Avi Arad talks upcoming Marvel movies

[SuperJerk 0]

http://ifmagazine.com/new.asp?article=3045

 

Avi Arad now an independent producer for Marvel still has his fingers in several pies for the comic book giant. Following the success of Marvel’s forays into filmmaking thus far, Arad is preparing to herald in a new era for Marvel, with the company producing it’s own movies. iF talked to Arad about the choices for Marvel “in-house” producing, and what other projects including TV and cartoons are in the works at the film side of The House of Ideas.

 

 

iF MAGAZINE: IRON MAN and THE INCREDIBLE HULK are the first Marvel produced films that Marvel is producing “in-house”, why these particular heroes?

 

AVI ARAD: We wanted to start this journey with absolutely top, top tier characters and IRON MAN is at the level of X-MEN and SPIDER-MAN and HULK. SPIDER-MAN is a league of its own, but after that you have X-MEN, IRON MAN, HULK. These are the big guns, and obviously we want to continue the train of success once we are making our own [films]. A lot of people are looking forward to IRON MAN and a lot of people are looking forward to the comic book version of the HULK. That’s the one we are making, and I think it will be incredibly satisfying. It will be big and awesome and a big ride.

 

iF: So will you be recasting HULK with completely new actors?

 

 

ARAD: It’s a “do-over”. I loved the HULK movie, it was just a different approach, and it wasn’t exactly the comic. We want to be much closer to the comic. It’s what we would rather do.

 

iF: There is a THOR film in the works as well?

 

ARAD: Yes, we're in [the] scripting [stage] right now.

 

 

iF: How about a LUKE CAGE movie?

 

ARAD: Nothing going right now, still trying to find the right take.

 

iF: What about the project Wesley Snipes has wanted to do, THE BLACK PANTHER?

 

ARAD: We are waiting for a very specific actor for that one.

 

iF: Beyond IRON MAN and HULK, what other films will be produced by Marvel itself?

 

ARAD: The NICK FURY movie and the ANT MAN movie for sure.

 

iF: The BLADE series is premiering this summer. How is that progressing?

 

ARAD: We’re very excited about that, and we’re slated for thirteen episodes.

 

 

iF: What cartoons do you have premiering on TV?

 

 

ARAD: We’ve got a new FANTASTIC FOUR cartoon. We’ve got a new WOLVERINE AND THE X-MEN cartoon; it’s going to be based on the comics. We’re going to do another Sony SPIDER-MAN cartoon. We are probably going to do an IRON MAN cartoon after the movie.

 

iF: What directors would you like to work with that you haven’t worked with so far?

 

 

ARAD: I like them all. If I give you five names, then the sixth will be upset, so it’s a lose-lose situation.

 

iF: Switching to toys how do the new HASBRO toy lines look in comparison to the previous TOY BIZ lines?

 

 

ARAD: TOY BIZ is very involved in the design of the toys, but the distribution will be through HASBRO. The scale isn’t going to change.

 

 

For the record, I don't think the problem with the "Hulk" movie was that it wasn't enough like the comics. I think the problem with the Hulk movie was that it was too slow and convoluted with Freudian psycho-babble.

[Guest Brian]

http://ifmagazine.com/new.asp?article=3045

ARAD: The NICK FURY movie and the ANT MAN movie for sure.

 

IT'S ON LIKE SAIGON BITCHES!!!

[The Metal Maniac 0]

The problem with the Hulk movie was that they tried to pretend that the Hulk character has depth.

 

He gets mad then smashes everything. That's not depth, that's a perfect excuse to make a movie that's just about stuff getting blown up. Hopefully that's what they're gonna do this time.

[Failed Bridge 0]

can we get a do-over for X-Men III while we're at it?

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

Iron Man could be good, and Thor might be good for a laugh. Other than that, not interested.

[AndrewTS 0]

The problem with The Hulk was that it absolutely sucked.

 

For starters, the previously-mentioned pretentious psychobabble, unintentional cheese everywhere, the male and female leads had no chemistry ("my dad hates me" "mine too!" "I've never felt love, but you kind of fill that gaping void by being here to share my pain," "I feel the same way!")

 

The antagonists were just bad, with no well-defined or explainable motivations (no, "I'm a dick, so I'm going to control ever aspect of my daughter's life by abusing my military authority" doesn't count). Let's not forget the horrible "hey, it's like a comic book!" stylistic shots, like when we got twenty different views of helicoptors broken up across many panels and pictures coming to life in people's hands.

 

If it wasn't bad enough that it was utter horseshit that took itself overly seriously, they had to have a big, expensive superhero/supervillain fight at the end, probably just because they were obligated to.

 

The Hulk was extremely funny, though, I'll give it that.

[Hogan Made Wrestling 0]

Thor MUST be played by Triple H.

[cabbageboy 0]

I want a do over of Captain America while we're at it. One of Marvel's greatest heroes should not only have that 1990 debacle as a film version.

[AndrewTS 0]

The 1990 movie? Ha! You forget (or don't know of) the 2 TV movies done in 79.

[Slayer 0]

How come when people bring up Captain America movies they talk about the 1991 movie but they don't bring up the late 70's TV movies (featuring Big McLargehuge!)

[AndrewTS 0]

Slayer: only us B-movie fans have heard of them (and Space Mutiny), I gather. I'll grant that Butch Deadlift looked like a comically bulked-up superhero though.

 

http://www.briansdriveintheater.com/superh.../rebbrown18.jpg

 

Bad costume and actor, though.

[Vyce 0]

The Hulk movie is - and I'm not kidding here - probably the BEST of the Marvel comic-book movies.

 

Well-acted, with a solid plot and very good characterization. It was a comic-book film that worked as a drama.

 

The problem people had with it, why they think it "sucked", was because they wanted two hours of the Hulk smashing shit, when what they got was a dramatic film that slowly built up to the arrival of the Hulk before the action sequences occurred.

[Slayer 0]

Andy, by the same note, I'd never even heard of the 1991 version until relatively recently, whereas the old TV movies got decent play on the USA network in the 90's when they were big on that sort of thing

[randomguy 0]

There is a happy medium between Hulk ripping shit apart for 2 hours and a talky boring mess. (With fucking awful CGI to boot)

 

How about a Hulk movie based on Hulk:Ground Zero. (The story where Hulk gets blown up at the end and comes back as Mr. Fixit) That's a story with some depth and action.

[AndrewTS 0]

The Hulk movie is - and I'm not kidding here - probably the BEST of the Marvel comic-book movies.

 

Well-acted, with a solid plot and very good characterization. It was a comic-book film that worked as a drama.

 

The problem people had with it, why they think it "sucked", was because they wanted two hours of the Hulk smashing shit, when what they got was a dramatic film that slowly built up to the arrival of the Hulk before the action sequences occurred.

 

Disagree with everything there.

 

How the hell anyone can take The Hulk seriously, when it's a 3-inch thick grilled cheese sandwich, is beyond me.

 

Connelly and Bana's performances are so bland that I can only hope it was intentional, and that they were *supposed* to be empty, lifeless characters because of their relationships with their parents. However, every single antagonist, from both fathers to the corporation guys, just were on an all-out feeding frenzy on the scenery. That's even before you get into the idiotic and hilarious transitions that Ang Lee cluelessly dropped in. Don't get me started on the MUTATED KILLER POODLES and Absorbing Dad.

 

Actually, I'm not being fair to Bana...he did get in a few hilarious lines at least. The "I like it" monologue is either really good or really bad (it's hard for me to decide), but it probably is the single best non-Nolte moment in the movie.

[AndrewTS 0]

Andy, by the same note, I'd never even heard of the 1991 version until relatively recently, whereas the old TV movies got decent play on the USA network in the 90's when they were big on that sort of thing

 

 

Same here, actually.

[DMann2003 0]

No, Vyce is right on this one

 

HULK will go down as one of the most underrated films in the 'comic book film renaissance' of the early 21st century.

 

I'm sorry that a gifted filmmaker such as Ang Lee decided to add depth, motivation and tell an actual STORY with his HULK movie, I guess people were expecting John Woo's Hulk instead- Hulk in slow motion smashing things with both hands while doves fly by.

[Coffin Surfer 0]

I'm sorry but I wouldn't say Ang Lee hasn't done anything that approaches John Woo's "The Killer" in any aspect.

 

And I agree that the Hulk is impossible to take seriously, at least John Woo recoginzed that "Face Off" and "Broke Arrow" were just cheesy action movies and ran with it though I will say "Face Off" actually works better as a drama than the Hulk or even the oscar nominated "Brokeback." (laughs)

[2GOLD 0]

No, Vyce is right on this one

 

HULK will go down as one of the most underrated films in the 'comic book film renaissance' of the early 21st century.

 

I'm sorry that a gifted filmmaker such as Ang Lee decided to add depth, motivation and tell an actual STORY with his HULK movie, I guess people were expecting John Woo's Hulk instead- Hulk in slow motion smashing things with both hands while doves fly by.

 

The movie was good but the story was horrible, it was a bloated mess. I appreciate what Ang Lee was trying to do, but the execution was just not very good. The film looked like it was lit by a kerosine heater half the time and the actors looked bored.

 

Lee tried but he didn't have the story. I barely knew the Hulk story, I was judging it off whether or not the story in the film made sense and it didn't. It was bad, the flashback/dream sequences were hilariously stupid and the story just wasn't well written.

 

If his story had been worth a damn, HULK would easily be among the best.

[randomguy 0]

I'm sorry that a gifted filmmaker such as Ang Lee decided to add depth, motivation and tell an actual STORY with his HULK movie, I guess people were expecting John Woo's Hulk instead- Hulk in slow motion smashing things with both hands while doves fly by.

 

Again, that isn't the complaint people have.

 

As a drama the Hulk was very mediocre. The characters were poorly realized, the dialog was bad, the acting was bad.

 

As I mentioned before, Hulk:Ground Zero could have a good story. There are really only about 2 or 3 action sequences in the whole 6-comic trade-paperback. It has a lot of human elements and drama.

 

The story they chose to tell in Hulk the movie didn't have much in terms of plot or characterization. And you have to have one of those two things.

[AndrewTS 0]

I love how the folks who defend The Hulk literally have no valid points, just fluffy generalizations ("PLOT! CHARACTER! DRA-MUH!") so they completely ignore the criticisms and build the same straw-man over and over ("UWANTED2hrHULKSMASH!").

 

Hell, 2 people did it in the span of a 1 page thread.

 

I don't *hate* the movie (I saw the damn thing twice), but I laughed. A lot.

[Lt. Al Giardello 0]

iF: What about the project Wesley Snipes has wanted to do, THE BLACK PANTHER?

 

ARAD: We are waiting for a very specific actor for that one.

 

Anyone else find this funny? Snipes was made to play the Black Panther.

[Vampiro69 0]

The only part of the Hulk I did not like was at the end when the Hulk was battling his father. The lighting was so bad you could not make out what was going on.

 

Also give me a good Captain America movie. I don't think that he can pull off the role but Howie Long has the look of a Captain America.

[Darthtiki 0]

Thor MUST be played by Triple H.

 

He'll most likely be the new Conan if they decide to reopen the franchise.

 

As for the Hulk, my problem was the Daddy issues, which helped fuel my hatred of Ang Lee.

[UseTheSledgehammerUh 0]

"IRON MAN is at the level of X-MEN and SPIDER-MAN and HULK"

 

Hahahahahahahahahahahaha.

 

That's a moronic comment. No one fucking read Iron Man for decades. For God's sake, they were so out of ideas that they ripped off Green Lantern and made the new Iron Man (technically the same Tony) a Kyle Rayner lookalike to freshen things up.

 

X-Men/Spider-Man = Top 10 Diamond sales

 

Iron Man = "Let's throw Venom in this issue! Wait, how about War Machine! Fight! Oh, we're #79 in sales this month?"

[Guest LiveFastDieNever]

I think HULK is good until the final battle. But that is so singlehandedly atrocious that it colors all that came before it.

[Anakin Flair 0]

The movie was good but the story was horrible, it was a bloated mess. I appreciate what Ang Lee was trying to do, but the execution was just not very good. The film looked like it was lit by a kerosine heater half the time and the actors looked bored.

 

 

I had no real problem with this movie. Maybe it because I never cared about Hulk and I never read the books, but to me it seemed like a perfectly acceptable comic book movie. But I will agree with the above quote- the actors did seem bored, and the chemistry waas non-existant; especially between the leads.

[Vyce 0]

No, Vyce is right on this one

 

HULK will go down as one of the most underrated films in the 'comic book film renaissance' of the early 21st century.

 

I'm sorry that a gifted filmmaker such as Ang Lee decided to add depth, motivation and tell an actual STORY with his HULK movie, I guess people were expecting John Woo's Hulk instead- Hulk in slow motion smashing things with both hands while doves fly by.

 

Thank you.

 

People who think that the Hulk character is just supposed to be about a big green guy tearing shit up, well, you have absolutel NO understanding of the character. In the short view it's a modern take on Jekyll and Hyde, in the longer it's a commentary on the eternal struggle between the id and the ego / superego, the fight between man and his darker, more violent urges. There's no harm in exploring that. Any Hulk film that didn't wouldn't be worth watching. Fuck, even the old television show explored that.

 

As for Snipes as Black Panther: WHY is he 'born' to play that character? The character is a serious, regal African king. I don't know, I don't buy Snipes as that type.

[pochorenella 0]

"IRON MAN is at the level of X-MEN and SPIDER-MAN and HULK"

 

Hahahahahahahahahahahaha.

 

That's a moronic comment. No one fucking read Iron Man for decades. For God's sake, they were so out of ideas that they ripped off Green Lantern and made the new Iron Man (technically the same Tony) a Kyle Rayner lookalike to freshen things up.

 

X-Men/Spider-Man = Top 10 Diamond sales

 

Iron Man = "Let's throw Venom in this issue! Wait, how about War Machine! Fight! Oh, we're #79 in sales this month?"

 

I'm sure he didn't mean exactly at the level of the others mentioned SALES-WISE, but he meant on the same level as an iconic, well-known, classic Marvel character. Alongside Captain America and Thor, Iron Man is part of the Holy Trinity of the Avengers and has always been the most popular member second only to Cap. And if you're looking at powerful characters, Iron Man could hold his own against the Hulk (at least for some time) and he can kick most X-Men's BUTT.

 

Bottom Line, Iron Man is a CLASSIC MARVEL CHARACTER that could become a new and successful movie franchise if handled well. I for one am awating his live-action movie.

[SuperJerk 0]

No, Vyce is right on this one

 

HULK will go down as one of the most underrated films in the 'comic book film renaissance' of the early 21st century.

 

I'm sorry that a gifted filmmaker such as Ang Lee decided to add depth, motivation and tell an actual STORY with his HULK movie, I guess people were expecting John Woo's Hulk instead- Hulk in slow motion smashing things with both hands while doves fly by.

 

Thank you.

 

People who think that the Hulk character is just supposed to be about a big green guy tearing shit up, well, you have absolutel NO understanding of the character. In the short view it's a modern take on Jekyll and Hyde, in the longer it's a commentary on the eternal struggle between the id and the ego / superego, the fight between man and his darker, more violent urges. There's no harm in exploring that. Any Hulk film that didn't wouldn't be worth watching. Fuck, even the old television show explored that.

 

There's exploring it, then there's allowing it to so totally take the movie over to the point where Hulk is a secondary character in his own movie. This wasn't a movie about the Hulk. This was a movie about Banner's dad.

 

Criticisms that the relationship between Betty and Bruce was handled poorly are also valid. In the original comics, they weren't a bickering, recently broken-up couple. I'd also have preferred if the movie had more characters who were sympathetic to Banner's plight. Rick Jones should have been a character in the movie.

 

The cinematic stylistic choices are also suspect. The use of divided panels only worked in one or two scenes, and the scene where Talbot got killed looked simply ridicules.