Spidermans the exception. Sony puts 90% of their effort into that one franchise and the rest just kinda limp onto the screen somehow. Can you say Ultraviolet?
Yeah, I like the bike, but the character looks a wee bit silly. I loved that comic when Mark Texera was drawing it.
It should all be more exagerrated and distressed. As it is, he's wearing an brand new outfit he bought at the Gay-Biker bondage store.
Skull with angry shaped eye sockets!! Pathetic, looks like something a kid would draw. The bike looks cool though coming up onto the rooftop, very iconic.
I find it weird that Marvel's film adaptations are so varied in terms of quality. To wit:
1) Spider-Man and X-Men films. They get big effects budgets to go with big casts and generally look great - solid production values across the board, generally good acting and storytelling.
2) Blade, Hulk, Daredevil films. Sort of in the middle in terms of quality. Not bad, exactly, but nothing terribly impressive, either. The Blade franchise went downhill with each release, but I give the series extra credit for finally giving Marvel it's first successful film franchise.
3) Elektra, Punisher, Fantastic Four and apparently the Ghost Rider film. The first three are pretty awful, though FF had some nice effects in parts. Still, they're just amazingly poor adaptations ofthe source material.
Totally agree, Vermilion. I'd rank the Marvel films in the same order you did, and you're absolutely right about the Blade franchise going downhill. 1st was new and fun, 2nd was fun but kinda samey, 3rd was just awful. Awful awful.
Take another look at the directors who directed each of those movies above. That right there will explain which movies are the good ones and which are the crapola. (Although Hulk doesn't really fit in that senario since Ang Lee and a great director).
Nicolas Cage's hairpiece 'aint working for either him nor me.
And yeah, that skull, wtf. Looks like they found it in the free models section of 3dcafe. It's an .obj with a default material and no texture assigned.
Holy shit, just when I didn't think it could get more awesome then riding a flaming motorcycle straight up a skyscraper, he's riding next to a flaming cowboy on a fiery horse! I just crapped my pants thinking about it!
I think theres quite a simple explanation for vermillions list, x-men and spiderman are the most popular comics all over the world... of course they get a bigger budget. And wtf are ghost rider, elektra and punisher? Ive never even heard of those comics???
this could also be a case of wip renders making it into the trailer. it happend for the first few hulk trailers and it happend on king kong. but as is it kinda of stinks like doo doo.
[ QUOTE ]
Take another look at the directors who directed each of those movies above. That right there will explain which movies are the good ones and which are the crapola. (Although Hulk doesn't really fit in that senario since Ang Lee and a great director).
[/ QUOTE ]
I don't think it's that simple. The best of directors couldn't save Elektra - terrible script, lousy cast, low budget. On the other hand, I know an average director could make a great Spider-Man film with that cast, budget and script, because an average director did (settle down, Raimi fans. I usually enjoy his films, but remember this is the man who brought us "The Quick and the Dead".)
Then again, I don't exactly have a better theory, except to agree that the highest profile comics (Spidey, X-Men) apparently got the best productions.
Looks like a ton of cheesy fun- I'll see it. Yeah, the skull looks weak. A good vehicle for Mr. Cage. BTW, I liked The Hulk as much as, if not more than Spiderman 2.
It seems odd that they've added a CG mask/visor in there. Ok its to get a better rating but shouldn't they just take the stance that he's doing a crazy stunt and should wear it rather than a double standard?
It might be that the USA version just has had more effects applied that are going to be in the final film, look at when he smashes into the barrier, there is the remains of some visor in both versions
[ QUOTE ]
I had no idea that Blade is from marvel. :P
Though I thought the movies just got better, I loved the third.
[/ QUOTE ]
He was a semi-minor character in a minor comic (The Tomb of Dracula) with sometimes a great artist (Gene Colan).
The upside of using someone like Blade is there are not of repurcussions, like "Daredevil was utter shit!" (Which is wasn't)
It's gotta be why they're making a Ghostrider movie while characters like Iron Man, Captain America and The Avengers are still sitting around twiddling their thumbs.
[ QUOTE ]
He was a semi-minor character in a minor comic (The Tomb of Dracula) with sometimes a great artist (Gene Colan).
[/ QUOTE ]
Ahh, alright, thanks for clearing that up for me. And yea, it makes sense. Making one of the big franchises is a good way to get a herd of uber pissed comic geeks hot on your tail.
Ooh, lots of familiar landmarks in that. I walk across that bridge most days.
It was pretty obvious this was going to be a dodgy low budget film when they picked Melbourne as the place to shoot over the marginally more expensive but better equiped Sydney (and indeed over anywhere in the US). That and its based on a comparitively unknown comic about a flaming skeleton that rides a motorbike.
Replies
but theres just... bleh. i hate the way some CG stuff looks.
lux, wasnt the spider man movies sony pictures? and didn't they rock all kinds of ass?
to bad this one just looks like all kinds of ass
It should all be more exagerrated and distressed. As it is, he's wearing an brand new outfit he bought at the Gay-Biker bondage store.
and for the skull
http://kevynnmalone.blogspot.com/uploaded_images/Ghost_Rider_2-756926.jpg
you cant tell me thats not sweet looking.
Not to mention I like Nicolas Cage. :P
I find it weird that Marvel's film adaptations are so varied in terms of quality. To wit:
1) Spider-Man and X-Men films. They get big effects budgets to go with big casts and generally look great - solid production values across the board, generally good acting and storytelling.
2) Blade, Hulk, Daredevil films. Sort of in the middle in terms of quality. Not bad, exactly, but nothing terribly impressive, either. The Blade franchise went downhill with each release, but I give the series extra credit for finally giving Marvel it's first successful film franchise.
3) Elektra, Punisher, Fantastic Four and apparently the Ghost Rider film. The first three are pretty awful, though FF had some nice effects in parts. Still, they're just amazingly poor adaptations ofthe source material.
Agree or disagree?
Biggest pile of shit...
And yeah, that skull, wtf. Looks like they found it in the free models section of 3dcafe. It's an .obj with a default material and no texture assigned.
Looks bad.......
Take another look at the directors who directed each of those movies above. That right there will explain which movies are the good ones and which are the crapola. (Although Hulk doesn't really fit in that senario since Ang Lee and a great director).
[/ QUOTE ]
I don't think it's that simple. The best of directors couldn't save Elektra - terrible script, lousy cast, low budget. On the other hand, I know an average director could make a great Spider-Man film with that cast, budget and script, because an average director did (settle down, Raimi fans. I usually enjoy his films, but remember this is the man who brought us "The Quick and the Dead".)
Then again, I don't exactly have a better theory, except to agree that the highest profile comics (Spidey, X-Men) apparently got the best productions.
and punisher and ff are both better than daredevil, hopefully marvel won't let them treat doom like shit again in the second movie.
I'm thinking this will be between the low and mid range quality areas.
It's a guy who rides a motorcycle on fire with a skull head. What were you expecting? hahaha
Though I thought the movies just got better, I loved the third.
http://www.kenconrad.com/donald/grsm2.mov
might take a minuet to load, I don't know much about posting quicktimes online.
You guys bashing the CG...
[/ QUOTE ]
doh, a bunch of cg artists criticizing cg. That's just silly and unheard of!
This version seems better. There is a slight difference I noted too. I'll post screenshots..
Edit: Ok here we go:
International:
USA:
It seems odd that they've added a CG mask/visor in there. Ok its to get a better rating but shouldn't they just take the stance that he's doing a crazy stunt and should wear it rather than a double standard?
I had no idea that Blade is from marvel. :P
Though I thought the movies just got better, I loved the third.
[/ QUOTE ]
He was a semi-minor character in a minor comic (The Tomb of Dracula) with sometimes a great artist (Gene Colan).
The upside of using someone like Blade is there are not of repurcussions, like "Daredevil was utter shit!" (Which is wasn't)
It's gotta be why they're making a Ghostrider movie while characters like Iron Man, Captain America and The Avengers are still sitting around twiddling their thumbs.
He was a semi-minor character in a minor comic (The Tomb of Dracula) with sometimes a great artist (Gene Colan).
[/ QUOTE ]
Ahh, alright, thanks for clearing that up for me.
It was pretty obvious this was going to be a dodgy low budget film when they picked Melbourne as the place to shoot over the marginally more expensive but better equiped Sydney (and indeed over anywhere in the US). That and its based on a comparitively unknown comic about a flaming skeleton that rides a motorbike.