dragonflyy:
[/s]
looooooool... I did not know that talent boiled down to a mathematical equation

please try again

Rorschach1:
I don't think Cavill being in more successful things proves that people like him more, since there are more factors at work than just the actor.



At the same time, though, I don't think anyone is required to think Cox is better than Cavill, or any actor is better than any other actor.

Besides Daredevil, I did see Cox in Boardwalk Empire and thought he was decent there but nothing to get worked up about.

So based on that alone I do like Cavill more.

pu7pl3:


I don't need to name anything, it's obvious...only the fact that Cavil has been in more blockbusters despite them being the same age should tell you

Darkprime:

They made the right choice with Cavill, in my opinion. They just had the wrong director, scripts, and vision, again, in my opinion.

On the Tudors, Cavill had tons of charisma and charm. When he was cast, I thought they were going to bring those elements to Superman, but instead they made him a charisma vaccum.

You see hints of his natural charm in MOS, in particular the seen in the interrogation room between Cavill and Adams. You see it in interviews as well.

WB and the filmmakers fumbled on those fiilms, not Cavill or even Affleck for that matter. They could only work with the script they're given, and what they're directed to do.

I can't speak for Cox as an actor since I haven't seen much of his other work outside Daredevil. He may have made a good Superman too.

Then again, he may have been bogged down in the same type of studio interference and/or weaker scripts that Routh and Cavill had to deal with.

So its hard to speculate "what if" or that "Cox's would have been better!".

It depends on alot of things including the conditions, the vision, the director, script, story, and the right timing.

pu7pl3:


Cox is not a better actor than Cavill

MJBOLT:

disney wont near anything outside of the MCU except maybe Venom and that's because sony still own Spider man film rights.

HbJ2:

I know, but i would never consider them all part of a single universe.
Three different universes within the same multiverse is the best i would credit those franchises with, and even then, i consider the x-men franchise irreparably tainted by poor character continuity and a timeline in which characters barely age for 30 years from the early 60s to the early 90s then age 30 years in a decade between then and the early 2000s.
Even with the odd continuity error here and there, the MCU is too tight to entertain association with that mess.

HbJ2:

A) I wouldn't be interested in that, Making his dad the absorbing man was dumb.

B) In the world of the three Raimi films i would include Ghost Rider because it was originally intended to be, Ghost Rider 2 because though it WASN'T intended to be it's still a sequel to the first one, and Punisher: War Zone because, like GR2, it was released under the "Marvel Knights" Banner, i see all those 6 films as one world.

c) Likewise with the X-men films and fox's other properties ...... Daredevil, Elektra and the first two FF films are in the world of the original trilogy, and Trank's FF reboot is some bizarre alternate timeline created by Deadpool hopping around

Rorschach1:
Hello. Would you guys be okay with the MCU doing a hard reboot eventually or do you never want the MCU to be rebooted? Eventually I do think the MCU will get rebooted in some form. Be it a soft reboot or a hard reboot. What say you?

Nickshrapnel:
Cyttorak and Dormmamu, who is more powerful. I’m not really familiar with these two characters

Fernandowski:
u have discs for sale ?? i stay at onitsha

Afobear:
Come brethren, let's talk of Harley Quinn and the birds of prey

AfricaGalactic:

I was gobsmacked by that comment as well . It's almost as if these DC fans see Disney in their nightmares, hence why they won't stop talking about Disney.

IAmSabrina:
Do you think the MCU iteration of the Fantastic Four would work better as a movie in theaters or a Disney Plus show? I was leaning more towards a movie but television has undoubtedly caught up to movies when it comes to VFX if you look at shows like Star Trek: Discovery, Game Of Thrones; or even Lost In Space those have pretty much cinematic level production values on par with some of the most fancy looking movies today, imo. I think it’s possible to pull off FF properly on television now. I could kind of see a Doctor Who-ish type of FF show with a big budget.

While I ultimately prefer FF to be done as a movie I do think there’s a case to be made that perhaps it’d better if they didn’t get a movie and just got a Disney Plus show instead since television allows you to dive deeper into the characters since you spend more time with them than a two hour movie.

After the failure of the Green Lantern movie, DC is doing a HBO Max Green Lantern show and there’s no question they will invest in a lot of money into making look and feel like a feature film. Unlike Green Lantern, Fantastic Four has had three live-action movies that were released in theaters to overall poor reception so maybe Marvel might be tempted to do something different with the FF. However, just because Marvel may realize the MCU version of the FF as a television show doesn’t preclude them from being in a MCU movie eventually. After all, Ms Marvel, and She-Hulk are going to make their MCU debuts in the television format but Feige has made it no secret they will appear in the movies.

So The FF can still appear on the big screen even if Marvel ends up doing them as a Disney Plus show since the Disney Plus shows(unlike the Netflix shows) heavily tie into the MCU. So Marvel can have its cake and eat it too.

Cc. MJBOLT, Vic2Ree, AfricaGalactic, 1000WaysToLive et al

dragonflyy:

lol. they never stop whining, these folks. notice how very few MCU fans constantly bicker on the DC threads (with the exception of that m0r0n hulk). but they always come in here to ride dick and start unnecessary arguments

pu7pl3:


I have noticed that this type of content/discussions doesn't interest y'all on this thread..if its not some arguement about something(trivial or non trivial) y'all just crawl back onto hiding

Xavier5:

[s]A.) Bro, it's not about grossing billions, it's about making Profit. Grossing billions doesn't mean a movie makes high profit, as a matter of fact a movie that didn't gross billions may be more profitable than a movie that crossed one billions. Take for instance;

* Joker is the most profitable Comic book movie. It made more profit than Endgame that grossed $2.7b despite it grossing $1b.

** WB rarely gets billion dollar grosser movies yet they are among the top 3 largest movie studios in the world, why? because they make profit.

*** Disney had loss this year which they blamed in Dark Phoenix (which is ridiculous) despite all the billion dollar grossing movies they had, why? less profit, why? because billion dollar grossing doesn't necessary mean high profit.

B.) MIB franchise isn't a failure. Because a movie in a franchise didn't gross high doesn't equate to that franchise being a failure, heck Solo: A Star War Story underperformed, did/ does that mean that the star wars franchise is a failure, of course not, so that's the same case with MIB.
Besides MIB 4 isn't a failure, it was profitable, although little turning in $260M against a Break even point of $230M, that's a gross profit of $30M altogether.
The MIB Franchise is still a hit Franchise, all it needs is proper handling from Sony. Tick Tock.

C.) Sony has a lot of Franchise to work on, this include

1.) Sony Marvel Universe, that started off with Venom and continues with Venom 2 and Morbius.
2.) The Spiderman Franchise, this include both live action and animation, remember into the spiderverse 2 is in development.
3.) Valient Cinematic Universe (from Valient Comics) which will be properly lunched if Bloodshot becomes a success. I pray it does because I want the DCEU and MCU to have a competitor. It gonna make the CBM world a competitive one.
4.) Sony Pictures Animations which include Hotel Transylvania, Open Season , Surf's Up, Cloudy With A Chance Of Meatballs, The Smurfs (via Peyo ), Peter rabbit.
5.) MIB
6.) Jumanji
5.) Other Franchises which includes The Karate Kid, Ghostbusters, Stuart Little , Men in Black,
Underworld , Robert Langdon, Sniper,
Charlie's Angels, Bad boys among others. Some of this franchise may not be hit, that doesn't mean they can't, all they need is proper handling and development.

So Sweetheart, you saying Sony doesn't have Franchises to work with isn't true, not at all.

D.) If you are looking for Disney to buy Spiderman from Sony, then bro, you have to wait till when Nairaland buys Facebook which of course is impossible. Sony can never sell Spiderman not in this age of CBM boom. No reasonable company will do it. Rather they will seek to acquire more which is what they've done with Valiant comics (film rights).

Beside, for Disney to buy Spiderman, they have to buy Sony Pictures which won't be happening if not impossible. Sony is among the Big five movie studios in Hollywood and also among the top 6 largest movie studios in the world. They are no small company. We are talking about Sony Motion pictures, a subsidiary of Sony Entertainment, a subsidiary of Sony Corporation, a Japanese mega conglomerate, that's not Disney's mate. Sony pictures is a big one for Disney. They have the financial strength to stand on their own. It's not all companies Disney can buy and Sony just like WB and Universal is one of them. If Disney could buy Sony they would have done it a long time but they can't, so the highest they could do is going into partnership with them for Spiderman which Sony is still making shakara .

E.) I drop my pen at this Juncture.

#Xavier.
#I_Am_A_DCian[/s]

Lala39:

How is that balanced. Sounds like a monopoly to me.

F0REVERB0SS:
The MCU has half (5) of the top 10 highest grossing films of the last decade

1000WaysToLive:
Ben Grimm, done right, could be an amazing character


But they'll need great casting, great writing and great CGI