kirby were striking sparks together, despite Marvel founder-publisher Martin Goodman's attempts to rein in his brainstorming boys by reminding them that their reading base consisted of "children and a few illiterate adults." (Boy, the more things change, the more things stay the same, huh?) As Maisel puts it, "We're not in the movie business, we're in the Iron Man business right now. Marvel owns the intellectual property. We have an Iron Man video game coming, the toys, the comics, we have an animated television show coming, a direct-to-DVD animated Iron Man movie last year. We're going to have an Iron Man ride at an amusement park in Dubai in a few years." They're also in the Ant-Man business--Edgar Wright, the director of Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz, is said to be ready to direct a film about the wee fellow--and of course, they're still in the Spider-Man business, with plans by Julie Taymor (Across the Universe) to launch a Spider-Man musical on Broadway. What may be most impressive is that they're in the Hulk business, too. Ang Lee's 2003 The Hulk movie was perhaps the highest-profile misstep of the new Marvel movie era, an ambitious, poker-faced effort that confused critics and disappointed audiences, though it did have the dignity of being a flop of the misguided-art-house variety instead of the underfunded direct-to-video sort. Now, just five years later, Marvel is going to reboot The Hulk with Ed Norton in the lead. The fact that Marvel is taking a second crack at the "property" so soon after the release of a film whose reception might have encouraged lesser mortals to sweep the Hulk under the rug for a generation or three shows an impressive degree of faith in their own product. Can another run at Howard the Duck be far behind? Has anybody run any tests to see how Hugh Jackman would look with an orange beak?